II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 10, 2003 Meeting
IV. University Curriculum Committee
V. Proposal to Amend the current English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants who are Speakers of Other Languages (Report No. 6, 2003-2004)
VI. Proposed Revision of Practices in Administering Student Evaluations (Report No. 7, 2003-2004)
VII.University President's Report
VIII. Senate President's Report
IX. New Business
PRESENT: E. Anderson, Angelova, Atherton, D. Ball, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, W. Bowen, Boyle, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Flynn, Forte, Ghorashi, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, Hinds, Hoke, Jeffers, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, Mills, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Quigney, Rafiroiu, Rom, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Tewari, E. Thomas, Webster, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: C. Alexander, Charity, S. Hill, Hoffman, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Misra, J. Nolan, O'Donnell, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, Spiker, Steinglass, Thornton, Tumeo, F. White, Zhou.
ALSO PRESENT: Govea, Meiksins, Steinbacher.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M. He noted that two Eulogies will be delivered to Senate today.
A. Eulogy for Alberta T. Turner (English)
Professor Leonard Trawick delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Alberta T. Turner. His remarks follow.
" Alberta Turner (1919 B 2003) Professor Emerita of English and a widely honored poet, died at her home in Oberlin, Ohio, on May 21, 2003, after a long illness. She was married to the late Arthur Turner, a professor of English at Oberlin College , and is survived by their two children and five grandchildren. Alberta taught English at Cleveland State University part time from 1964 to 1969, then full time until her retirement in 1990, and part time again for several years after that. Before 1969 she also taught English courses at Oberlin College . She was director of the CSU Poetry Center from 1964 to 1990, during which time it gained an international reputation for its publication and service to poets locally and worldwide. In 1969 she became a founding editor of the literary magazine Field , published by Oberlin College , and she remained an associate editor until 2000.
" A graduate of Hunter College , with advanced degrees from Wellesley College and Ohio State University , Alberta Turner during her years at Cleveland State became a poet of international stature. She published eight volumes of poetry including Learning to Count and Lid and Spoon (Pitt Poetry Series), A Belfry of Knees ( Alabama ), Beginning with And: New and Selected Poems (Bottom Dog), and Tomorrow Is a Tight Fist (Mellen) B her last book, published in 2001. She was author of several books on the writing of poetry, including To Make a Poem, 50 Contemporary Poets, and Poets Teaching , which are still in use around the country, and she was an authority on John Milton, with scholarly publications on his works.
" The CSU Poetry Center was for a while the focus of poetic activity in Cleveland , especially its free monthly workshop, the Poetry Forum. The Forum was open to the public, and the public came-academics, street poets, high-schoolers, housewives, the brilliant and the mad. Alberta moderated and took all comers in stride. Sessions sometimes lasted three or four hours, and everybody's poem received serious attention. Under her directorship the Poetry Center became a major publisher of contemporary poetry, with over a hundred titles in print, many of them first books by young writers who have since become leading figures in American letters. At the height of its publication activity, the Poetry Center received between 800 and 1000 book-length manuscript submissions each year from all over the country, indeed the world.
"Her involvement with Field magazine, along with her duties as director of the CSU Poetry Center , brought Alberta into contact with most of the major poets writing at the time, and she lured them to Cleveland State to give readings and workshops. One can scarcely name a major American or British poet active between 1965 and 1990 who did not visit CSU; the Poetry Center still retains audiotapes of most of these live readings made over three decades.
" To the end of her life Alberta lived in the house that she and her husband built in Oberlin and where they raised their family. She commuted to Cleveland on the Greyhound bus, often leaving home before daylight and not returning until late in the evening. Her energy was amazing: after having gotten up at dawn to catch the bus, taught and conferred with students at CSU all day, and then conducted a grueling workshop until eleven p.m., she would lift her arms and exclaim with enthusiasm, " It 's been such a wonderful day!”
" Though she was in fact a model of reliability and scholarly rigor, Alberta enjoyed playing the role of the inscrutable poet in the staid university workplace, slyly calling attention to the emperor's new clothes that she sometimes detected in academic rigmarole, and mystifying administrators with her sibylline comments. But she took her work seriously and was proud of her academic status, no doubt in part because she had worked so hard to establish it. She loved Cleveland State and was grateful for the opportunities it gave her.
" Inspite of being a distinguished author, she remained devoted to her students and accessible to them. If she had had to choose between her literary laurels and her teaching, she would not have hesitated to take the latter. I have never seen her so desolate as at the farewell reception in her honor upon her mandatory retirement at age 70. Happily, she returned to teach part time for several more years. A whole coterie of former students kept in touch with her, years and decades after they had been in her classes.
" Though we now mourn her loss, we can be grateful for her contributions to the world of letters in general and to this university in particular."
B. Eulogy for Joseph M. McKeon (Accounting)
Professor Abba Spero delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Joseph M. McKeon. His remarks follow.
" Professor Joseph McKeon was a member of the Accounting Department at Cleveland State from 1982 to 1993. I had a great deal of respect for Joe and I felt that I would like to say [a few] words in his memory."
" Joe was born in 1932 in the Bratenahl section of Cleveland . He must have liked it very much because he later went on to form the Bratenahl Historical Society, of which his brother is now President. He had a facility for languages, and attended St. Ignatius High School where he studied Latin. He went on to attend John Carroll and wanted to go on to West Point , but was disappointed greatly when he did not get the proper appointment. He served in the Army where he developed a facility for math and numbers. This led his motivation to teach accounting, which he started doing at Dyke University . He then decided that he wanted to be a full-time teacher and pursued his Masters in Accounting at Case Western Reserve University . Finally, he got his DBA at Kent State University."
" He was the father of three children and was married for 48 years.
" I actually met Joe at Case Western Reserve. I was teaching a financial accounting theory class in the Graduate School and, occasionally, I would start a lecture rambling on about some accounting philosophy [while] most of the class was in [a] state of semi-slumber. Out of the corner of my eye I would pick up Joe and I noticed that when I said something he would nod his head either up or down, and I would continue on enthusiastically with what I was saying. Occasionally, he would be nodding his head backwards and forwards, and then I would quickly say: " but on the other hand, one could say… " Later on I met him at Cleveland State . Joe was a teacher with high standards and a high commitment to his students. He tried to reconcile those two things. He demanded that his students come in prepared with a certain background. He was a forerunner of something that we read in the papers just a few weeks ago. He felt that some students just did not belong here at the University, and he refused to compromise on it. [This was] his educational commitment to what accounting is all about, and what was necessary when students would get out in the job market.
