Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
February 4, 2004

I. Eulogies
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the November 5, 2003 Meeting
IV. Election
V. University Curriculum Committee
VI. University Faculty Affairs Committee
VII. Private For-Profit Education Committee (Report No. 15, 2003-2004)
VIII. University President's Report
IX. New Business

PRESENT: E. Anderson, Angelova, D. Ball, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, W. Bowen, Charity, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Flynn, Forte, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Konangi, Kuo, LaGrange, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, Moutafakis, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Quigney, L. E. Reed, Rom, Scherer, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Spiker, E. Thomas, Thornton, Webster, J. G. Wilson.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: C. Alexander, Atherton, Boyle, Ghorashi, Jeffers, L. Keller, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Mills, Misra, N. Nelson, O’Donnell, Rafiroiu, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, F. White, Zhou.

ALSO PRESENT: Govea, Meiksins, Steinbacher.

Senate President Vijaya Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

[Go to top of page]

I. Eulogies

I. Eulogy for Louis T. Milic (English)

Professor Leonard Trawick delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Louis T. Milic. Dr. Trawick recognized Professor Louis Milic’s wife, Jan Milic who was present. Professor Trawick’s remarks follow.

“Louis Milic came to Cleveland State in 1969 as the new head of the English Department. During the nine years he held that position, he built the department into one of the strongest in the university. He collected an impressive faculty, including several outstanding women scholars. After stepping down as chair, he continued to serve the department and university until his retirement in 1991. Over the past four years he suffered a series of strokes which left him badly debilitated, and he died on December 31, 2003.

“He was born in Split, Yugoslavia; his father was Croatian, his mother American; he had a German nanny, attended school in France, and moved to New York with his mother at the age of thirteen. During World War II he learned Arabic and was a translator in Iran for the U.S. Army Air corps. His early exposure to five languages no doubt helped determine his lifelong interest in linguistics. He attended Columbia University in New York, where he received his Ph.D. and where he taught before coming to Cleveland State.

“As chair of the CSU English Department, Lou introduced a number of innovations, for example The Unicorn, the university’s first departmental newsletter containing substantive articles as well as news of activities. He developed a unique freshman English program using videos produced on campus and a text book that he coauthored with Professor William Chisholm expressly for use at CSU (The English Language, Form and Use). He initiated departmental research seminars, open to the whole university, in which each month a different person would discuss his or her research in progress. He supported the CSU Poetry Center and helped make that an organization of national prominence. Under his chairmanship the university began to offer an M.A. in English.

“His service to the university did not end when he stepped down as English Department chair. He served on virtually every important university and Arts and Sciences committee, was faculty representative to the Board of Trustees, a member of the old Faculty Council, and later a member of the Faculty Senate. He brought the offices of the Dictionary Society of North America to CSU.

“Lou worked for ten years on the effort to convert the Howe Mansion to a faculty club, first as a member of the original feasibility committee in 1981, and from 1983 to 1991 as president of the Friends of the Howe Mansion Restoration Corporation. The Friends of Howe Mansion collected three quarters of a million dollars, including contributions from many of the faculty, and began renovations to the building. But the university failed to follow through; the money was wasted, and the failure of the Howe Mansion project was one of the great disappointments of Lou’s career.

“A more successful undertaking was The Gamut, a wide-ranging journal of ideas and information, featuring articles written by experts on every conceivable subject, and addressed to the educated but nonspecialist reader. Lou originally had the idea for such a publication, and he and I developed it in 1979. We received the support of John Flower, then provost, and for twelve years we jointly edited the magazine. The Gamut was never a money-maker, but it won a certain succès d’ éstime and presented to the public an intellectual face of the university that was not otherwise very visible. The Gamut ceased publication in 1992 after the university withdrew all financial support.

“Lou Milic was a scholar and intellectual of formidable stature. He was author of three books on stylistics and edited a number of other volumes. He published over fifty scholarly articles on linguistics, stylistics, and eighteenth-century literature. He was a pioneer in computer analysis of style and was internationally respected in the field of linguistics. Using new computer techniques, he created The Augustan Prose Sample, the first period corpus ever compiled. (A “corpus” is a large representative sampling of texts from a given period, to be used as a norm for statistical linguistic analysis.)

“Lou was passionately fond of music, though his passion did not extend past the nineteenth century; he was a devoted student of history, especially American and Napoleonic, and of the Presidential papers; he was an amateur astronomer, a bibliophile, a wine expert, and a classics scholar – after retirement he participated in a group that sight-read Latin works.

“The eighteenth century was Lou’s literary specialty and his spiritual home. He founded and presided over the Cleveland Eighteenth-Century Society, which gathered each month for an excellent dinner followed by a paper on the history, art, or literature of the period. Lou was a true eighteenth-century philosophe in his belief that the human enterprise can be advanced by the energetic application of reason. He could be as caustically witty as Swift or Voltaire; as learned as his favorite historian, Gibbon; as dogmatic as Samuel Johnson, the great lexicographer whom he revered – and, it must be added in the same breath, as generous as Johnson also was.

“Lou was not noted for his patience with the foolish or feckless, and as department chair he was sometimes considered a bit autocratic. But the other side of this coin was his strong sense of values and his willingness to make – and act on – decisions that he thought were right. In fact, he is remembered by a great many people, including myself, as a man of remarkable generosity, unwavering devotion to duty, and unfailing loyalty to his friends.

“A few days ago I was reminiscing with an acquaintance about the number of well-loved colleagues we have recently lost, and we imagined them all meeting together in some celestial faculty club in the Great Beyond. “Yes,” my friend said, “and Lou will be in charge.” Though I can’t speak for the Beyond, I imagine that some things will be put to rights up there. I do know that this university and the intellectual community of this world have been diminished by the loss of Louis Milic.”

Senate President Vijay Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Louis Milic.

[Go to top of page]

II. Approval of Agenda
Acceptance of the Agenda for February 4, 2004 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 3, 2003 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the December 3, 2003 meeting was moved and seconded. Ms. Kathy Dobda pointed out that two words needed to be changed. The word “formally” on page 6, third line of the first paragraph, should be changed to, “formerly.” The word “effective” on page 7, second line, should be changed to, “effected.” The Minutes were then approved as corrected.

