II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the November 5, 2003 Meeting
IV. University Curriculum Committee
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. University Faculty Affairs Committee
VII. University President's Report
IX. New Business
PRESENT: E. Anderson, Angelova, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, W. Bowen, Boyle, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Ghorashi, Gross, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, LaGrange, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, Mills, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Rafiroiu, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: C. Alexander, Atherton, D. Ball, Charity, Flynn, Forte, Hanlon, Hanniford, Hoke, Jeffers, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Misra, J. Nolan, O'Donnell, Quigney, L. E. Reed, Rom, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, Sparks, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Webster, F. White, Zhou
ALSO PRESENT: Govea, Meiksins, Steinbacher
Senate President Vijaya Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:03 P.M.
I. Eulogy for Rudolph Bubalo (Music)
Rudolph Bubalo, Professor Emeritus of Music, died on Saturday, January 24, 2004 at his home in Cleveland Heights . He was 76.
Professor Edwin London delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Rudolph Bubalo.
“In the English language, we can have the ability, I hope, to get some sort of rapport with this poetic vision and with our desire to cope with it.
“The thing that hath been
is the thing that shall be and
that which is done is that which shall be done and
there is no new thing under the sun
“Very powerful text letting us know that there are desires to be original;
we may out stretch our will.
“If it is rhythm you're about
and you feel like stepping out
all ya gotta shout is
let me off uptown
“Just as my fingers on these keys make music
so the self-same sounds on my spirit make a music too
for music is feeling then, not sound
“I made my song a coat
out of old mythologies
covered with embroideries
from heel to throat
but the fools caught it
wore it in the world's eye as though they'd wrought it song
let them take it
for there's more enterprise in walking naked
“You push the first valve down
the music goes round and round ooohh oh oh
and it comes out here
“Music when soft voices die lingers in the memory
“Wha'cha know Joe
I don't know nothin
wha'cha know Joe
tell me somethin'
wha'cha know Joe
I'm not foolin' had no schoolin'
I don't know
“To an open sod I wend my way
and all labor of saintly days lost lost without meaning
“A wonderful fact to reflect upon
that every human creature
that profound secret and mystery
to each other
“Strike up the music
The band has begun
The Pennsylvania Polka
Pick out your partner
And join in the fun
The Pennsylvania Polka
It started in Scranton
It's now number one
It's fun to entertain ya
Everybody has a mania
To do the Polka from Pennsylvania
“Better is a handful with quietness than both the hands
filled with “Travail and vexation of spirit
“It's spring again birds on the wing again start to sing again their old melody
“God bless you Rudolph Bubalo; see you around one of these days.”
Senate President Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Rudolph Bubalo.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 4, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
Proposed new Minor in Environmental Science (Report No. 18, 2003-2004)
Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposal for a new Minor in Environmental Science. The minor consists of existing courses largely in the Department of Biology, and includes courses in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. The minor seemed uncontroversial to the members of the UCC. There was an error in the earlier version of the proposed minor, however, as identified on the Senate Agenda, where it was labeled as “Environmental Studies.” It is not “Environmental Studies,” rather it is “Environmental Science.” There is an existing minor in Environmental Studies already, which is quite different. Professor Meiksins apologized for that error. The UCC recommends the new Minor in Environmental Science to Faculty Senate for approval.
Professor Michael Spicer noted that the Urban Studies Graduate Director, Professor Michael Wells, has some concerns about the lack of consultation between Urban Studies and BGES on all undergraduate environmental programs. Urban Studies has had a long history of cooperation with the department that goes back to the days of Mike Tevesz and Pete Clapham. The College of Urban Studies is concerned, not so much about this measure, but about another measure, presently under consideration by the UCC, regarding changes in the undergraduate Environmental Science program. The College feels that the effects of these changes are in a direction that downplays its own participation in the program by eliminating its involvement through consultation.
Professor Meiksins responded that he was not aware of any problem. He noted that Professor Spicer was referring to a change that was made in the Environmental Science major that is not before Senate, and which is a revision of an existing major administered through the Biology/Geology program. The latter came to the UCC at the same time this new minor did. The UCC considered that separately and that is not a Senate matter which is why it is not before Senate. There is a member of the Urban Studies faculty on the University Curriculum Committee who saw the changes that were being made and raised some questions about them. These were discussed. The UCC agrees that when departments collaborate with one another on programs of this kind, that is where a program asks another to add their course to an existing major, it is desirable that consultations occur. The UCC generally requires that there be some indication that the major is acceptable to all parties. This case, however, involved a reduction in the number of credit hours of Urban Studies courses that are being required by the program. There are still a number of Urban Studies courses required. Inasmuch as this is a program administered by the BGES, it didn't seem appropriate to insist that a BGES program ask permission from the College of Urban Studies to not view this as one of their courses. Potentially, this could become very complicated.
Professor Spicer noted that permission was not the issue. The issue was consultation.
Professor Meiksins fully agreed with Professor Spicer. In fact, once he became aware of this situation, he sent an email to the director of the BGES program with a copy to Professor Wendy Kellogg, who is the person who contacted Dr. Meiksins about the revision to the existing major. He regrets that this did not happen in the present case. He can only ask that departments that collaborate should actually collaborate.
Professor Spicer was worried that this may be a result of the proposed new budgetary system: all boats on their own bottom, which will lead to a beggar type policy with respect to development of interdisciplinary programs.
Professor Meiksins stated that he hoped Professor Spicer is wrong.