" I remember when Joe and I would be teaching the same course during the semester. I would look at my enrollment sheets and I would have 50 students sold out with a long waiting list, and then I would look at Joe's roster and he would have 15 to 20 students. My inflated ego would tell me, “gee wiz, I am such a great teacher!” Then, after a while, I realized that the students had a little underground network. They said: “Take Spero next time because he is easy; stay away from McKeon because he is too demanding.” That was the case
" Joe would also not allow calculators in the classroom for two reasons. 1) On the CPA exam (it has since been changed) calculators were not allowed, so you would have to be able to do basic arithmetic, and 2) Joe felt, “how can you be here, in my classroom, without knowing arithmetic?” Of course, the students felt that it was their God given right to have a calculator, and [knowing] the concepts of division and multiplication was part of that right.
“Joe had a commitment to standards, and he had a commitment to excellence. I told a colleague of mine that I would be saying some words about Joe McKeon and asked him for a quick reaction. He said that Joe motivated all of us to just be a little bit better.
" There is an argument amongst the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud regarding: What is the purpose of a eulogy? Is it for the deceased or is it for the living? If it is for the deceased, for someone that has passed on, [then] his memory deserves that he be honored and that we pay our respects, and say some nice things about him. If it is really primarily for the living, [then] those who hear the eulogy will remember him and be inspired, and be motivated and think about what his life was about, and perhaps change their lives to be a little bit better. As with most arguments in the Talmud, it is not going to be resolved - it [the eulogy] is a little bit of both.
" I would like to remember Joe McKeon as a great friend and outstanding colleague, but I would like all of you to remember Joe McKeon's commitment to excellence in the classroom and his commitment to his students as well."
Senate President Vijay Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Alberta Turner and Professor Joseph McKeon.
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 10, 2003 Meeting
Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 10, 2003 meeting was moved by Professor Edward Thomas, seconded by Professor Andrew Gross and approved.
IV. University Curriculum Committee
A. Recommendation to Dissolve First College (Report No. 4, 2003-2004)
Professor Peter Meiksins, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that the Committee recommends that First College be dissolved effective July 1, 2004 . The Office of the Provost, with the active participation of the faculty of First College , the Director of First College, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, will develop and implement a plan to ensure that the catalogue rights of current degree-seeking students within First College are guaranteed. The Committee also recommends the suspension of the Personally Designed Major, currently granted by First College . Senate may wish to discuss whether to retain this major in some form and what would be its appropriate “institutional home.”
Professor Meiksins observed that though many Senate members are aware of the history leading up to this resolution, some members may not have been as involved as the Arts and Sciences faculty have been in this discussion. By way of historical context he provided a summary statement concerning how we got to be where we are now.
The present discussion about closing First College started probably in 2001, when the then Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor Karen Steckol, attempted to close First College. Eventually, her proposal was brought to a vote of the A&S faculty. The Curriculum Committee in the College of Arts and Sciences [at that time] declined to recommend the closure of First College . The motion was nonetheless brought to the faculty and failed in a college-wide vote by a relatively close vote: 53% to 47%. Clearly the majority of faculty did not favor closure at that time. In the aftermath of that vote, a five member Oversight Committee was established to look at First College and try to understand what its mission was, and to help the College define that mission more clearly. That committee met during late Spring of 2001 and during all of 2002, and into 2003. At a meeting in April of 2003 the committee presented a report to the College of Arts and Sciences faculty in which it indicated that were it not for the imminent division of Arts and Sciences into two colleges, it would recommend closure of First College . The report also stated that there were at least two members of the committee who were in disagreement with this finding. Pursuant to a discussion on the floor of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting, a motion was brought forth to close First College . This motion was then submitted to a mail ballot for all Arts and Sciences faculty. It won by a substantial margin. At that point the motion to close First College was forwarded to the University Curriculum Committee, as the Green Book procedures require for the closing of any academic units. Accordingly, it was brought to the Committee's attention at its first meeting for this year. The UCC invited the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor Earl Anderson, who had conveyed the A & S recommendation to UCC, and the Interim Director of First College, Professor Austin Allen, to come and make presentations concerning the College. The UCC listened to both positions and discussed the matter with great care. In subsequent deliberations, the UCC decided unanimously to dissolve First College, with the additional provisos that the UCC believes that students' catalogue rights be protected. Though this goes without saying, the UCC felt that it was important to underline this point to the Faculty Senate, and to insist that the administration take ownership of the problem. The UCC also felt that it would be wise to retain the Personally Designed Major as something that the University might want to revive at some future date. Its rationale was that it is far more difficult to introduce a new major than it is to revive a suspended one. With that in mind, the UCC is also recommending suspending rather than eliminating the Personally Designed Major, on the theory that there might be some value in it for future iterations of the University. Such is the context in which the UCC's present recommendations evolved and are brought before the Faculty Senate.
Dr. Jane McIntyre spoke against the motion. Dr. McIntyre commented that, first, she appreciated the summary of the procedures that have taken place since about 2001. However, she expressed sorrow that the chair of the UCC did not summarize for Faculty Senate members who are not familiar with First College or with the debate about First College the substantive issues that underlined the recommendations that originally came forth from Dean Karen Steckol. She was particularly sorry that nobody had yet mentioned what the historic mission of First College was. Professor McIntyre noted that she was an original faculty member of First College , and served the College for 15 years. Although she has not been a faculty member in that College for the same length of time, nevertheless she feels that she would like to say something in support of the mission of First College , and against the present motion.
Dr. McIntyre stated that First College represents an alternative means of gaining a liberal arts education within the context of our very large and sometimes impersonal university. The College was set up to provide students who wanted to have the small college experience that is offered at many state universities and small private colleges. They wanted to have a “small college” experience, even though and for various reasons, the institution they were attending was Cleveland State University . The faculty who originally set up First College, and who for many years sustained it and probably still sustain it, are faculty who are committed to offering students the opportunity to have small classes, seminar-style instruction, -- even personalized instruction. We still think these ideals are valuable in the University. Our recently instituted Honors Program will offer these things only to honors students. The difference is that First College offered them to any student who felt that he or she would benefit from that type of education. For this reason especially, now that our University does not seem to be committed to a one size fits all model, whether for general education or for liberal arts education, it would be valuable, --even at this late stage, - - to pause and reconsider whether we want to call an end to the one vehicle within our University that advocates as its mission offering this style of education. This is a different style of education, a style of education any student who feels they would benefit from should be able to get. For these reasons, and for her continued commitment for what she hopes to be our University's continued commitment to this goal and ideal, she urged Senate members not to vote at this time for the dissolution of First College.
Dr. Jane McIntyre went on to say that in view of the kind of summary of the procedures that have taken place up to this point, ending a program or an institution that has been at our University for over 30 years is something that we should do very cautiously. She urged people to be fully informed about what they would be doing and ending before undertaking a vote on this matter.