IV. Election

The Faculty Senate elected Professor Ravindra Kamath, Business Administration, to the University Faculty Affairs Committee to complete the unexpired term through August 31, 2004 of Dr. Barbara Green who retired last semester.

V. University Curriculum Committee

Reinstatement of BBA in International Business (Report No. 14, 2003-2004)

Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that the BBA in International Business existed previously. It was suspended in the 70s, and has languished ever since. Recently, a draft proposal to revive the program was brought up in the College of Business. A number of people worked very hard on it, and presented a formal proposal for reinstating the program. The UCC reviewed the proposal and found it to be uncontroversial. The UCC had thoroughly discussed it some weeks ago and determined that it doesn’t appear to cost anything, that there appears to be a demand for it, and that there are good pedagogical reasons for having it. Therefore, the UCC recommends that Faculty Senate approve reactivation of this program.

Professor Andrew Gross seconded the motion to reinstate the program.

Professor Susan Hill inquired if there is any mechanism in the program to add other potential electives as the curriculum changes. There are Western, Non-Western, and Social Science electives, but she saw no mechanism to add others, as new courses might be developed across the university.

Dr. Meiksins responded that this matter had come up to some degree because the UCC had talked about the language requirement and whether other languages might be appropriately built into the program. All of the faculty representing this proposal were receptive to that idea. Dr. Meiksins assumed one could simply propose to them the addition of other electives, and it would then go through the normal process of modifying the program. The process would be internal to the College of Business, unless some major overhaul was required that would entail a university-wide review.

Professor Mieko Smith expressed her concern about the language components – French, Spanish, and German. She stated in Graduate Council that in the future maybe we should think about Chinese and other languages, and not confine it to western languages alone.

Dr. Meiksins responded that Professor Mieko’s question was raised quite forcefully by the UCC. There is a practical issue here which is simply that the university’s ability to offer extensive programming in these areas is limited at the moment. However, the program’s director has spoken with the Modern Languages Department and has been assured that if a student needed or wanted to learn Chinese or Japanese, or some other language, they would be accommodated. The working assumption is that if the demand for those languages grows sufficiently so that one could guarantee a class full of students every year, the Modern Languages Department would seize upon that opportunity and begin offering programming in those languages. That has obviously been discussed. It is a matter of resources.

Dr. Robert Scherer, Dean of the College of Business Administration, stated that this question did come up. What should be noted is that this is the first major in the College of Business that requires a second language. The faculty is excited about that. In addition, there is no penalty for being proficient or fluid in Chinese or Arabic or Swedish. In fact, arrangements have been made to assist in waiving the language requirement in the major if students take some of the other electives listed in the proposal. Dr. Scherer was hopeful that they will get a lot of students who already have a second or a third language proficiency, and will move right into those electives.

Dr. Jane McIntyre referred to the Social Sciences section of the proposal and stated that although it looks as if students have four choices here, as a matter of fact they have only two choices in the lower division. In reality PSC 227, HIS 227, and ANT 227 are all the same single course. This course has sufficient enrollment so that it can have three sections that meet together under those different departmental groups but, as a matter of fact, they are not three different courses here – they are the same course. The student really has to choose between two courses here. She wondered if there were other courses that were options at the 200 level. She observed that the Gen.Ed. has to be a lower level class. There is the appearance of choice here that is deceptive and she was wondering if there are other courses that might be added.

Professor Meiksins responded that the UCC did not tackle that point specifically.

Dr. Scherer stated that the outstanding feature is that the whole process is reactivating. The college worked very closely with Modern Languages and the International Relations faculty. It relied on their guidance and counsel in terms of which courses to include. Dr. Kaufman offered some additional courses and suggested courses in Anthropology. He saw nothing wrong with adding new courses.

Professor Meiksins referred to the list of courses on page 6 of the proposal and noted that the UCC did talk about the requirements at the upper level for courses outside the College of Business, - things like political and cultural components. He noted that he and another member of the UCC suggested additions to the list, and the committee overseeing the program was more than happy to add other courses. They had put the list together on the basis of their collaboration with people from a few departments in Arts and Sciences. They got the suggestions those individuals knew about. He did not think there was any reason why the college would resist adding to this list.

Professor Jane McIntyre stated that this is a fine effort. She liked the cooperation among the colleges, and she had no problem with the proposal overall. However, just as a comment, it seemed to her that the problem occurs again under the rubric Political and Cultural Component. Although students only have to take one course, most of the choices are focused on politics and not on culture, - slightly more broadly construed. Nonetheless, this would be quite relevant to somebody who was actually hoping to do business with people from another country. She hoped this group of offerings can be expanded somewhat as well.

Professor Meiksins remarked that one should consider the sociology of the fact. If you follow the network that developed the proposal, you will find out why it is heavy on one side rather than the other. However, it is not something that cannot be remedied.

Dr. McIntyre stated that she was bringing it to the attention of the people who proposed the reactivation, so that they can notice that the program is actually very heavily into politics and not strongly representative of other cultural elements, which might be significant to study.

Senate President Konangi noted that the proposal has been moved and seconded. There was no further discussion. He called for a vote. The proposed reinstatement of the BBA in International Business was unanimously approved.

VI. University Faculty Affairs Committee

Proposed Amendment to Personnel Policies and Bylaws
Appointment of Chairpersons, Section 8.1.5 A) 4) g) (Report No. 10, 2003-2004)

Professor Rodger Govea, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that this is the second reading of new “Green Book” language on department chair searches. The new language on page 3 is placed in the context of the existing “Green Book” language as on pages 1 and 2 of the proposed amendment. This constitutes the second reading and discussion is in order.

Professor Beth Ekelman referred to Section g) (3) (a), “the Dean shall recommend to the Provost the appointment of a chairperson from among the finalists recommended by the Search Advisory Committees.” She noted that they are going to then look at the two searches. She inquired if the UFAC has talked about that and wondered if it was practical to do that.