Professor Spicer noted that the first signs are not hopeful. Even looking at this proposed minor, which is supposedly a science minor, we notice that while there are courses in environmental law regulation compliance, no courses are listed in the department of Urban Studies in the environmental area.
Professor Meiksins stated that he is at a loss as to what to do. It is not within the power of the UCC to require that departments make use of other courses in their programs. It is up to departments to determine their own curricula, and that is the reality. If the Senate would wish the University Curriculum Committee to develop policies and recommend them to the Senate as to how to do it in those situations, he would be happy to entertain a motion to that effect. We could discuss it. He doesn't know that we would be able to develop policies that say that but we could certainly try it.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The Senate unanimously approved the proposed new Minor in Environmental Science.
Professor Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that the committee has four items all related to commencement in one way or the other.
A. Proposed Revisions to University Honors Policy for Undergraduate Transfer Students (Report No. 19, 2003-2004)
The first proposed policy change actually is a fairly radical change in the sense that the Admissions and Standards Committee and the Academic Steering Committee approved a change in the Honors Policy for Undergraduate Transfer Students. Currently the policy is that we add together Cleveland State University 's work with transfer credit, whether it is a two-year college or a four-year college or we take Cleveland State alone, the lower of those two options. That is what our honors are based on. We propose to calculate honors based only on CSU credits. The student must have 60 hours of CSU credits to quality. The latter also is new. The third part is simply for students caught in transition. They can request their rights under the catalog under which they entered if they wish to still combine the two.
There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote. The Senate unanimously approved the proposed revisions to the University Honors Policy for Undergraduate Transfer Students.
B. Proposed Revision to Undergraduate Participation in Commencement Policy (Report No. 20, 2003-2004)
Professor Steinbacher noted that the second item is the Undergraduate Policy on Participation in Commencement. The Policy is simply that students must be registered for or have completed all remaining courses required to fulfill graduation requirements in order to participate in the ceremony. Any exception has to be approved by the dean of the college.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked how this would be enforced for undergraduates. Who is going to be the police person standing at the door checking to see if only people who have registered for all of the courses they should have registered for participate? It is not like the doctoral students where it is a one on one relationship and the thesis advisor can say yea or nay to that person participating in commencement. She asked if it is self-enforcing.
Senate President Konangi responded that the Registrar's Office has an enforcement mechanism based on the student filing the graduation application.
Dr. Steinbacher replied that the Admissions and Standards Committee was assured that once the degree audit system is in place, this will take care of the latter rather easily, although the ASC has been asked the question about the commencement police more than once. She is assured that the degree audit system will take care of that.
Senate President Konangi noted that his basic understanding is that when the student files the application for graduation, that goes through the whole process including all the way to the department and any remaining courses have to be identified at that time. The student is then formally notified. So that is used by the Registrar's Office to determine who gets to participate.
Dr. Jane McIntyre noted then that the Registrar's Office only sends the actual commencement materials to people who they have checked the registration of to make sure that the things listed on that form are actually registered and they actually notify the student. She knows what the graduation application looks like but somebody is actually then checking that before commencement to make sure that those things are correct. She knows that they don't get the degree unless they have done those things, but is somebody actually checking it before commencement?
Dr. Steinbacher responded that right now, no, but with the new system supposedly yes. The Committee was told we are not geared up yet.
Dr. Jane McIntyre said that she assumed that we are not doing it now but we will be able to do it.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The proposed revision to the Undergraduate Participation in Commencement Policy was unanimously approved.
C. Proposed Policy for Participation of Master Degree Recipients in Commencement (Report No. 21, 2003-2004)
Professor Steinbacher noted that the third policy has to do with participation of Master's Recipients in Commencement. It is very much the same as for undergraduates except the second item, “have defended his or her thesis or completed any required exit project, capstone course or other exit requirement for the degree.” That is the new part.
Professor Jane McIntyre stated that, especially because she is a graduate program director, she is very concerned that it is not spelled out here, as it is for the doctoral students. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that the person who registered her thesis but may not have passed the thesis or registered her comps, and may not have passed comps does not participate in commencement? This could be very unpleasant.
Dr. Steinbacher agreed with Dr. McIntyre. This came from Graduate Council and there is no mechanism for sign-off except the usual graduation sheet.
Professor Jane McIntyre commented that graduation sheets are filled out a full semester in advance. A person in good faith registers for thesis but may not have completed their thesis, or they register for their exit project course and may not have completed that, but they would have gotten the commencement materials and, in the past, very often those people did attend commencement. Somebody ought to say who is supposed to be doing this, unless we intend it to be self-enforcing. That is fine but we are just going to assume there will be a certain slippage.
Senate President Konangi said that he did not have a good response to Dr. McIntyre's concern. Let's also keep in mind that this is only participation in commencement. It doesn't change actual graduation requirements as far as that is concerned.
Dr. McIntyre stated that she understands that this proposal doesn't change whether anybody graduates or what their requirements are. Personally, she is not so sure that this is a bad thing for somebody to attend commencement even if they have two more weeks of work to do before their piece is accepted. She is not advocating a harsh policy. This seems harsh and we are not saying who is supposed to be the bad cop here.
Professor John Bazyk noted that there are some students in Health Sciences who once they complete their course work on campus, they do field experience for six months. The way he reads this proposal, they would be registering for that fieldwork as courses for summer and fall, and because they have registered for that, they can march in the spring commencement. He asked if that is true. He added that these are courses that the students have registered for.