Professor Peter Meiksins responded that he would like to read to Senate members something that appears in the report of the First College Advisory Committee's summary concerning its own charge, that speaks to the issue of what the concerns of the faculty and of the University Curriculum Committee are. In reporting on why the Oversight Committee was [to be] established, the Committee said that although the Curriculum Committee recommended against suspending First College, the A & S Curriculum Committee recognized that Dean Steckol's concerns about the economic and programmatic viability of First College had merit. Hence, the recommendation that the [Oversight Committee] advisory committee be formed to assist First College was based on the reality that enrollment in First College had dwindled seriously and the perception that First College had no clear direction or purpose. Professor Meiksins noted that if you read on in the report that was made available to all Arts and Sciences faculty, the Committee was not satisfied that First College had clearly articulated a mission for itself that responded to these perceptions. It also raised questions about the viability of a college which had difficulty retaining or attracting permanent faculty, and which relied heavily on cross-listed courses and part-time instruction to the extent that First College has been forced. All of these issues - the issue of enrollment, the issue of faculty staffing, the issue of the program's mission, all were raised and discussed at length in the Committee's deliberations and in the faculty of Arts and Sciences debates on this matter. The UCC had nothing new to say about those things, other than to say that it came to the conclusion that the concerns were real and that the recommendation from Dean Anderson was wise.
Senate President Konangi asked Senate members if they would consent to allowing Dr. Austin Allen, Interim Director of First College, to speak. Senate allowed Dr. Allen to speak.
Senate President Konangi noted that in anticipation of this consent, Dr. Allen has agreed to limit his speech to five minutes.
Dr. Austin Allen said that he would like to add to what Dr. Jane McIntyre has shared with Senate. He found it very interesting going through a number of files over the past couple of years, how many faculty have actually taught classes or have been an integral part of First College, and he would add that there have been quite a number of people who have gone on either through First College or otherwise to build this University. Somehow, in the arguments, it seems like First College is an isolated institution within the University, though it is not. It has been a very integral part of the University.
Dr. Austin Allen also commented on what Dr. Bruce Beatie wrote back in 2001. Professor Bruce Beatie said that the unusual administrative structure of First College, [being] curricularly independent, like a separate college yet totally within the College of Arts and Sciences, was designed by Dean Jack Soules so that he could assure that in First College's early years it would get the financial and other support it needed. It was not intended that First College would remain forever linked in that way to Arts and Sciences.
Dr. Austin Allen noted that at the end of a 1972 resolution from the Board of Trustees it states: " BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this Board authorizes establishment in the Fall of 1972, of a small Liberal Arts College within the College of Arts and Sciences." Dr. Allen stated that the reason he pointed this out is because there is a precedent being set today in terms of one college initiating the dissolution of another college. There has to be some kind of evaluation of this process, [so as] to give Senate the actual outcome of how the procedure that dissolved the College worked. Dr. Allen noted that two people who teach in First College had no vote one way or another on the dissolution because they are not members of the College of Arts and Sciences. There is therefore this contradiction going on where you have an open opportunity for faculty from throughout the University to teach in First College, yet the College of Arts and Sciences [alone] makes the determination [for dissolution]. He would like to think of the vote for dissolution as a vote [merely] to dissolve a relationship between the College of Arts and Sciences and First College . From here on lies the problem as to what we do [with First College ] next? If that point could be clarified, we would have a fair chance at seeing where the future goes in terms of First College .
Dr. Allen also stated that the faculty of First College , who have been actively engaged in a process of re-evaluation, has put forward a preliminary proposal for joining with a College of Liberal and Interdisciplinary Studies. This is meant to change First College in many ways, including bringing on board Black Studies and Women's Studies, into one academic unit. There was a concerted effort [on the part of] both of those programs, as well as by Liberal Studies, to look at joining together [into] one interdisciplinary unit. After the vote in April, all of that stopped. He noted that Faculty Senate should be aware that this present action to dissolve First College set these other units at a disadvantage, and that needs to be corrected.
Professor Peter Meiksins responded that the UCC looked quite carefully into the question of the location of First College in the University structure. It is true that in the original document it was envisaged that within three years First College would become a separate unit. However, that document was issued in 1970, which would have meant that for that plan to have been carried out, First College would have had to become a separate unit by 1973. Thirty years later, it remains part of Arts and Sciences. It has no budget of its own other than the budget provided for it by Arts and Sciences. Moreover, its curriculum is still overseen by the College of Arts and Sciences. As far as the UCC could determine, it is part of the College of Arts and Sciences, which has the right to recommend with regard to it in the same way as it would have to recommend with regard to other units within the College. With respect to the College of Interdisciplinary Studies , he, as well as other members of the UCC, is aware that this discussion has taken place. The UCC is also aware, however, that subsequent to that discussion the Black Studies and the Women's Studies programs have approached the new College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Depending upon how that matter gets voted upon at the next Senate meeting, they have approached that unit and have requested admission. They have also proposed the creation of a School of Interdisciplinary Studies within that unit. How that will turn out Dr. Meiksins did not know. What he did know was that the original discussion of a College of Interdisciplinary Studies that unites all of these programs is not on the UCC's agenda at this point.
Dr. Barbara Green informed the Senate that she was [also] on the very first committee that worked to establish First College . This included going off on a grant through the original planning with Leonard Trawick, Jack Soules, and Serapio Zalba, of the original proposal. What Dr. Jane McIntyre so eloquently presented to us today is exactly what that committee back in 1970 used as its justification in arguing for First College and its approval. Since then, however, a great deal has gone by. The operations of First College seem to many of us not to be in accordance with its original mission. [Though First College] seemed to be floundering, there was a great deal of opposition with the then Dean of Arts and Sciences' proposal to do away with it because she did not approach it through the proper faculty bodies, [i.e.] looking at the curriculum, and having faculty participate. Rather, she sought to kill it by cutting off its life. The vote of the faculty opposing the Dean's proposal was not substantively [reflective of] whether First College should or should not continue, [it was] rather a protest at the measures being taken by the Dean to kill it. After that, there was considerable consideration of whether in fact the mission of First College , as originally proposed and presented to us by Dr. Jane McIntyre here today, was in fact being carried out and how successfully that was being done. It seems that the very fact that First College was what had originally been stated by Dr. McIntyre was [now] floundering around, trying to find out whether it could be part of, or the core of, a College of Interdisciplinary Studies . [The fact that it is] looking around for partners, looking around for new justifications, was [indicative of its] basically trying to find some justification to continue without really still having its [own] purpose or intention. Perhaps this might be the time to say, “ First College should end.” Many of the things First College has done or has proposed have been absorbed by other departments, [or] other parts of the University. The major the students can put together can be offered and is offered through the Liberal Studies program, within the College of Arts and Sciences. That is not something that has to be tied to First College . Perhaps people [who are] still interested 30 years later and who wish to have an innovative kind of program within the new College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences ought to get together to work out a proposal for something that does have some coherence and makes some sense; rather than trying to continue by just now adding things to it and switching it around without knowing where it is going. At this point Professor Green urged members to vote in favor of dissolution of First College .