Dr. Govea responded that if any of the candidates of the previous search wished to be considered they would be in that group, unless they have taken another job or for some other reasons declined consideration.

Professor Ekelman wondered what would happen if absolutely no one was available from the two searches. Dr. Govea responded that undoubtly another search would have to be done.

Professor Ekelman wondered if UFAC might want to add some language about that. Dr. Govea stated that there are a couple of conditions where a new search may be mandated. One might be where the Provost asked and the UFAC refused to grant approval, in which case if there are no candidates, then you must go back and have a search begin again. Thus there are a couple of conditions under which a new search may be mandated. This is not a guarantee that after two searches there will be a chair.

Senate President Konangi stated that this is the second reading of the proposed amendment to the Bylaws and a two-thirdsvote is needed for approval. He then called for a vote. The proposed amendment to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws, Appointment of Chairpersons, Section 8.1.5 A) 4) g), was unanimously approved.

VII. Private For-Profit Education Committee (Report No. 15, 2003-2004)

Senate President Konangi stated that in August 2003, President Schwartz appointed a committee to investigate the impact of for-profit institutions on CSU’s enrollment, and how we should strategize our internal marketing, recruitment, and other areas, to compete with the enrollment issues that might arise because of competition from for-profit institutions. The committee, chaired by Vice President Mike Droney, made a presentation on behalf of the committee. Other members of the committee participated in the report as well.

Vice President Mike Droney stated that the message is clear. There is a demand for for-profit studies out there and the committee wanted to see its impact on CSU and recommend some strategies that relate to it.

Vice President Droney introduced the members of the committee present: Maureen E. McQuestion, Director of Academic Development and Services, Dr. Barbara Hanniford, Dean of Continuing Education, Dr. Robert Scherer, Dean of the College of Business Administration, Brian Johnston, Director of Marketing and Public Affairs, and Dr. Vijay Konangi, among others.

Vice President Droney first spoke about the importance of for-profits. He noted that the numbers in his presentation are out of the report in “Business Week” for the year ending 2003, which talks about the current numbers of what for-profit education is doing today. He pointed out the nine biggest players: Apollo Group/University of Phoenix, University of Phoenix Online, Career Education Corp, Corinthian Colleges, Kaplan Inc., Education Management Corp., ITT Educational Services, DeVry Inc., and Sylvan Learning Systems. Mr. Droney selected the Apollo Group to discuss as a case study.

Ms. Maureen McQuestion explained that the Apollo Group is a publicly traded holding company that has three main components. The first is the University of Phoenix we are familiar with. Then there is the University of Phoenix Online division that is also traded separately on the stock exchange. The third component is called The Professional Development Institute. The latter component of the Apollo Group is of great interest. What it does is take the University of Phoenix model and it finds a family institution, usually a religious institution of higher education, and drops the entire University of Phoenix model into that targeted institution. It usually goes after the non-traditional student market. PDI is then able to put in its marketing program, its curriculum, and its own class facilitators. The host universities themselves take on all of the financial risks and all of the capital costs of the facilities and plants. It is a lucrative and very profitable operation.

Professor Bill Bowen asked if Mr. Droney’s graphics contained some information that we are supposed to know because he could not see the presentation.

Mr. Droney noted that if anybody wants a copy of his presentation, he will email it to them.

Vice President Droney remarked that 2003 revenues were $1.3 billion in the Apollo Group. To put this into perspective, CSU was at $170 million in revenue last year. If we added Kent State University, the University of Akron, Youngstown State University and Cleveland State University together, we are just around $1 billion. On that $1.3 billion, the Apollo Group turned a profit of $247 million, 53% over what they turned last year in profit. Stockholders are making big money on this investment. The whole for-profit market place grew 6.4% last year -- five times faster than traditional education. Our only saving grace is that they work on a vertical slice of the entire education market place. As of today they have less than 5% of that slice. That is the kind of data we ought to be aware of when we talk about their potential impact. The committee feels that it is very relevant that we pay attention to this market place, which in its totality is roughly $13 billion.

It was asked what was meant by the expression “a vertical slice of the market place.” Ms. Maureen McQuestion responded that what is meant is that the for-profits focus on the non-traditional student market. All for-profits target students who are between 25 to 40 years old. Generally, they have a couple of years of college behind them. They are working full-time and they have full-time family obligations. They want to go to class for short periods of time, and they want to take courses in sequence and/or they want to take them from home. Finally, they want to know exactly what they have to do to get their degrees. Moreover, most of these students have their tuition paid for by their employers. These students do not want to have anything to do with general education requirements; they don’t want anything to do with a full four-year degree. For-profits skim off those students that have all of that done. They also have a liberal and very generous credit for life experience and credit transfer policy. There is one for-profit in particular called Masters Degree Online where you can fill in an online survey and tell them what your professional experience is and click a button to submit. They will return to you with their best guess as to how long it will take you to get your degree, and what they will give you credit for in relation to your life experience.

Vice President Droney noted that the committee also looked at the kind of non-traditional providers operating in our local area. Those that are already here are definitely affecting us. The committee dove deeply into Phoenix. Ms. Maureen McQuestion went out “under cover” and applied both as a professor and also as a student at Phoenix. She compared what she found to what students would experience at CSU. The committee had to look at all the options for-profits provided, including partnering options.

The two major things students see in these for-profit marketing groups are: 1) Convenience. Students can do part of their course work on the web. These providers have locations near their homes or near their work. 2) Students are sold on the promise of a faster degree, and, as mentioned earlier, they receive a lot more credit for life type experiences. The committee identified four options we can take with respect to the threat from the for-profits: 1) compete head on with the same type of programming; 2) differentiate ourselves and truly identify how we provide for-profit education; 3) partner with them, or 4) totally ignore them and say, “it’s only 5% of the slice, we don’t have to worry about it.”