Senate Vice President Mieko Smith stated that she is a member of Graduate Council and if she understood correctly, at the Graduate Council meeting there is a mechanism to check up on graduation eligibility. She is talking about students meeting graduation requirements. Field practicum is also a course. If students haven't completed the second part of the field practicum, then they haven't completed the required courses.
Professor John Bazyk stated that the way he reads this proposal is that if the students are registered, and they do register for these kinds of courses in the spring, they cannot participate in graduation.
Dr. Mieko Smith noted that they can participate if they are going to complete them in the spring.
Professor Bazyk pointed out that the policy doesn't say that.
Dr. Steinbacher agreed that the proposed policy doesn't say that. Her understanding (from Graduate Council) was that where the student is registered for such a fieldwork course in the spring semester and it goes on [beyond spring, since there is no time limit on how long it may go on], that this wasn't addressed or discussed.
Professor Edward Thomas asked Dr. Steinbacher if she had a notion of what the problem is that we are trying to solve. We now have two commencements where we only had one before, and we had at times where students were in two or three of those. We thought they were finishing, but they marched again the next time. Are we trying to kind of force people into making a commitment to one or the other of the commencements? Are we trying to keep people from going through this a couple of times? He thinks he heard at the Academic Steering Committee meeting that we are heading in the direction of actually handing out real diplomas for people who have completed their requirements instead of a blank piece of paper that says come back later. He asked Dr. Steinbacher if she could explain what the problem is that we are trying to solve so that it makes more sense.
Mr. Edward Mills, Executive Director of Student and Administrative Services, responded that actually it is sort of all of the above. In looking at the problems that have occurred for some of them, we have a lot of students that have been able to participate in graduation in some cases with more than ten or twelve credits remaining, and they have participated in commencement. That is one of the issues. A secondary issue is with the implementation of the degree audit which we are over half way through in putting all of the requirements and prerequisites in. We can actually tell fairly clearly who the graduation population is going to be. We will be able to really streamline and move up our graduation checks into that same semester so that we can be very efficient working with the colleges about who is actually eligible. Lastly, we would love to move to a structure where Dr. Schwartz could actually have the diploma. We could verify as much as the day before on the graduation schedules and adjust those.
Senate President Konangi noted another question was: “Who is responsible, for example, to make sure that the student is registered for or has completed all of the required courses? Which office is specifically responsible for determining all of this?”
Mr. Ed Mills responded that this is actually being done. The University Registrar's Office is going to go ahead and do that in collaboration right now with the colleges. The degree audit actually makes that an automated process as we move forward. We are gathering all of those specific requirements working with each college as those are all input in which the majority of them are at the moment. We actually can verify almost immediately if somebody hasn't met all of their requirements and/or are registered.
Dr. Jane McIntyre asked if that would go to the master's students as well, because those requirements are not met at the time. Mr. Ed Mills stated that the other requirements come in for a student that is in a graduate program. Those are faculty determined -- if their thesis is approved and their defense is approved, etc. We do get the information through Dr. Tumeo's office that tells us that those milestones have been met. But we can't actually do anything until the faculty has made that decision and then we can track the result of that decision. So it is a little different for graduate students. We are working with the Graduate School and the Graduate School can actually determine that. We would do that in concert with Dr. Tumeo.
Professor William Bowen stated that this puts an onerous burden on timing. If somebody finished his or her thesis the day before the end of the semester and is eligible to walk that semester, it means that the information has to go to the Graduate School , and then to the Registrar or the people who control graduation. All this must be done within a day or two, right?
Senate President Konangi responded: “Not necessarily, however, once we get to that stage, what Dr. Bowen is saying is true.” As things stand now, because we give students a bogus [or symbolic] diploma during the commencement ceremony, the student can walk through graduation, even if he was registered and has gotten an “I” grade at the end of the semester.
Professor Bowen stated that he wants to avoid the situation in which a student must register the subsequent semester because of our inability to meet the timing requirements that are entailed in whatever decision we make here today.
Professor John Bazyk asked to follow-up what he was asking before. Is he clear in his understanding that if a student in the spring registers for summer and even fall courses that are required for the degree and has completed all of the other degree requirements, that that student can march in the spring ceremony? This is an issue for some of these students who are doing their field experience out of town, or out of state. They are in town at graduation time, and they would like to march because they may not be able to come back to march in December.
Mr. Ed Mills replied that currently they have the ability to request to participate in commencement in the spring. There are some other restrictions for graduate students and specifically for undergraduates. Professor Bazyk stated that this is for graduate students. Mr. Mills responded that graduate students are required to be enrolled in that semester and to have completed by the decision of their faculty advisor. It is typical that they are enrolled in one credit.
Professor Bazyk stated that the way he is reading the proposal, is that the students have to be registered. It doesn't say what semester or that they are to be registered for subsequent semesters. So, his question is, “Can these students participate in commencement?” Mr. Mills stated that his understanding from Graduate Council is that for the doctoral students, they have to be registered in that final semester.
Professor Bazyk stated that he is asking about the masters students. Mr. Mills responded that Dr. Tumeo and the Graduate Council has to amend that to approve master's students as well. So right now it is covered that way for doctoral students and this would include master's students in the same requirement as the doctoral students.
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that in reading over the difference between what the Graduate Council is proposing for master's degree recipients and what we approved for undergraduates; for the latter we are allowing them to participate in commencement if they were registered for all of the courses they should have been registered for and we are not saying to an undergraduate student if you happen to get an incomplete in one of your classes you have registered for, you cannot walk in commencement. We are not taking that harsh a stance and that seems appropriate. But to the graduate students, we are seemingly saying that if they have not actually completed everything that they needed to complete -- exit project, thesis, whatever -- that they are not supposed to participate in commencement. That is potentially sort of harsh and she would like more of a rationale for why we are having this difference in approach to the undergraduates and the master's students. For doctoral students, it is a different ball game.