Dr. Surendra Tewari stated that he was not [all] that familiar with First College . He asked if someone could please tell him if he was a student what is it that he will be losing from the College? He asked if someone could tell him [of at least] four things that he would be losing that he cannot get from the new college as it is being envisioned.
Professor Peter Meiksins responded that he finds himself in the odd position of speaking on behalf of First College in answer to Dr. Tewari's question. If he gets it wrong, maybe someone more directly involved with it can correct anything he says. His understanding is that students who enroll in First College may [on the one hand] major in a conventional disciplinary major, and then combine that with [the] First College curriculum, which is taken separate from that major. So there are a number of students in the College, currently a majority of students who are enrolled there, [who] are either undeclared or conventional majors in this or that mostly Arts and Sciences disciplines. [They] take the special First College courses alongside [those of the home department], and then get a degree from First College in Sociology, or Social Work, or Philosophy, or whatever it might be. There are [on the other hand] a number of other students who take advantage of the personally designed major, which was what was being referred to earlier. The PDM, [is one] in which students work with a faculty advisor [on] an independent plan for a major which does not correspond to one of the existing University defined majors. They take courses or do independent readings, or some combination of the two. [This] gives students the opportunity to do something that is not easily done within the conventional course and curricular structures of the University. According to the web site, there are about 15 or 20 such students who are doing that currently, although those data are not always terribly reliable so he [Professor Meiksins] quotes them with some caution. The UCC talked a bit about the issue of the PDM, and decided that it was worth preserving because it is unusual. That is the part of the First College experience that seemed to the UCC to be the least easy to duplicate elsewhere. It is true, as Dr. Barbara Green said, that Liberal Studies which still exists, though its precise location is [presently] something of a mystery, does allow students to develop individualized majors, but in a rather [different] way than [what] PDM proposes. As far as he can determine, the primary things that students would lose would be the Personally Designed Major, although the UCC is recommending its suspension rather than its elimination, [and] the special curriculum that First College offers, which is directly related to their majors.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that one element of a college education for many people, although not for all CSU students, is having a life [at] the college - that is not merely being [at] a place where you go in and take a class with a hundred other people, [then] you leave and go to your next class, or go home, or whatever. To have a place that actually has a college life [one should have] an intellectual college life that is structured around the curriculum. First College was planned with the idea that the students in the First College program, although they have a much smaller selection of courses to chose from because it is a small college, would all be in the same classes together, they would know what they are studying in each other's classes, the faculty [would] also know what is being done in the other faculty member's classes, and it also has a physical location which is separate, and so you have something that is more like the life of a small college where you know all of the other students in your classes, you know all of the faculty members, and they know you, and you have that kind of both intellectual and social interaction which centers around the college. That is the thing that will be lost, especially if First College is lost. It has its own courses.
The idea that Cleveland State was willing to offer a different model of education [to] many of our students, [was one that] they [were and] are happy [with]. Cleveland State [has been and] is the sort of all-purpose provider to people who are placed by higher education [with] people who are place-bound in Cleveland . Her feeling then and now is that we should have at least some alternatives in terms of the models and styles of education we offer. In her opinion, we do not have to say to our students: “If you don't want to sit in a class with a hundred other students, too bad.” “If you don't want to be acknowledged as a person until you get to your major programs, too bad.” We can offer them something else, and that is her reason for supporting the First College program. Dr. McIntyre did not deny that it [First College] has gone through some rough times, partly because it was under a lot of administrative pressure. It is hard to attract students to your program when you don't [know] whether you are going to exist from year to year. In a more stable environment, it could still continue to provide this opportunity.
Ms. Kathy Dobda, librarian, inquired how many students and how many faculty are currently part of First College. Professor Meiksins responded that for the faculty it is a little harder to say because there are actually no faculty assigned full-time to First College. He did look up the current enrollment of First College . There are currently 1,030 student credit hours being generated by First College . The headcount that was reported for the Fall, 15th day, was 141 students of which 73 are undecided majors, and 68 are declared majors. This is Institutional Research data that are always subject to interpretation, but if there is an error, it is the same error from year to year.
Professor Austin Allen reported that First College averages around 175 students. There are no faculty assigned to First College , yet there are at least four faculty and up to seven [CSU] faculty members. One other point is that there is the element of being able to provide faculty with a place for experimenting with new courses, and that has been the key part of First College . For instance, Professor Mark Rosentraub, Dean of the College of Urban Affairs , recently tried some experimentation in a class in First College , to see what [the effects] would be. That has been one of the things that take place in First College .
Dr. Andrew Gross commented that as the father of a 42 year old daughter who is a graduate of First College , who was very happy with First College , and who was especially happy with Professor McIntyre's classes, his sentiments are with Professor Jane McIntyre. What he finds very jolting for whatever reason is that [whereas] there was almost a 50/50 split earlier on, now it is 133 to 51 or a 2.6 to 1 ratio, and that is rather overwhelming. While he often disagrees with his A&S colleagues, he finds that it is a very convincing move.
Dr. David Ball called the question. Senate President Konangi stated that calling the question is not debatable so we will now decide whether to terminate the debate or not. He asked for those in favor of terminating the debate and then called for those in favor of continuing the debate. The motion was approved and the debate was terminated. Senate President Konangi noted that Senate must now vote on the original motion from the University Curriculum Committee. The University Curriculum Committee 's recommendation to dissolve First College was approved.
B. Recommendation on Program Review (Report No. 5, 2003-2004)
Dr. Peter Meiksins reported that a couple of years ago the Senate suspended program review at CSU. During its discussions the Senate established an ad hoc committee to look into concerns about how program review was being done, and what was to be done with the results of such review. There were a series of questions about whether it was being done effectively. That ad hoc committee reported back to Senate last Spring and recommended that program review be restarted, with the proviso that the results of program review needed to be handled more seriously,- that they should not simply be put on a shelf and forgotten, but there needed to be better follow-up. The committee recommended no change in the process but recommended improvements in the follow-up. At the meeting last spring, the Senate decided to refer the matter back to the University Curriculum Committee. Therefore, at its meetings early in the fall of this year, the UCC took up the issue. The UCC reviewed the ad hoc committee' s recommendation from last year, and met with Dr. Kaul, who is the program review coordinator or administrator on campus. It decided to make the following recommendations:
Dr. Meiksins presented these recommendations. By way of explaining why the recommendations are renewed effective immediately, two things must be considered. First, we are obligated by various accrediting bodies and by State rules to undergo program review. Second, having suspended it [program review], the longer we leave it undone the more we run the risk of getting ourselves into serious administrative difficulty. The UCC did not feel that it was the committee's job at this point to open the question of whether program review is being done properly, since the task force had just spent an entire year discussing that very issue, and had decided that it was not broke. Professor Meiksins said that he is aware that there remain concerns about the process. It may be that in the future people will recommend changes to that process, but at this point it seemed the wrong moment for the UCC to reopen that particular discussion. The second part of the recommendation is simply a reassertion of what the UCC takes to be the case, which is that Senate has jurisdiction over the process of program review. The third part of the recommendation is the UCC's acknowledgment of the task force' s recommendation that something be done about follow-up. [Meaning that follow-up] should be followed up. The UCC has begun talking about ways in which follow-up might be organized. We are going to be talking more with Dr. Kaul and with other interested parties. March 1, 2004 was offered as the date for that recommendation. This is because this year's round of program review envisages a report out somewhere in the April time frame, so that if we actually got recommendations to this body and this body approves them, there might even be time to do the follow-up as modified for this round. If not, then perhaps in the next round. That is the thinking behind the present recommendations.