The committee did a quick analysis of each option. When it did compare the pros and cons of each alternative the following emerged:

Pros: Tuition is more expensive at the for-profit. Phoenix is almost double the cost per credit as we are in general. But they are not raising their rates as fast as we are raising our tuition. Employers still prefer traditional education. But the startling statistic is that 60% of Phoenix students are on tuition reimbursement programs from their employers. That is quite an endorsement on the Phoenix approach from employers. However, we do have the upper edge in terms of the quality education approach.

Cons: The web anytime - anywhere impression, where education is based on test taking and is outcome focused has great political appeal. Moreover, the for-profits have potential legislative power.

Ms. Maureen McQuestion talked about this legislative impact. It is actually very impressive. The reorganization of the Higher Education Act is going to occur this year and the for-profits have a whole different way of lobbying Washington than the non-profits do. They can go directly to legislators and lobby. We can’t do that. They have their main people on the House Committee of Education, for example, and its employees are staff people that have come out of this same for-profit educational background. The post-secondary education secretary in the Department of Education is a former Apollo Group executive. The Bush administration and the Department of Education are really starting to see higher education as an extension of the No Child Left Behind Act. They want to reauthorize the Higher Education Act to include things like outcome based education, and proving that your institution is good enough to receive financial aid. They also want to do this on retention rates and graduation rates. If your institution fails to meet their set criteria, they are not going to allow you to be a Title III institution anymore. That is one of the biggest threats in this legislation.

Vice President Droney added that for-profits have the ability to influence their environments at many levels. They have easier access, parking, location, etc. They are much more convenient; the public’s awareness of them is keener; their marketing campaign is usually very aggressive and very forward thinking. They recognize credit for life experiences. All of these things are definitely working favorably in their approach.

Vice President Droney noted that from the partnering perspective, they have a gamut of a whole portfolio of courseware available. Part of their approach to education, especially in the case of Phoenix, is global courseware centrally constituted. 95% of their faculty are part-time, and the faculty is actually scripted on what they teach based upon what has been prepared centrally. In fact, the entire curriculum pre-exists as an available resource. Though they presently have a small vertical slice of the market, it is growing tremendously. Their market is almost doubling every year.

Mr. Droney went on to state that the committee is recommending that we focus our efforts on a strategy that will compete/differentiate CSU from this for-profit industry. The committee has come up with two directions CSU can take. One is a series of strategies. These are actions that require that we begin implementing the strategies.

  • Eliminate systemic obstacles to approval of new programs or major modifications of existing programs;
  • Streamline internal CSU processes to enhance ability to align with marketing strategy;
  • Define target market(s), develop programs and implement marketing strategy;
  • Implement an ongoing CSU initiative to monitor policies, legislations, offerings and competitive analysis.

Mr. Droney said that we, as a university, are not structured to do traditional and competitive analysis like a company would do. What we are finding out through these kinds of analyses is that we probably should have a committee to do research in this area on a regular basis. In other words, we should have this kind of an inquiry as an established and on-going function at the university all of the time.

Mr. Droney noted that on a 100 points scale the committee prioritized 15 recommended major strategies, broken down into the academic, marketing, and operational areas. The operational recommendations have the very lowest weights on the 100 points scale. He chose to focus instead on four or five of the non-soft items that his committee has recommended. The first item with a 15 rating is to develop an e-learning strategy. We actually already do electronic type education, in that we supplement some of our degrees with it. The fact is that presently we don’t have an overall university strategy that we can get through to our marketing sector. We need that. Next, expand 2+2/2+3 programs with major feeders. Mr. Ed Mills and Dr. Jerry Kiel are assigned that task right now. We also need to assess our transfer credit acceptance and credit for life experience policies. Both of these received 12 point ratings on the scale. With a rating of 8 was the need to implement a transfer-friendly general education program. Under the marketing category, we find that there is a real opportunity to exploit international marketing opportunities in target countries. This is interesting from two standpoints. First it is interesting because we can do this more than we do presently, and secondly because this is one of the prime expansion points. If we got the Apollo Group’s annual report and read it, we would see that they are very aggressive in going to places like Chili and China with programs to expand their breadth in the world. These are opportunities. Even within our own State of Ohio university system, we have Ohio University working on these programs right now.

Professor Andrew Gross commented that first he would like to congratulate the group on its work. He thought that they have done good work, but he would like to go beyond the generalities on the previous charge and offer some suggestions. Overcoming obstacles and streamlining internal processes sounds like an old cliché, or as it was said forty years ago, “Mom, Chevrolet and apple pie.” He offered several specific suggestions to what Mr. Droney presented. We have to play the accreditation game to the hilt. 1) Every time an ad appears somewhere for CSU, the ACSB or North Central or whatever should be cited as having fully accredited our institution’s curriculum. 2) He read somewhere that the University of Virginia Law and Business School has basically gotten certain of its units privatized, though it has not been kicked out by the state or the university system for doing so, and it has strong rivals to compete with. However, he was not privy as to how this was done. 3) Also, Memphis State University decided that they were not state supported and barely state assisted. They changed their name to the University of Memphis, and they survived. They are doing quite well. These are three examples. The fourth seems very simple. 4) Marketing, that is increase faculty interactions in secondary schools. To every member of the Senate, the faculty, etc., give some credit/recognition to professors who go out to high schools. Require them to go out once per semester minimally, preferably once a month and reward them in some way. That is a specific step. Finally, 5) One institution that comes to mind with which we have had good report, that is CAMP, Center for Advanced and Manufacturing Process. CAMP is near us and we too have an advanced manufacturing center. Let us do that kind of thing.

Professor Susan Hill asked if Senate President Konangi could make sure that a copy of Mr. Droney’s presentation could be given to Senate Officers. Mr. Droney suggested sending it to Violet Lunder and she could distribute it to all Senators.

Professor Leo Jeffres commented that some members of faculty were on a committee about 20 years ago that considered critical life work experience for college credit, and it sort of disappeared along the way. He was wondering if that ever went anywhere or was it considered at all.

Senate President Konangi noted that as far as this committee is concerned, this is just the first phase of the committee’s work. His understanding is that these are recommendations to the President. Dr. Schwartz will follow up on some of these recommendations with respect to how they should be implemented and followed through.

Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that the joint strategy of differentiating from and competing with the for-profits has some inconsistencies in it, or the potential for inconsistencies. If we are going to compete, we have to do more things like have more e-learning. She noted that if her own department was very involved in web education, which she is not opposed to, it would be promoting something that will help you compete. However, this new emphasis now also has the potential of lowering the quality of the education one is imparting to others. At the very least it contributes to that which makes it harder for you to differentiate yourself from the thing you are competing with. The more you compete with it, the less likely you are to be able to differentiate yourself from it. She said that while she can certainly see the point of the strategies that Mr. Droney outlined, she wondered if they are really consistent with the idea of differentiating ourselves from the University of Phoenix. Are they not going to make us become the University of Phoenix, which is then not to differentiate ourselves from them at all. Can we compete and not differentiate at the same time? She wondered if Mr. Droney could comment on that. These two approaches seem to be at odds.

Mr. Droney responded that in all honesty he was only trying to get the word out on how far his committee has gotten to date. We now have a set of what we should consider to be priorities that we are going to have to focus on. He would not disagree with what Dr. Jane McIntyre was saying, but he truly felt that there were serious concerns being raised in the external environment. In these kinds of scenarios, he did not think we could take a 100% single dimensional approach to the problem. From a marketing point of view, we have to be perceived somewhat competitively. In the sense that we offer some things, like greater convenience to our students, and that with us they can achieve maybe a blended education where part of it is web and part of it is classroom. Those kinds of things are relevant. We simply have to look at competing. Our strengths, our core competencies, definitely are our ability to differentiate. We are going to have to walk a very careful line, balancing competing and differentiating, while never losing sight of our core competencies. All in all, we cannot turn our back on some of the competitive issues.

Dr. William Bowen noted that in the College of Urban Affairs, the answer to Professor Jeffres’ question is that they did quite a bit of giving credit for life experience. If anyone wants to find out what the university is doing in some places, Professor Mike Wells or Professor Roberta Steinbacher were quite active in that and could be contacted to respond.

VIII. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz commented that Professor Jane McIntyre’s point was well taken. We’ve got a problem with that already -- never mind Phoenix. He has raised the following question to some of his colleagues: “Why should freshman and sophomore students choose to be students at Cleveland State University rather than at one of the community colleges, when the community colleges can do the same first two years at exactly half the cost of CSU or less?” His colleagues wrestled with that question and he is not getting any satisfactory answers. President Schwartz observed that we know it is not the same, but the question is, “How is it not the same? Are we going to wind up mimicking what was done elsewhere?” These are good questions and we better get at those questions as well as the question of what is going on in the for-profit sector because the for-profit sector is doing very well, and, by the way, the for-profit sector is only a very small proportion of that stuff on line. Everybody seems to think that that is all of what it is, but mostly it is also classroom stuff or blended with some other stuff.

In his prepared remarks President Schwartz began by acknowledging a generous and very much appreciated gift of $1 million from Mr. Donald E. Bently that will establish a fund in support of the Donald Bentley and Agnes Muszynska Endowed Chair in Rotating Machinery in the Fenn College of Engineering. The faculty member selected for this endowed chair is Professor Jerzy Sawicki of the department of Mechanical Engineering. He is the director of the Rotor-Bearing Dynamics and Diagnostics Laboratory in the College of Engineering and he was the recipient of the prestigious 2001 Ohio Outstanding Engineering Educator Award. He noted that we all want to congratulate him.

President Schwartz was pleased to report some other successes at CSU. Based on the final enrollment at the West Center, we are doing big business there. Three hundred fifty students were enrolled in degree classes, and one hundred and fifty additional students were enrolled in continuing education classes last term. We think that when the final tallies are in for Spring semester, 600 students will be enrolled in graduate and undergraduate degree programs at the Westlake campus. When we asked those students who were returning for the Spring semester classes if they would recommend Cleveland State West Center courses to others, over 95% said that they would. Several indicated that they had already done so. Many volunteered their comments. His favorites were things like, “This is awesome,” and, “I will be your spokesperson.” We now have a dollar per year person working on that for us. Students said that the staff there is amazing because for the most part it is the staff from here. In that regard, thanks to the faculty and others, and of course to the Continuing Education staff, because they got us off to a really terrific beginning in Westlake. And, thanks to everybody for helping get the second semester off to a really smooth start, and thanks for their generosity in accommodating students. The President’s Office, which used to be inundated with complaining phone calls at the beginning of every term, is getting almost none now. You get a lot of the credit for that and Mr. Ed Mills gets a great deal of the credit for that. Part of it is that Nancy and Brenda are just not telling him about the complaints.

President Schwartz distributed a handout titled “FY State Budget Totals.” In FY 2000, the State budgeted about $67,415,000 for us but we got just a little bit less than that. In FY 2001, the State budgeted $71 million and we got a little bit more than that -- $73 million as a matter of fact. The next year FY 2002, we were budgeted to receive $74,508,000 but after the cuts we got a little over $70 million. We began FY 2003 with that $70 million and before that year was over, it was cut to $68.3 million. In 2004, which is the fiscal year we are in now which will end on June 30, 2004, we began with $68,740,000. We are going into FY 05 on July 1, 2004. Because of the way the budget was built for the two years of the biennium, we get $1 million less in the second year of the biennium than we got in the first. We know going in that we will get $1 million less to spend starting on July 1, 2004.