Senate President Konangi asked if a member of Graduate Council can recall what the discussion was.
Dr. Mieko Smith noted that Dr. McIntyre's question never came up about being harsh. It went to Graduate Council in order to maintain the integrity of graduate programs because they wanted to make sure that the students who are going to march would be completing their courses at that point. That was her understanding. From there on you can debate the value of that intent and that she cannot do here at Senate.
Professor Edward Thomas stated that the discussion in Graduate Council basically was that they got the proposal in which item one, they be registered for (or have completed) all course work required and in item two, have defended his or her thesis. Graduate Council added the other language to take into account the fact that not all master's degrees have the same kind of exit requirements, etc. and the concern was about making sure that all of those things were included. As far as he can remember, there really was no discussion about the mechanics of this or what the negative impact might be.
Professor Susan Hill stated that some of Dr. Jane McIntyre's concerns might be addressed in the “Any exception.” There is a line at the bottom of the proposal that says, “Any exception must be approved in writing by the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies .” So maybe if there is a student who has this circumstance or has the circumstance we are talking about, they can just get that approved in writing and they can march. If there are a million, perhaps we can change the policy.
Professor Mieko Smith commented: “For example, if a student is from overseas and has to go home, that kind of special situation can be permitted by special permission of the Dean. So that is the kind of thing I can think of as an exception.”
Professor Lewis Patterson indicated that he was still having trouble understanding the intent of the first of the two requirements. He has spent a lot of time in academics and when he read the document, he assumed that what it was telling him was that if, in the spring semester a student expects to graduate in the spring, he/she should have completed all of the requirements except for those courses in which he/she is currently registered and which one would reasonable assume he/she would finish that semester. The comment that has been brought up twice has still not been addressed and it suggests that somebody might be registered for something that is beyond the date of the graduation ceremony. As the document reads, he is inclined to believe that if there is a process by which they are officially registered, even if they don't complete the work for a semester or two, they can march in the spring. If that is what the committee intends, then the wording is fine. If, on the other hand, what the committee intended was his first reading of it, that they either have their work done or it is going to be done by graduation day, then the wording doesn't accomplish that.
Senate President Konangi stated that his understanding is that the committee did not intend to exclude the former students; not that they positively and affirmatively wanted it to happen but they didn't exclude the students whose work was still left undone.
Professor Mehmet Ozturk inquired, “How much is the commencement fee?”
Mr. Ed Mills responded that he believes the commencement fee is $30.
Professor Ozturk then asked, “Why would someone want to walk more than once?” Senate President Konangi added that to this must be added the cost of renting robes, etc. Professor Ozturk stated that if a student thinks he or she will be able to complete their course work by the commencement date, it is the students' responsibility to check his/her status with the Registrar. A deadline can then be set up to transfer any already paid fees for the next commencement, say about one month before the commencement date. That should take care of all of the problems.
Senate President Konangi agreed with Professor Ozturk.
Professor Michael Spicer stated that in light of the problems that seemed to have surfaced in this discussion regarding policing of these requirements, the University should be very cautious in regard to actually handing out real degrees at the graduation.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The proposed policy for Participation of Master Degree Recipients in Commencement was defeated.
D. Proposed Requirements for Doctoral Student Participation in Graduation Ceremonies (Report No. 22, 2003-2004)
Dr. Roberta Steinbacher stated that the fourth policy is the process for Doctoral Student Participation at Commencement. To her knowledge and what the committee heard from Graduate Council, nothing has changed on the proposed policy for the Ph.D. requirement.
There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote on the proposed policy. The Senate approved the proposed requirements for Doctoral Student Participation in Graduation Ceremonies unanimously.
Proposed Revisions to the Strategic Planning Document (Report No. 23, 2003-2004)
Professor Rodger Govea, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that the proposed revisions to the Strategic Planning document are in response to the original University Planning Committee document, Report No. 35, 2002-2003 which was included in the meeting materials. In addition, included is a memorandum from the University Faculty Affairs Committee listing five recommendations. The UFAC was given the charge by the Academic Steering Committee of reviewing the original document and making recommendations with an eye toward first, reducing the amount of commitment of the faculty and administrative resources to the process of streamlining the structure, and also with an eye toward using already existing committees wherever possible. This is the genesis of most of the immediate recommendations. He was not sure what the Senate's pleasure was in terms of how to deal with all of the recommendations. He suggested discussing them as five separate motions.
Professor Govea noted that the first of the recommendations is:
1) The elimination of the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee (PRPAC) from the University Steering Planning Committee document in favor of the currently-developing program review process.