Professor Michael Spicer stated that it was his impression that the kind of program review the University did internally was duplicative of the program review we are required to do by the accrediting bodies. He asked: " Does this internal program review substitute for the kind of program review that accrediting bodies do?
Professor Meiksins responded that his understanding is that this is precisely the kind of concern, among others, that had motivated the original suspension of program review. As he understands it, review by external accrediting bodies is not considered to be adequate as program review by North Central, or other such bodies. If the Engineering College , for example, gets accredited by ABAC, they also have to be reviewed internally, and [the latter] is a separate process.
Professor Spicer [wondered if this is the real] reason for reactivating program review, i.e. simply duplicating or adding on to what has already been done, then. [In his view] that is not a substantive reason [for engaging in such activities.]
Professor Meiksins agreed that this is not a substantive reason but it is, however, a reason or point of practicality. [He added that] if you would like to explain to North Central why the University is not conducting program review, that is your choice. The University Curriculum Committee did not want to find itself in such a position. He imagined that the University's administration [also] does not want to find itself in that position, neither would the College of Business nor the College of Engineering , nor other bodies that have external accreditation. Having said that, Dr. Meiksins stated that he knows that the Graduate College Council is going to be discussing that very question. If someone would propose a way of marrying the program review processes such that duplication would not take place, he imagines that no one would have any objections. [Thus far] such marrying has not been proposed. The task force charged with looking at that issue did not recommend such a marrying. The UCC would have delayed for at least another year the necessary process of program review [had it received such a proposal.] So the UCC [now] recommends it [program review renewal], imperfections and all.
Professor Surendra Tewari stated that it is his understanding that the University Planning Review document last year did envision at least part of its process as a program review. He asked Professor Meiksins if he is suggesting that we start the program review process and follow it up as has been done in the past, and then in the future, somewhere we [can] begin to interface it with the University Planning and Review process? Dr. Meiksins replied that the UCC is suggesting that for the present, we re-institute program review as it has been done in the past. One of the issues the UCC is looking at as a possible ways of following up is precisely the recommendation contained in the document Dr. Tewari mentioned. The UCC discussed it at its last meeting. They looked at what was said in that report. As he understands it, that set of proposals is before the University Faculty Affairs Committee. The UCC had no knowledge of what the status of that recommendation is, [or] what will eventuate from that discussion, [or] what will eventually come forward. If a proposal for the Strategic Planning, Budgeting, Programming operation that was proposed last year comes forward and it bears on program review, obviously we will have to engage with that proposal. At the present time, it is a document that we have to consider.
Senate President Konangi reported that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is studying that document and the question of how to merge program review with that document has to be studied.
Professor David Forte commented that some years ago North Central put this recommendation in because of pressures from various state institutions [to insure] that there will be a more efficient use of academic resources. His experience with the ad hoc committee is that this program review winds up as the most inefficient use of University resources. “Let's face what it is-it is duplication!” Accrediting institutions with specific [agendas presumably] really know what they are doing. The fact that [the process] is duplicative of what the Business or Law Colleges do is probably a good thing, because those accrediting institutions know what they are doing. But this is a science in need of some kind of knowledge. We just don't know [according to] what standards we are succeeding or not. Nobody he knows that has gone into program review has ever been surprised by what he has found. It is all in the [basic] premise. Whether we need more students, “hey, we need more students.” Whether we need more facilities, “hey, we need more facilities.” This is an extraordinary waste of time to the extreme. Now you [Professor Meiksins] say we have to do it because North Central wants it. Well, why don't we just say that [to] North Central? “This is a very inefficient use of faculty resources. We recommend that you change this requirement or give us the guidelines that you would like to see.”
Senate President Konangi requested a response from Provost Chin Kuo.
Provost Chin Kuo responded that sometimes the external accreditation visit did not cover [many] worthy programs, or they only covered undergraduate programs. Our internal reviews tend to be more comprehensive and cover all the territory within a department. Sometimes a program review only covers one program within the department. One department, however, may have more than one program within it, and we would like to see, from Provost Kuo's viewpoint, the entire department, [as opposed to just] one program. North Central Accreditation is changing their thing, [that is] instead of counting numbers and multiple visits every so often, they [now] offer reports of what their concept [of quality is], i.e. continued quality improvement, etc. We had to re-gear for that. Part of our effort is for our assessment, and we do that every year and we are constantly doing it, [hoping] that would help us.
Senate President Konangi stated that part of the problem that was mentioned is, to put it very mildly, how do we streamline the process so that the amount of inefficiency is reduced. That is one of the things the University Curriculum Committee is studying with the help of the new Vice Provost.
Professor David Forte asked, " If the program needs to be refocused on quality, if the program needs to be streamlined, why start it up as it was? Why [drive] the old car which isn't working, why do we not try to design a new one?" We will just have the same problems as before.
Professor David Larson noted that he was on the University Curriculum Committee when Greg Lupton was chair and when we voted to suspend program review. The primary reason we voted to suspend program review was in a sense [because of] what is being said. People went through this huge exercise; chairs and administrative assistants in particular were overwhelmed by it; we had a member of the UCC in a department, which will remain nameless, which was undergoing program review and we heard details about how onerous it was. The result, of course, was absolutely nothing. The program review discovered needs for resources in all of the various areas and none of those resources ever changed and would probably never happen, so we voted to suspend it in frustration since nothing happened with it. He does, however, recognize the argument that we cannot afford to lose accreditation from North Central, which he gathers is what we may be threatened with if we don't agree to this exercise. He asked if that is really what Provost Kuo is telling us.
Provost Chin Kuo stated that he would not put the matter quite in that way. What we really need to do, once we have the review, [is that we] ought to be serious about how to implement it. Two years ago we had a report from Arts and Sciences-six program reviews-all of the recommendations, probably 80-90% are for resources B more computers, more faculty, more space, etc. We all have to realize that the other side of the equation is how many resources do we have. So we definitely need to do it phase by phase. That is what he would like to do. That is why the third part of the recommendation from the committee is how do we design a program that will enable us to do follow up. The thing to put on the table is an item by item [list] we can all agree upon, by department, by the colleges, and by the Provost Office. We can then all sign off on it, and say when we are going to do what, and be realistic about doing it. Provost Kuo advised against saying we can boycott program review and have nothing to do with the NCAA. We really need to think over how we can do a better job. We may also like to propose external reviewing for some programs. He is not saying that this should be mandatory, only that if somebody wishes to pursue the matter in this way, he would be happy to discuss it with them.