President Michael Schwartz noted that looking at the loss of the penny sales increase, the worse case scenario is, don’t plan for good times in Ohio – that is rule number one. What could possibly happen if that penny comes off and it comes off early? The answer is that if we don’t get the alternate tax changed, which is to say if we don’t get some kind of tax reform in this State, we could lose $2.2 million. If K-12 is cut, we probably would lose $4 million. If they are made exempt, we could lose 10% or $6.7 million. So, if they hold K-12 harmless and don’t do anything about new taxes and the one cent sales tax comes off quickly, the total hit for us could be 10% or $6.7 million. The next line on the handout says “Eliminate Hold Harmless”. There has been a provision in the budget for higher education that said, “The universities will get not less than 99% of what they had the year before. Even if they got some growth, the highest growth institutions will get that growth paid for before lower growth or no growth institutions get their money, but in no case will anybody get less than 99% of what they had the year before. The money has flowed in huge amounts to the community colleges which are averaging growth of 13% to 15%. The universities are averaging growth of about 3% and some aren’t growing at all. Thus far we have all been protected, but if the 99% guarantee comes off (the so-called hold harmless comes off), that would cost us (CSU) $8.8 million. All of that money, by the way, would not disappear; it would be transferred to those high growth institutions almost all of which are community colleges. Now there is also a proposal being floated by the Chancellor. The idea is to take 20% of the Masters Degree subsidy and 35% of the Doctoral Degree subsidy away from the universities and put all of that money into the so-called “Research Challenge” program so that we get more science and technology research and generate more federal funds which is essentially saying that we are going to take all of that money and we are going to give it to Ohio State, Cincinnati, and Case Western Reserve because they are eligible for Research Challenge money as well. Now, if that happens, this institution loses $4.2 million right away. That proposal has some support in Columbus because the Chancellor is pushing for it, and because Ohio is noticeably lagging in science and technology research. It is also a back-door effort to bolster the Chancellor’s argument that he wants pretty much sole authority to withdraw the re-granting authority for certain programs. This is also on the table.

President Schwartz also reported that there is a third proposal under consideration, which is called the “tuition guarantee.” This involves the idea that if a student enrolls at a state college or university as a freshman next Fall, that student will pay next Fall’s tuition rates for the next four years. The program also says that if a student enrolls here as a transferring junior next Fall from one of the community colleges, that student will pay the tuition rate in effect two years before he got here. If that were to happen, just the transfer money would cost us a loss of almost $2.2 million. If all of these little gems were to happen at once, we would go from a starting number of $67.5 million, which is almost the same number that we had in the year 2000, to $45.6 million. We would lose approximately $22 million. Not all of that is going to happen, of course. President Schwartz asked the Faculty Senate to imagine what would happen at this institution if half of the above scenario was to take place, and we are as close to the bone as we are now. We started this year (OBOR numbers) with the same real dollars (adjusted dollars) that we had in 1988. President Schwartz said that an honest assessment of the situation is that we are very seriously threatened. When he spoke in the Fall Convocation one year ago, he told those who were there that the Governor had a Governor’s Commission on Higher Education and the Economy and he didn’t want anybody to feel threatened by that and he thought it was a good idea to examine the system of higher education from time to time. Now he is not so sure that it was such a good idea. The inquiry went from a Commission on Higher Education and the Economy to a Higher Education Reform Commission. The reform is in the hands of people who believe two-year quick job training is really much more important than any bachelors degree unless, of course, it is in math or science or in engineering. Everyone can see what these other things say to us and what they could potentially be.

President Schwartz noted that everyone also should know that we are working as hard as we know how, locally and in Columbus, and with some friends in Washington, to see to it that these things do not occur. Almost all of the universities have really stood shoulder to shoulder on this problem. This is not small stuff. President Schwartz will let everyone know from time to time how we are faring on this. He emphasized that though most of this scenario will not happen, some part of it will. He noted that it is good to see all the universities standing together. In fact, the president of the University of Cincinnati, an institution which would do well under this new research challenge idea, has said in public that she wants nothing to do with it. We have yet to hear the same kinds of things from Case Western Reserve or from Ohio State University. President Nancy L. Zimpher at Cincinnati has said this is not a good idea. She and President Schwartz have become suddenly very close.

Finally, President Schwartz commented that everyone may recall that some time ago he shared the results of our students’ responses to the national survey of student engagement. That was a survey of our freshmen and seniors. They reported that the students engaged one another on academic matters outside of class less frequently; that they had engaged their professors on academic matters outside the classroom less frequently; and they wrote fewer papers than their peers at similar institutions across the country. There could be a number of reasons for this. At the time of the survey we were just concluding our first year of transition from quarters to semesters. We may also have had a higher percentage of transfer students among our seniors than most universities, although the survey did include colleges and universities on the quarter calendar and commuter schools whose student profiles really resemble ours pretty closely.

President Schwartz stated that the results are of sufficient concern for him to warrant some further investigation and, therefore, he is planning to appoint a Presidential Commission on the State of our Learning Environment and he wants to convene that commission this semester. In the face of the financial numbers he gave today, the state of the learning environment becomes absolutely critical to us. Needless to say, he would like to hear everyone’s views about this. We have had really good success with the President’s Commission on the Future of Administrative Computing that has now taken on a much broader function. He is hoping that the Presidential Commission, such as this one on the state of our learning environment, may pay very substantial dividends. He has spoken to Senate President Vijay Konangi and they will get their heads together and try to get that Commission membership put together as soon as they can, with everyone’s help.

President Schwartz noted that those are the kinds of things he wanted to tell everyone about. There is a somewhat lighter note in all of this. He wants everyone’s help in spreading the name of Cleveland State University on the road. Many friends of the University among the alumni and in the community have urged us to petition the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles to issue license plates with our logo on them. Most of the other universities have those and we are about to start that campaign. President Schwartz asked Mr. Brian Johnston to come up to the podium to speak on that. Mr. Johnston has the envious job, as Director of Public Relations and Publications, of getting this going for us. He sees window stickers and other university license plates on cars all over the place but he doesn’t see ours because we don’t have license plates. Brian will help us get one.