Professor Susan Hill informed the Senate that last year she sat on the Planning Committee that actually came up with this model, and she would like to speak against a number of the proposed recommendations in the UFAC document. For an entire year, the faculty representatives on the Steering Committee who worked for this document insisted and argued for faculty involvement in the strategic planning process of this university. The Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations presently before the Senate are actually reducing faculty participation in the strategic planning process. She stated that she can understand why we don't want to create many more committees, but if we are going to reduce committees, we should reduce some that already exist and free up faculty time for these four most important committees that lead the university forward. In the original plan, referring to page 9 of the document that explains strategic planning, we see a picture of the four committees. The first suggestion or revision proposed by the Faculty Affairs Committee eliminates the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee or PRPAC. What's different in the model being proposed is that the administration and faculty are working together at all levels of the strategic planning process. If we just say the current Faculty Program Review Committee takes the place of PRPAC, we are actually eliminating the review of administrative units on campus. However, we really do want to review the administrative units, along with the faculty units. The reason we did not say that the current program review committee would take the place of the latter in this model is because we thought the ensuing workload would be too extreme. However, if you really intend to reduce faculty involvement, then the faculty presently involved in the Program Review Committee could also be the faculty on the PRPAC. On the contrary, however, one would want faculty on all four of these committees outlined on page 9. We are prone to forget how hard it is to get faculty to serve on these committees. We tried to model these committees after the PBAC, i.e. the current Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, since everyone felt that that model worked well. We tried to create the same kind of model for program review and planning. as well as for capital planning. To say that the faculty does not want to participate in these committees is to take faculty out of the strategic planning process. Dr. Hill added that that would be very dangerous.
Professor Rodger Govea responded that from the Faculty Affairs Committee's point of view, we were faced with a dilemma in looking at the situation because the April 21, 2003 University Steering Planning Committee document would have called for something like 15 or 16 additional faculty to be appointed to various committees. This was originally stated at the Faculty Senate meeting last year and this is just too many faculty, thus the dilemma arises. If you want faculty participation, that is fine, but this is all going to have to be staffed and was seen as being extremely difficult to be able to find enough people to simply take the positions that are outlined in this document. He doesn't know any way out of that dilemma. Either you are going to keep the original process as it existed in the previous document and hope that enough faculty time can be found to do all these tasks or you go the other way. He believes it is a mischaracterization to say that the Faculty Affairs Committee is trying to take faculty out of the process. He simply cannot agree with that. The charge that UFAC was given from the Academic Steering Committee was, in fact, to streamline the process using existing bodies wherever possible and that is what the UFAC did. If Senate disagrees with the charge, that is sort of a problem.
Professor Barbara Hoffman asked Dr. Govea to clarify the intention behind the language. When she reads number one, the elimination of the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee in favor of the currently-developing program review process, it sounds to her like the UFAC is proposing to do away with PRPAC and its constituent.
Senate President Konangi stated that he thinks Dr. Hoffman's question is, “Is it going to be replaced by the Program Review Committee?”
Dr. Govea responded yes, it is a replacement by the already existing group. We can either have the new group that is suggested in this document or we can use the already existing Program Review group.
Professor Hoffman asked if she could hear something more about the participants in the current Program Review Process group.
Dr. Gitanjali Kaul, Vice Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Information Resource Management, commented that one of the things in her mind is that the PBAC is an ongoing standing committee and its membership deals with university life issues. On the other hand, the Program Review Committees are ad hoc committees that are working on college-specific issues and don't even interact with each other. She does not think that people in these ad hoc groups have a clear sense of all of the issues that impact program review. The PBAC analogy is not to compete.
Senate President Konangi wanted to know what Dr. Kaul was suggesting.
Dr. Kaul responded that we need to look at this matter and figure out the purpose of what we are doing. She is not for just setting up committees that don't have any clear function. In streamlining, she added, we need to keep in mind how we would have existing ad hoc committees look at campus issues.
Professor Peter Meiksins said that he was a little puzzled by the whole discussion, especially in some respects because there is a proposal here to modify the existing program review process to build in this new committee. Subsequent to the proposal for this structure, a task force was established by the Provost's Office, in collaboration with the University Curriculum Committee on which Dr. Kaul sits, to consider how to revise the program review process on campus. Given that the present discussion is on-going, this whole matter seems to him to be premature. What it will lead to is the approval of something, whether what Susan Hill proposes or what Rodger Govea proposes, and then we will propose another revision which will then cause us to have to revisit the whole thing again. He is extremely confused at this point as to what precisely is the university's idea on how program review actually should be done.
Dr. Susan Hill commented that the original assumption behind this plan was that there would be on-going planning review committees in the colleges. However, it is now being designed and put into effect so that academic program review committees would be operating. That is aside from this diagram on page 9 of the University Steering Planning Committee document. Those program review committees would submit their reviews to this committee. This committee does not do reviews; it oversees the review and planning processes of the university. We argued in Senate last year that we often go through this program review process, but we never do anything about it. We never take action. This committee is to look at the reviews of not only the academic units in the six colleges but the administrative units, and integrate those reviews into the planning process.
Professor Meiksins stated that he understands that. Part of the charge of the task force that has been established is to look at how we follow up program review and to consider how to do that better. Among the options they may consider is this one. There are other options they may consider. He cannot foresee what they will do. They may propose something quite different. What then?
Dr. Gitanjali Kaul noted that the proposed committee was to have another charge which was to look at the administrative program reviews. That was a substantive enhancement to the planning process. Administrative program review should be coordinated with the academic program review because on a day-to-day basis we are faced with these questions. Should we spend more on computing, should we increase more faculty lines – those are just day-to-day questions. She thought that having a place where we could discuss both academic and non-academic issues was very important.