Professor Leo Jeffres commented that we should coordinate the scheduling of these reviews so that we do not have a department that has to do an outside accreditation, then an assessment, then a program review. [The result being] that [the units] are constantly reviewing. If they are coordinated, the data could be provided for all of them at once, [which would] minimize the forms. It can be streamlined at some point.
Professor Meiksins stated that the UCC didn't discuss the process and the nuts and bolts of the actual review because it seemed to them that they were not being asked to do this. This has come up in committee discussion, and he knows that it is something that the professional programs have in particular. It is easier to say that, than it is to actually do in practice. The data that are being requested are not always the same, and as Professor Walter Rom keeps saying, some units have different programs and they do not fit in the boxes the same way for different kinds of reviews. It is something of a practical difficulty.
Professor Spicer commented about the issue of duplication. At least within the public sector, to his knowledge, there is little scientific evidence that this type of exercise does much to improve efficiency. We know that the administration does not use the reviews. [In Professor Spicer's view, either] administrators are stupid or these programs are useless. He tends to agree with the latter. He is skeptical.
Professor Surendra Tewari stated, concerning North Central, that he as an individual, [as well as] Engineering as a department, would like to have program review on a continual basis because it is [supportive of his department's] own mission. It [the review standard] should be a good creative measurement, and [we should] keep on measuring the instrument. Program review is not a bad idea, and when he hears [the contrary] coming from the Senate, it kind of hurts him personally.
Professor David Forte spoke to the technicalities of the motion. Number one says we begin the current program review. Number two says future changes should be approved by Senate. Number three says the ad hoc committee's recommendation regarding improved follow-up should be pursued further. Nowhere in here, at least, is there an active charge to anyone to review the current profile of the program.
Professor Meiksins observed that Professor Forte was correct. Again, he stated that the UCC made that recommendation in the context of being given a report authored by a task force which took a year reviewing program review. The task force said that the process was fine. He said that he shares many of the concerns that members articulated today and many other people in this room also have other objections that haven' t been raised. The reality that faced the committee is that it was forced to either completely disregard the task force report or make a recommendation based on a report that was sent to the UCC. The UCC was not empowered by that report to investigate curriculum review. The second motion is made in the light of the reality that the UCC believes that there will be further proposals to modify program review. We know that the Vice Provost in charge of program review has ideas about how to change it. We heard the Provost talking about possible revisions. We also heard of many revisions here. He knows that Dr. Tumeo is talking with the Graduate Council about revising it. It is highly probable, in Dr. Meiksins' opinion, that a year from now or maybe even in a shorter term than that, there will be proposals to amend the actual process. The UCC spoke only to the issue that it was asked to speak to, which was the question of what you do with program review once you have done it. This addresses the issue that Professor Michael Spicer was raising.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote on the UCC' s recommendation to restart program review. The motion was approved.
V. Proposal to Amend the current English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants who are Speakers of Other Languages (Report No. 6, 2003-2004)
Professor Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee's proposal that the current English language proficiency policy for international applicants who are speakers of other languages be amended to require English level 112, instead of ELS 109. She stated that this is an upgrade of that requirement. Referring to the third page of her memo to Faculty Senate, Dr. Steinbacher pointed out that this one substitute or optional requirement fits. It is number six of the six options that can be taken as a substitute for the TOEFL score. Looking at the last two pages of the supplemental information to her memorandum, one will see why this change was proposed to the Admissions and Standards Committee from International Studies. Cleveland State University is the only four-year college that still requires 109. The English Language Testing System is suggesting that four-year colleges upgrade to 112 level, and leave the 109 level at the two-year college as a requirement.
Professor John Bazyk asked how many students take this option-how many students will this effect? Professor Steinbacher replied that students can take any of the six options listed, but 120 take all of it. Professor Bazyk stated that he has yet to meet a student who has taken this option. Does this insure that they will not?
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote. The proposal that the current English language proficiency policy for international applicants who are speakers of other languages be amended requiring English Level 112 (ELS 112) as an admission requirement replacing ELS 109 was approved.
VI. Proposed Revision of Practices in Administering Student Evaluations (Report No. 7, 2003-2004)
Dr. Rodger Govea, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that the proposed revision of practices in administering student evaluations came to the UFAC out of the University Center for Teaching and Learning, which is currently undergoing their own evaluation of the practice of student evaluation. The recommendation was then forwarded through the Provost to the UFAC. The recommendation itself is a proposal recommending the administration of student evaluations approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of the way through a term, that is, during weeks 10 through 12 of a 15-week semester. The UFAC is bringing the proposal to Senate for its consideration. If this proposal is approved, the UFAC would simply inform the colleges that this is the Senate recommendation, and leave it to the colleges to implement the practices.
Professor Jane McIntyre did not quite understand the rationale for the recommendation. There are many courses where a student just does not have a perspective on the class appropriate for evaluation until the end of the term. Even looking at the questions asked on her own college's standard questionnaire, it seems like these are end of the semester questions, and many students will not even feel comfortable saying whether the instructor has performed well or courses met their expectations two-thirds of the way through. She asked Dr. Govea to say more about why the middle is the time to evaluate the whole course. We do not evaluate our students on the basis of two-thirds of their work or their work two-thirds of the way through. Why would you evaluate a course at that two-thirds or three-quarters point?
Dr. Govea responded that first, it was felt very strongly in UFAC that the practice of doing so at the very end of the course sometime clouds the process, because of incipient final examination. Moreover, sometimes these evaluations are actually administered at final exams, which is found to be rather appalling. Secondly, there is a body of research indicating that evaluations are best conducted at this stage during courses. This is research coming out of Kansas State. This body of research suggests that for student evaluations, the proposed time period is the best time to do them, and that is what the UFAC has recommended.
Professor Jane McIntyre commented that Dr. Govea repeated saying research shows this, but she would like to know a little more substantively about it.
Professor Govea stated that he did not submit the research to everyone, but he can get the citations if need be or in fact Senate can simply refer this back to the Committee and the UFAC can deliberate some more.
Professor Beth Ekelman stated that Health Sciences has lots of courses where one instructor teaches the first half and another instructor teaches the second half. She asked if that had been considered?
Dr. Govea responded that Dr. Ekelman's situation had not been considered.
Professor James Wilson asked if administering evaluations during exams was already a violation of our rules.
Dr. Govea responded that he believes it does violate the rules, but that has been the practice in a lot of cases.