Mr. Brian Johnston said that he was listening about the budget information and thought that what he has to talk about seems trivial by comparison, but in a way it doesn’t. There probably has never been a greater need for us to pull together and get the word out in every way we can and he thinks, as President Schwartz said so well, this is a great way to get the word out. It is amazing what people will think about your institution if they just see evidence that there are supporters out there in numbers. The license plate may be a small way to show that but we do have an opportunity to do just that. What we are looking at immediately is a two-step process before we actually see plates on cars. The first step, which we are ready to roll out right now, is for the State to grant our request to produce a Cleveland State University plate. We need to solicit a minimum of 150 signatures on a petition saying that they endorse the idea of a Cleveland State license plate and they would support it by purchasing plates when the plates are available. The first phase is to just round up 150 signatures. He brought some petition forms with him. If anyone would care to sign on the dotted line today, that would be great. He would encourage everybody to sign up, and he would be glad to send around additional forms. The bottom of the form mentions Sherry Robinson who is the secretary in his department. Signed petitions should be sent back to her. We have a goal of March 1, 2004 to try to wrap this up. Share them with friends and neighbors, colleagues and students, and help get the word out. The second phase after we get the 150 signatures, is to move ahead with selling the plates. The details as he knows them today are to get one of these plates, you would pay out of your pocket per year $35.00 additional over what you currently pay. He is hedging on a number because based on what county you live in or various versions of special plates, we may pay different amounts each year. So whatever you are now paying, there would be a $35.00 increase. The benefit is that most of that $35.00 would come back to Cleveland State and we would propose to use that for a student scholarship fund. Please keep in mind before we can move ahead, we need the signatures. He is also looking at events on campus that we can bring these petitions to. Any way that you can help here would be appreciated. We will be publicizing this pretty much everywhere we can to get the ball rolling. When we get the good news about the plates, we will let you know about an aggressive marketing program and let you know how you can get your plates. He passed a sample plate around which he felt was attractive. We can’t all have “Go Vikes” so picture that you might have “AN369QQ” in the Vikes area, but we can be creative and the State of Ohio seems to be cooperative.

Dr. William Bowen asked President Schwartz what the budget cut would mean. He inquired whether it was feasible to even think in rough terms what a $22 million cut means.

President Schwartz responded that what it means is one of two things: either he will just give him the keys on the way out, or we probably would be put in the position of fundamentally privatizing this institution and everything that that implies. That is what it means. He added that what it also means is that this State, if all of the above were to come to pass, would be making a statement that it wants out of the public higher education business. Miami of Ohio has already given them a leg up on saying that – their tuition policy is a policy that they have fundamentally privatized. The question that floats down around Columbus and places south of I-70 is, “If they can do it, why can’t the rest of you do it?” He is not going to do that and he is not giving up on the notion of public higher education – not here or anywhere else. He is not giving up on it. And that is why he is now really tied to it because he had his annual physical and Mrs. Schwartz will be pleased to know that the insurance is paid up and he is okay. And as long as he is okay, he is staying in this fight and he needs everyone with him.

IX. New Business

A. Security Issuesin Recreation Facilities (Report No. 16, 2003-2004)

Professor Andrew Gross indicated that he had two items to bring up and he is hoping for a response from Ms. Alice Khol, Associate Director of Athletics who is present.

Dr. Gross first asked Ms. Khol about a new security policy in Woodling Gym, and inquired whether she could outline the program that has been posted on the doors in and around Woodling Gym.

Ms. Khol reported that over the years we have had a lot of problems trying to maintain security in the recreation facility at the Physical Education building. The biggest problem that students have is that they pay a great deal of student fee money in order to use the recreation facilities but they find that the facilities are being used by people who are not members of the Cleveland State family. The latter don’t contribute any form of student fee money, which is necessary to pay for the facility’s upkeep. Her budget in recreation is 100% student fee money. She doesn’t get any allocation from any other budget line. Ten years ago we had an ID checker in the front lobby area. Under that system you would come in and you were asked to show your ID, and then you would get into the facility. This presented a couple of problems. The first person in the front door would then let ten people in from the back door. There are about 40 different entrances into the recreation facilities so having a front ID check proved to be fruitless. Everybody just came in the back doors that were propped open. The other issue was that because classes are taught in the Physical Education buildings some of the physical education majors, if they didn’t bring an ID, would say, “If I don’t get to my class, I can fail the class and then I hold you responsible. This is the only building where I am required to show an ID in order to get to my classroom.” It was a valid point. What was done to deal with this problem was to send student workers to the areas that are called “attracted nuisances” -- the areas that the people who want to use recreation facilities would go into – the locker room, the weight room, the pool, and the gym. During open recreation hours, these students were posted in these attracted nuisances areas to check IDs and allow access only to those individuals having IDs. The problem with this is that once you have an ID, you always have an ID. You may not have been a student for ten years, but when you walked in, as long as you showed an ID, you could get into the facility. This goes back to the students’ complaints that their student fee money continues to be bumped up but they don’t get to have the full benefit of the facilities. There was no way for us to determine what was a valid ID and what was not. In 1999, we started talking about installing a card reader so that we would be able to read the Viking Card and hand the person what we call a “facility pass.” The facility pass is presented either in the weight room, the pool, or in the gym, and that allows you to have access to the recreation facility. That is what was put in. We have finally gotten the facility wired, and access to it was started on Monday, February 2, 2004. We are doing two weeks of what we call “soft ID” checks where we are swiping the ID. If the ID is not showing up as being valid, we are telling the person that right after President’s Day we are going to be enforcing this policy. We have been working closely with the Viking Card shop and we have just been telling the people that it may be a magnetic strip problem. Whatever the problem may be, get your card checked because in two weeks you will not be able to get into the facilities with your card because it is not valid. So we have started to have some problems where people are having their cards swiped and they are not valid. The main problem is that they are not members of the CSU family. They don’t pay any student fees to use the facility. What we are seeing now is that a number of students have come to her and said thank you for giving back to us our facility. This has made her realize that this is now a positive situation.