Provost Chin Kuo commented that there are two issues here. The first one is whether we want to operate on the basis of having an ad hoc committee each time we need it or do you want something more permanent like a standing committee to oversee the entire review process. That is one type of issue. The second issue is how we are going to handle the review process for the academic as well as the administrative side because the NCA requirement is that we have to do both. There has to be a program within the university to take care of all sides of the university. We have to think about something along those lines. There is another good reason beyond NCA requirements. We have a new budget model coming up this coming year. What will happen is that the academic side will be held accountable on its decisions on the revenue side and on the expense side. At the same time, the administrative side will also be held accountable. Before we had one so-called budget summit, which meant that everybody got together to talk about budget. What will happen now is any side, administrative or academic, has the opportunity to challenge the other side – why did you spend this; why did you spend money for that. This will be based on strategic planning and on many other things as well as on the outcome of program review. There is a need to get the faculty involved in both sides of the university instead of just saying, “Oh, we only take care of…”
Senate President Konangi stated that most faculty would actually love to take care of more of the non-academic side.
Professor Leo Jeffres commented that he is on that ad hoc committee and is serving as its chair. He has been wondering what the mission was concerning these changes. He suggested waiting and withdrawing the present proposal, and letting the process continue. Rather than worrying about the number of faculty on committees at this stage, let's talk about the basic process and what we want to put in place. At this early stage of the discussion, we are still trying to figure out the process. Here, the cart is before the horse.
Senate President Konangi noted that this is what the recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee does.
Professor Rodger Govea added that it was with the realization that there was already this other process going on. To insert the proposed committee was in fact to get a step further in the process that is going on. That is in fact the intent of that recommendation.
Senate President Konangi stated that as Peter Meiksins said, we don't know what the result is going to be and we might have to come back and fine tune that portion of the recommendation.
Professor Susan Hill noted that the proposal says: “The elimination of the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee” in favor of the currently developing program review process. Unless what is developing is going to also deal with the administrative portion of the university, we are making a big mistake.
Professor William Bowen spoke in response to what Professor Hill was saying. He said that what is developing is developing in conjunction with the administrative aspects of the university.
Senate President Konangi noted that this is not meant to be a document that is going to be started. If we find out that the program review process is something different from what we expected it to be, we can always come back and change the document. There is nothing that precludes us from changing it one more time.
Professor David Larson said that what he is hearing from some people is that the Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations may be premature they think. Are they being presented now because there was the fear that if action were taken, this whole other report would suddenly find itself implemented? He is wondering why the Faculty Affairs Committee decided to present this at this point instead of waiting, as people have suggested, for some of these other things to be developed.
Professor Rodger Govea responded that the timing of this was that the UFAC was, of course, given the charge of looking at the original document at the beginning of the year. Because of other UFAC business, it wasn't done for some time. Then after the first of the year, there was some initiative taken by the Provost's Office to get this particular document moving. At that point, the University Faculty Affairs Committee decided to move into action and get it out at the earliest possible moment. That is really all he can report about the timing. It has been squeezed forward perhaps.
Provost Chin Kuo commented that his understanding is that the original idea is that this is supposed to be a report from the Presidential Commission. The Faculty Senate was asked to comment on that report before it was submitted to President Schwartz. That is his understanding. There wasn't the intent today that we were going to discuss the body of it and that this become a permanent document. The President still has some room, if he wants to make some adjustments based on the report submitted to him by the committee. That was his understanding.
Senate President Konangi stated that essentially it was put in a state of suspension because of our discussion in the spring of last year. He believes that there was a motion that requested that this be stopped until we had enough time to review it, and provide feedback on it.
Professor Peter Meiksins said that he was glad to hear what Provost Kuo said because it strikes him that this particular piece of it, which is the piece on program review, were it to be implemented in any of the versions under discussion, would require action by the Senate. There is an existing program review process approved by the Senate. The Senate last fall reaffirmed its jurisdiction over changes to the program review process. So were we to say to implement the policy in which a new committee was inserted into the process, which is reasonable, that would have to be brought to Senate, discussed and voted on and acted upon. If this is simply a recommendation to the President's advice and ideas about how to go forward, then that is one matter. But if it is a prescription for how to reform the program review process, it is important that we discuss it at Senate and decide which approach of the program review we wish to take.
Professor Susan Hill explained that the issue is not to change the way we do program review in the colleges. That will still be done however the committee that has just been appointed with Professor Leo Jeffres as chair decides to go about academic program review. It will follow the charge of the Senate and all of our rules, and it will continue. This [the PRPAC] is another committee that was formed above the program reviewing. Assuming that there are also procedures going on for administrative program review, this is an overarching committee to coordinate those program reviews and to integrate those reviews into planning. They do not take the place of each other. However the Faculty Senate wants to go forward or not go forward, they are not the same committees with the same charges and the same function.
Professor Meiksins added to clarify, “He absolutely agrees that the current program review policy as approved by Faculty Senate provides for a mechanism by which the reports are communicated to the administration including reports to the deans, to the Provost and by various other bodies to the University Curriculum Committee.” This committee does not appear in that description of what happens when program review is completed. To implement such a committee, that process would have to be amended by this body and that is what he is saying.
Dr. Leo Jeffres reported that the objection to the planning process was that nothing happens to it. If we get rid of this, you are saying we don't have a mechanism for it and to a certain extent, he thought this structure was to see that something happens to those reports. What you are saying is that you want to eliminate that very thing that we objected to by setting up this ad hoc committee. There is something wrong there.
The second recommendation is: The elimination of the Capital Planning Committee (CPAC) in favor of the existing Committee on Academic Space. There is a standing committee already dealing with much of the domain of the proposed CPAC committee.