Dr. David Larson commented that his understanding is that general studies suggests that student perceptions [of teaching] in Greater Cleveland get [skewed] because their fear of the [final] exam biased the results. Students who think they are going to do well give high results, and students who think they are going to do badly and are screwing up give poor results on surveys. Thus they are not evaluating the instructor, they are evaluating how they feel about how they are doing in the course. That is the reason why they want these evaluations done before that particular bias gets built into the student response.
Professor Govea stated that this is the thrust of the arguments of the research he is citing.
Professor David Ball asked, A Is this why the college averages in forced evaluations [are] 4.2 out of 5?"
Dr. Govea responded that he was not sure the reason is really the week in which the evaluations are conducted. Something else is accounting for the figures Professor Ball is citing.
Professor James Wilson stated that he prefers to wait to the end of the semester.
Professor Candice Hoke inquired if it was possible to open the period of time that evaluations would be available, say between the 10th and 15th week, while leaving the precise time of the evaluation to the discretion of the instructor, though also having certain exclusions. For instance, she noted that Professor James Wilson and she were in the same school. She has found that giving evaluations that are dated as suggested, together with students fearing the fate of their grades at the end of the term, results in students becoming mentally rigid about anything other than: "What am I going to get?” If she could give them the teaching evaluations before they get into that mindset, then they would be evaluating the course and the instructor better. They would be able to take into account more factors and give better feedback during the course than they would when they focus only on their grades. It may be that a compromise position, having evaluations available in the context of greater discretion, would be more productive.
Senate President Konangi stated that Professor Hoke's suggestion would be an amendment to the proposal, and it depends on whether the UFAC takes it as a friendly amendment or not.
Dr. Barbara Green noted that part of the problem is for Senate to decide what is the purpose of the teaching evaluation. If the purpose is feedback to the instructor to improve his or her method of teaching, we may come up with one set of answers. If the purpose is that we will be using them to evaluate faculty for the tenure process, then we have to make sure that the process is similar for each of the faculty members who is going to be considered. At the present time it is not. There are many serious problems that are biasing the results right now. There are cases in which the faculty member may (him or herself) give the evaluation and stays in the classroom. There are cases in which another faculty member does it. There are cases in which graduate students do it. All of these circumstances [are influential]. Every bit of research we have indicates that if the faculty member gives the evaluations him or herself, [that is when] the faculty member is present in the room, [the result] is higher. There are all kinds of things we have not looked at that bias results and Professor Green thinks that the UFAC needs to take another look at the whole thing. Even the question Professor Hoke is raising, should the professor have the option alluded to, that too would effect how well people do on that evaluation. This is why if the evaluation is for the purpose of improving your class and your teaching, you [should] be able to give it whenever you want to. If the purpose is to compare your teaching with a norm that is hurting people, sometimes because they may come up with a lower score, then we have to make sure at least that [that standard] is fair. We have not decided what we want to use evaluations for and we do need to look at that.
Professor James Wilson stated that there is also a third purpose, which is to provide the students with some information and get feedback.
Senate President Konangi asked if Professor Candice Hoke was suggesting an amendment to the motion. Professor Hoke replied that she could make a friendly amendment, but she also hears what her colleague Dr. Barbara Green is saying.
Professor Rodger Govea stated that his problem is that he cannot really speak for the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Committee voted unanimously on what he presented to Faculty Senate, so it has to be handled as an amendment. If it is seconded we can go through the regular amendment process, - if that is the desire of the group.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked if the UFAC looked at the research or did the committee just accept the recommendation. Dr. Govea responded that the committee accepted summaries that were given to it by others, including the current director of UCTL and the past director of UCTL.
Professor William Bowen stated that he was in support of what Professor Barbara Green was saying. He moved that the recommendation go back to the UFAC so that they can take a more thorough look at it. What are we trying to accomplish? How does this [recommendation] accomplish whatever we are trying to accomplish? There are lots of gaining possibilities here. He noted how from some points of view, the recommendation seems to be incomplete.
Senate President Konangi asked for a second to the motion from Professor Bowen. Professor James Wilson seconded the motion. Senate President Konangi noted that the motion to refer the recommendation back to the UFAC is not debatable and called for a vote. The Faculty Senate approved remanding the proposed revision of practices in administering student evaluations back to the University Faculty Affairs Committee for further study and recommendation.
Professor Govea thanked the Senate for handling his presentation so nicely.
VII.University President's Report
President Michael Schwartz commented that handing a student a blank piece of paper half way through or at the end of the semester and saying something like, “Would you please write down any ideas you have about how I might make this course better?” would serve us all very well. He observed that our passion for putting a number to things, it seems to him from time to time, overwhelms. Evidently, it is all part of the “accountability movement,” which can alternatively be called the “punishability movement.”
Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that faculty would be very happy with President Schwartz's form of non-standardized, non-formalized course evaluations. It is the administration that has urged that there be a common evaluation form for every college, and that every faculty member has to use the same form.
President Schwartz responded that he understands that, but he wished Professor McIntyre had used the phrase “an administration” in her remarks.
President Schwartz went on to state that the death of Issue #1 yesterday was a blow to the divisions of science and technology, and to research on university campuses all over the State of Ohio. It was not something he had expected. He was not quite sure what to make of all of that, yet.
President Schwartz also commented on the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and the economy. There are some things going on that should be of interest. One has to do with an idea that is floating about [that proposes] merging some [of the] information technology functions of universities in contiguous counties. [What is involved is that] some of the backroom kind of operations might be done in common [sometime] down the road. [This can be done in a way that] saves some money. We have been in some conversations [on this] with the University of Akron, Kent State University and Youngstown State University . These conversations will go on a while before anything, if anything, comes up. A second item floating around has to do with graduate and research programs, and the ways in which we might be able to build on each other's strengths, and minimize some of the weaknesses. For example, [this can be done] by putting together a consortium in graduate education involving four state universities-the University of Akron, Kent State University, Youngstown State University and, maybe, Case Western Reserve University and perhaps the Cleveland Clinic, and even NASA. [This would become] a very large graduate and research consortium. These kinds of ideas, which at this moment are in a primitive stage, are floating around out there. Some of it is kind of attractive, and some of it is quite clearly not.
President Schwartz noted that there is also a good deal of talk in [the Governor's] Commission on the usual stuff of program duplication. Now we are hearing language about the elimination of weak programs. The elimination of weak programs is language we are [also] hearing from the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. The Chancellor's view essentially is that the Chancellor ought to have some personal responsibility for the elimination of weak programs. President Schwartz sees that as a problem, and [he] will probably make himself clear about that in at least one other context. Everyone needs to know that all of that is going on. Also, in one of the subcommittees there is a very interesting proposal, one of many, but [at this time] all it is is a proposal. This is [a proposal] in President Goldenberg's committee, [requiring] that when students enter the ninth grade, the base or “default,” as he put it, curriculum for all students in the ninth grade should be a college preparatory curriculum. [This is] not because they are all going to college, but because all students deserve to have a rigorous high school experience in that curriculum. [The] proposal goes on to say that if a student wishes to opt out of that curriculum, the student can do so with the advice and consent of a parent or guardian, and by a high school counselor. President Schwartz indicated that he has a pretty good idea where that is going. The fact that it was on the table in the Commission is very interesting and he wanted to bring that to the Senate's attention.