Professor Gross commented that he has watched this university grow for 35 years before the Physical Education building was here. He has been a big user of that building which is one of the great joys at CSU, and there are many other faculty and staff members who enjoy going to the gym. He has a little trouble, however, with Dr. Khol’s intent, which generally he applauds. He has a problem with the substance and the style of her report. If such changes are going to be instituted, - and he gets umpteen messages on mass email that he would rather not get, - this one he would love to have gotten some weeks ago so that people could respond to it. That is the way to do it, rather than just posting signs around the gym. With regard to security, which is very important, he would say that the major backdoor facing Chester, at the basement level, is as often propped open as it is closed. He is not sure that anyone is going to circumvent that. Furthermore, faculty and staff and physical education majors use SB-3 as a locker room, and people can come in under her policy and break into lockers because there is no supervision. They can walk into the building and break-ins have occurred in that room and in other rooms. Again, a policy that says that at the basement level you go to the equipment manager to exchange your ID for a facility usage card does not address the security needs of the whole building. In addition, given the limited time that is available to him, he is not keen to line up behind 15 students to exchange his card when he comes over for a quick swim or workout. So, once again, you are not intercepting people at the appropriate entrances, which would be on the main floor upstairs. They could come in, even under the new policy. People will be able to sneak in. To bring the matter to closure, Dr. Gross said that he was glad Ms. Khol came to Senate to publicize this problem. It would be good to put it on mass email and, in his humble opinion, which is never humble, he would like her to think about any kind of feedback she may get in the next two weeks. (She had announced the policy yesterday and said it would take effect in two weeks.) Maybe there might be feedback from Senate or from elsewhere. Put it on mass email to see if people salute. If most people have suggestions to improve this policy, then maybe she needs to think about adopting some of the better suggestions.

Ms. Khol responded that the students who work in the facility are put in a very difficult situation where they have to look at an ID and allow people to have entrance. Though she appreciates Dr. Gross standing in line behind 15 students, what very often happens is that it is very difficult for the students allowing access to anybody to do so quickly, one over another. This has been what probably has cost her the most student workers that just come upstairs and quit. The whole idea of this policy was to make sure that everybody is treated equally. One of the problems in the past is where people, whether they are friends of the individual working the facility or professors that would walk in and say, “Well I showed you my ID yesterday and you know who I am.” The problem this presents to the students working the entrance is that while they are sitting in the chair and they let you in because they may know you, there may be two minority students who they are holding back, requiring them to have an ID. Under these conditions it is very difficult to tell them, “I’m sorry, you can’t get in unless you show an ID.” Sometimes, it becomes a very racially tense situation where some individuals are permitted to go in without any type of ID, while others are held back and required to show an ID. You have to work there and understand it. Dr. Kenneth Sparks can tell you that this is a huge issue over in our building. It is a terrible situation for someone to accuse you of racial bias one way or the other. It is not an issue that we take lightly. It is a horrible situation for our students. Again, most of our students who quit have quit because of that situation. This policy was put in motion so that everyone is treated equally – students and staff. We used to have a person called the “back door” person. That person’s job was to sit in a chair and guard the back door. The problem here is there are another 38 doors that do open to the facility, and she can’t see through all of them.

Dr. Sanda Kaufman asked if it was easier to just put the card reader next to the entrances so that people can get in.

Ms. Khol replied that they have been talking about doing that but with a new recreation facility, there is at least a $1500 charge for each card reader, and that is without the wiring. What we are doing now is like a test or a pilot program working with the Viking Card shop to install one card reader to see how that works. This is being done instead of installing a card reader in the weight room, which is going to be torn down in the summer, or at the pool. Those areas are going to be addressed within the next two years with the new facility.

Professor Sanda Kaufman asked if 38 entrances are necessary. Ms. Khol responded that there is no way to shut or lock those doors because they are all emergency doors. They cannot be locked – they have panic bars. She said that those doors are not there because she wants them. They cannot be changed. It is a fire hazard not to have them. There is just no way around that one. They have looked at that.

Professor Gross stated that this is exactly his point. This policy is not going to solve the security problem. All you need is one valid CSU student, faculty, or staff who comes through and props open one of the emergency doors. As he has already stated, the quadruple door at the North end is propped open more often than not for craftsman, repairman, outside suppliers, etc. What he is trying to say nicely is that as far as the use of the facilities is concerned, you may cut down on people who are not CSU people. In terms of security, however, which means security for all races, all genders, etc., you are not going to cut that down. People will be able to sneak in; people will sneak in, and there will be further break-ins. So the ID checks do not address the other half of the problem. It addresses maybe half of the problem as to access to the actual facility – track, weight room, dome, pool, and the like. By the way, the swimming pool check always asks for an ID. The new system is not going to address the security issue and it doesn’t solve it, period. That is how he sees it.

Senate President Konangi suggested that Professor Andrew Gross meet with Ms. Alice Khol to discuss his issues.

  • Evaluating the Graduate Dean (Report No. 17, 2003-2004)

Dr. Andrew Gross noted that his next point comes through the College of Business. He has observed not one or two or three, but dozens of his colleagues immediately filing all of those envelopes designated for the evaluation of the Graduate Dean in the circular file. He suggested two things:

First, the substance is, how do you evaluate the Graduate Dean? He submitted to Dr. Shorrock, Vice Provost, the notion that the vast majority of the graduate faculty has no way of evaluating the Graduate Dean, and especially to make the determination of whether he is “excellent or satisfactory.” As to the style, he would hope that it could be done by either email or sealed envelope, because what comes from the Provost’s Office is one very large envelope, then a reply envelope, with an enclosed white envelope. Many institutions are counting paper clips. This is a big waste of paper in his view. The process needs to be reformed. We need to then address, as Dr. Shorrock says, a certain provision of the Green Book which is fine (Section 8.1.5 B) 3)). He concluded by noting that he has submitted these remarks to Dr. Shorrock and Provost Chin Kuo for their consideration.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that basically that is just a request to have the issue referred to the University Faculty Affairs Committee.

Senate President Konangi added that if anyone has specific ideas on ways in which the Green Book can be amended or would like to see amended, please send them to him and he will make sure that the relevant standing committees address this issue. We cannot do it on the floor of the Senate.

Dr. Jane McIntyre suggested that we should give them an open charge if we wish to consider the manner of the evaluation of the Graduate Dean and not merely one specific set of suggestions.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.

Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate President

/vel

 

[Top of Page]