Vice President Jack Boyle reported that he was also a member of Dr. Hill's subcommittee on the process so he is sort of speaking with two hats. Every two years, the department of the Vice President for Business Affairs and Finance has to produce a document requesting about $20 million from the State of Ohio for capital basic renovation projects. Right now that document basically is what our department believes the priorities of the university are. The intent of this committee (CPAC) was to broaden the decision-making and priority setting of that document that goes to Columbus . First, that it reflect the strategic planning goals of the university, and second, that it reflect the thinking of the entire university community and not just the Vice President of Business Affairs and the Director of Capital Planning. That was the overall intent. The Academic Space Committee has a very narrow charge, which is much less than the macro position that we were looking at in this community for physical planning. It might be possible that the Academic Space Committee could have its charge broadened or we could work out a way that the two could work in concert, but to just insert that Committee instead of CPAC would be to extremely reduce the impact of what we are trying to do here. We would end up dealing with the issues that the Academic Space Committee deals with which are issues that have to do with the academic side and you may be wise and not be holding the university plan, structure, and all of the capital plans that go on here. We were hoping that we could in fact broaden what we were doing. This would considerably narrow it and make it really ineffective in terms of having any significant impact.
Dr. Rodger Govea stated that with he believed that the priority simply was not the creation of an extra committee. He is not sure that anybody on the committee would be unsympathetic to some sort of expansion of the charge but that really is up to Senate. He also reminded members that this is the second time that they have seen this document and he is a little leery of having it all recommitted back to committee again.
Dr. Jane McIntyre said that she understood that the UFAC has a lot of other business and perhaps this got moved up on the Committee's timetable. In the light of what Vice President Jack Boyle just said, did the UFAC sit down with the people who wrote the original document or with someone like Jack Boyle and discuss the intention behind it before it was sent out of committee?
Dr. Govea responded that the committee did not discuss the document with anyone.
Dr. McIntyre noted that some of the points seem well taken and there may just be a misjudgment on the part of UFAC as to what the intentions behind the design of the structure were. The UFAC did not meet with anyone to talk about how capital planning would take the place of the Committee on Academic Space's work before trying to do that.
Dr. Govea stated that Dr. McIntyre was correct.
Dr. McIntyre noted that this might be a good reason for returning the proposal to UFAC.
President Michael Schwartz noted that the way this plan has been laid out, it achieves some things in a very messy but necessarily messy manner. One of the things it does achieve, which is really critical, is that different segments of the university start talking to each other so that the planning in these areas now can be coordinated. That is very important. Secondly, it is true that at most institutions academic program review is done and put up on a shelf. If anybody asks for it, you usually find a copy somehow but nothing much happens. It seems to him that the original idea, which means more people are involved, was to have the program review process itself overseen and coordinated with the reviews of other non-academic programs or departments. All of that could somehow be brought together to make the institution work more efficiently. What is being proposed here is that we “streamline” the process that, in his opinion, should not be streamlined. It should be in fact expanded with more participation by faculty, if we are going to build consensus around the planning process, and where this institution is going to go. Is that messy? Yes it is messy. Does it work? I don't know yet, but I suspect it will. But the more voices heard in this process, he really believes in the long term, we will be better off. When the original document came forward, President Schwartz said at that time that this is going to be hard to do, but it is the right way to go. Professor Rodger Govea is moving the other way. Streamlining it might make it work a little more efficiently, but there is a difference between being efficient and being effective. This process, as it was originally spelled out, probably won't be terribly efficient, but President Schwartz suspects in the long term it will be much more effective.
Senate President Konangi noted that in his opinion the actual reason for Faculty Affairs taking the approach of trying to streamline the original proposal by using participants from either the faculty or the administration was strictly based on what transpired on the Senate floor last spring. There was quite a bit of concern expressed at that time because of the fact that the original document required around 40 faculty members to fully participate on a regular basis. Because of that concern, Faculty Affairs took the approach of trying to reduce the total number of members.
Professor Rodger Govea replied that Dr. Konangi was correct. The UFAC was responding to the charge received from the Senate and also from the Academic Steering Committee.
Dr. Jane McIntyre indicated that she didn't know what charge Dr. Govea got from the Steering Committee, but she did remember the discussion in Senate last spring. She had a serious concern, which she still has, about the Program Review and Planning Advisory Committee. This was due to the large number of administrators on that committee who may be making and receiving reports about academic programs, and making decisions as to academic programs. The concerns she expressed at that meeting were largely because she thought that critical academic decisions had lost their proper academic vent. She understands that Dr. Govea's proposal would redress that, but now it has lost the overview perspective that seems to be the center of strategic planning. What she hoped for was something that redressed some of the balance on the faculty side, not necessarily making them smaller, but making sure that academic decisions were not going to be made primarily by administrators. The latter would be chosen not by faculty but by the administration, and solely on administrative or financial grounds. The present focus on just making it smaller somewhat misrepresents an important aspect of that discussion.
Senate President Konangi reported that one view expressed last spring, when the original document was discussed, was that the document was perhaps too inclusive, in the sense of expecting that this large number of faculty can reasonably provide the time and commitment to fully participate in the process. The whole process was just too expansive in its nature.
Dr. Susan Hill emphasized that the very nature of the strategic planning process is that it should be inclusive. She noted that she has been at this university forever, and she has heard the complaints forever that the faculty are not involved in the process, how buildings just pop up and nobody knows why or how they got here. This is an opportunity for us to be involved at all levels of university strategic planning. She thought the reason for the large numbers is because they are the result of negotiations between administrators and faculty on whether we could change the compositions of the committee. If we could, for example, on point number two of the present proposal, eliminate the Committee on Academic Space and put classroom space as part of the Capital Planning Committee, that would make more sense than eliminating the Capital Planning Committee. Put Academic Space as a subset of Capital Planning, and eliminate the Space Committee. There surely are ways to streamline. Maybe there are other committees we have that could be eliminated, so faculty does not have to be on them. Faculty will then be able to be on the four most important strategic planning committees of the university.