President Schwartz also congratulated two members of the faculty on a recent honor. Dr. David Ball of the Department of Chemistry, and Dr. Heidi Meier of the Department of Accounting, were named outstanding teachers by the Northern Ohio Council on Higher Education. Professor Ball and Professor Meier were among only 56 faculty who were chosen for this honor out of more than 9,000 faculty members in this region.
President Schwartz reported that at the Moses Cleaveland Black-Tie Scholarship Fund-Raiser two weeks ago, he was pleased to announce gifts to this University of almost $4 million for the scholarship fund and other academic activities, including the Roslyn Z. Wolf Endowed Chair in Urban Educational Leadership in the College of Education . A bit more than half of that money came from trustees, Sam Miller and Carl Glickman. Both have been really very generous friends of the University. As he said at that time, those scholarship funds are going to help us develop academic excellence here, and make the University, he hopes, the destination of choice for some of the very best students in this region. Those were really very generous gifts. He is pleased to say that a couple more are on the way.
President Schwartz noted that under the terms of Interest-Based Bargaining, the principles are not allowed to discuss the particulars of labor negotiations away from the table very much. [However,] he is allowed to say that those negotiations have been very professional, very forward looking, and cooperative on all sides. Perhaps we will be reaching some agreements very soon between the University administration, the AAUP, the SEIU, and the CWA, - maybe even this month. He is very pleased personally with that kind of news. He wishes everybody involved in that very good luck. He wants them also to note that they have our gratitude for diligence and hard work because none of this is easy stuff.
President Schwartz extended two invitations to everyone. First, there is the tip-off rally for the Vikings basketball season, which will take place in the Tower City Atrium on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 5:00 P.M. The season opener for both the men's and women's teams will be the following Saturday, November 22, 2003 . Second, he also invited everyone to join him in establishing a brand new tradition here. This will be the first annual and traditional homecoming. The staff has been working pretty hard at setting up a full afternoon and evening of events. This is especially for families who want to come. It is free for all of the students, faculty and members of the staff, and it will take place from 4:00 P.M. to midnight on Saturday, December 6, 2003 at the Convocation Center . It will include a buffet dinner, carnival games on midway, Viking Kidzone, etc. The Vikings, of course, will play that vaunted opponent, Utah Valley State Wolverines. The game is at 5:30 P.M. and after the game, there will be concerts, jazz dance music, and all kinds of things. It should be a lot of fun.
President Schwartz said that he was also pleased to tell everyone that as of this past Monday, through the very special efforts of Vice President Mike Droney and his crack staff in IS&T, Cleveland State is now a totally wireless campus. This means that you can take a laptop anywhere on our campus. You do not have to plug it in and go to work. The laptop loaner program for students is really going well. We have had to add 30 new laptops because the demand has been so great. Students can use their ID and take a laptop anywhere on campus. It is charged up for four hours. We have only lost one. We have had thousands of users and so that is going very well. It is a real advantage to our students. He did not know if this was done anywhere else but our students are very much advantaged by it.
President Michael Schwartz stated in his final remark that he thinks our University is doing very well and that we are in pretty good shape. Our credit hour enrollment for undergraduates especially is just off a bit, but the headcount is up a little, and the best part is that the money is holding steady. The West Center is really doing well, including Continuing Education, thanks to Dean Barbara Hanniford who has really put in an enormous effort in this regard. And, Vice President Jack Boyle tells him that we will probably have enough money to meet this month's payroll.
Senate President Konangi stated that if anyone has any questions regarding the Homecoming that President Schwartz mentioned, Ms. Barbara Chudzik, Marketing and Public Affairs, has more information on that.
Senate President Vijay Konangi mentioned several informational items. The first item was regarding the report that President Schwartz initiated to change admissions standards. There seems to be a misconception that it has already been done, which is not true. Provost Chin Kuo has appointed a committee of four to examine the various issues to collect statistical data, to see how sister institutions have approached the same problem of changing admissions standards. This was discussed in the last Academic Steering Committee meeting. After the committee of four collects its information, statistical data, analyses, etc., that information will be provided to the Senate Admissions and Standards Committee, and the Admissions and Standards Committee will then provide its recommendation to Faculty Senate. That is the intended process. The approximate time-line when we can anticipate any action on the Senate floor would be mid- Spring 2004. There is a long way to go before we actually change admissions standards, if at all. He just wanted to inform Senate about it.
Senate President Konangi stated that all of us are aware of the fact that we have not had a Green Book for well over a decade. Apparently in Fall of 2002, there was a copy distributed to all department chairs, but the fact still remains that faculty have not received a copy of the Green Book for at least one decade. He brought up this issue to Vice Provost William Shorrock who immediately agreed about the necessity for it and then he discussed it with Provost Chin Kuo. The Provost immediately agreed to take care of the financial underwriting and administrative support. The Senate Faculty Affairs Committee has been asked to take care of this issue and have agreed to do it. They will work with Vice Provost Schorrock to make sure that we have a good consistent copy. When that copy is ready, hard copies of the Green Book will be distributed. It is anticipated that it will probably be ready by mid-Spring. Once we have a hard copy, then subsequent amendments can be posted on the Senate web site. Based on how many amendments we have, either on a three-year cycle or a four-year cycle, revised hard copies of the Green Book can be distributed. The specific portion of the Green Book we are talking about is just that portion pertaining to Faculty Personnel Policies and Bylaws, that is, Section 8.0.
Senate President Konangi also informed Senate that in previous years we have taken the practice of sending a summary of Senate action to all faculty members, and Minutes of the Senate just go to Senate members, department chairs, and administrative members, etc. One of the changes discussed in Steering Committee is to send Senate members a summary of Senate actions by email. It is much faster, it takes less work on the Senate Office, [and] we do not have to compile a summary of Senate [transactions] in addition to the Senate Minutes and, of course, we do not have to make all of those copies of the Summary. The Summary is really for informational purposes, what carries weight is the full and actual Senate Minutes. We will be sending summaries by email just as the President's Office sends summaries of Board of Trustees actions. If any faculty member in the University or any other member of the University would like a copy of the full Senate Minutes, it is always possible to get it from the Senate Office.
Professor David Ball commented that somebody believes that mass email is one step above spam. He requested that the summary be in the body of an email, rather than as an attachment. It was also suggested that the emailed summary have a subject line. Senate President Konangi agreed to these suggestions.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:38 P.M.
Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate President
[Top of Page]