The third recommendation is: The reduction of the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) from 15 to 9 members. There was no discussion on recommendation three.
The fourth recommendation is: The elimination of timetables. Vice President
Jack Boyle commented that there are specific timetables for the budgets and submissions they were addressing when they set up the timetables. The fourth recommendation really had to do with certain things that had to be done in order for it to flow. The committee will figure that out itself.
The fifth recommendation is: The following of established SGA Processes for appointment to the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). Vice President Boyle stated that he certainly had no problem with recommendation five. He stated that we want student representation.
Professor Susan Hill recommended that the Senate send the proposed recommendations back to the Faculty Affairs Committee along with Dr. McIntyre's suggestion that they meet with the faculty and/or the administrators, i.e. those who were involved with this document. They should try to come up with modifications that keep us involved in the important things, but reduce overall structure to make it more elegant.
Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that the original report was just a report to Senate. She asked if Dr. Hill's suggestion was a motion.
Dr. Vijay Konangi answered that it was not a motion. This item was a discussion item.
Dr. McIntyre asked if the substance of what Dr. Susan Hill was presently discussing was the original report that came from the Committee.
Dr. Konangi again stated that it was only a discussion item. In the last Senate meeting, in spring 2003, there was a motion by Professor Barbara Green, seconded by Professor Jane McIntyre, to suspend the planning process. The intent of the motion was to have the proposed planning process reviewed by the standing committees of Senate, and to bring it back to Faculty Senate for further discussion.
Professor Jane McIntyre stated that she understands that Professor Rodger Govea's committee has done its job. The status of what we have from the University Faculty Affairs Committee is their report to us that interprets this. The original Senate discussion was never a motion that we were approving or disapproving a recommendation. She asked if these recommendations from UFAC are also a motion or can we just have discussion of them. What does UFAC want us to do with this? She asked Dr. Govea if he wants a motion, or is he just informing Senate as to the committee's considered opinion.
Dr. Rodger Govea responded that the UFAC's intent was to bring these recommendations collectively as a motion before the Senate. It is perfectly within the purview of the Senate to decide that they want to remand. It may want to simply vote these recommendations down, and also accept the original report for which there has never been a vote.
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that we were not asked to come to this meeting to vote on this process.
Dr. Govea responded that there is no requirement to do so.
Professor Jane McIntyre stated that at this point it would probably be premature to vote, since the present item wasn't something that Dr. Govea could not bring back to be voted on in some way. People are probably not prepared to do that now.
Dr. Govea stated that a motion to remand it or to commit it to committee, or to lay it on the table, as it were, are options his committee was willing to deal with.
Professor David Larson stated that he was under the impression at the Academic Steering Committee meeting that the University Faculty Affairs Committee was presenting these recommendations as a series of motions to Senate. However, that doesn't mean that this body can't remand it back to committee for further consideration. However, this item was presented to Steering as a series of motions to Senate because when we sent the original report to Faculty Affairs, something needed to happen and this is what they proposed.
Professor Susan Hill moved to remand the University Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations on the Strategic Planning Document back to committee. The motion was seconded by Professor Jane McIntyre, and approved by Senate.
Professor Jane McIntyre asked Senate President Konangi if, at some point, it is proper for Senate to discuss how it wants to proceed with putting on whatever stamp it is going to put on whatever strategic planning process is proposed.
Dr. Konangi replied that this issue can be discussed in the Academic Steering Committee, and Steering can make a recommendation to Senate. We can also do it in the next Senate meeting.
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.
President Michael Schwartz reported that our administrative computing system (PeopleSoft) is going to go down tomorrow, March 11, 2003 , at 5:00 P.M ,. for the conversion to PeopleSoft 8. It will come back up next Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 7:00 A.M. What will be affected will be the administrative systems, HR, payroll, and student systems. Web access will also be affected during this period. During this period all CSU administrative offices will be open, we just won't have any information. The conversion of PeopleSoft 8 has gone very, very well and very smoothly thus far.
President Schwartz also noted that he has been hearing some concerns about the new CSU budget model. People are concerned with what happens if there is an enrollment catastrophe of one kind or another. President Schwartz said that he wanted to be reassuring. In the first year of this implementation, which is the new year to come, no one is going to suffer any catastrophic effects. We are prepared to step in and manage the system during the course of that year, so that nobody gets caught unawares or gets hurt. In the course of that year, however, we do intend to make it pretty clear that we better all get a little more entrepreneurial than we have been. This is all about enrollments, and needs, and program development that can come out of earnings from those programs, and their development. So it is a culture change along with a budget change. But, he wanted to be reassuring that in the next year, people will not be finding themselves on the street because enrollment fell, for whatever the reason might be in any department.
President Schwartz introduced Dr. Earl Anderson and Dr. Mary Jane Saunders. They have accepted one-year appointments as interim deans. Dr. Anderson will be interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and Dr. Saunders will be the interim dean of the College of Science . For those who do not know Dr. Saunders, she was the director of the Biomedical and Health Institute, and came here from the National Science Foundation where she was a program officer in biology.
President Schwartz complimented the College of Business Administration that has, among other things, completed its plans to offer a new undergraduate degree in International Business. What is pleasing about that is that the degree requirements will include course offerings in foreign cultures and languages. The program will encourage internships with international companies in Ohio and the faculty, especially, deserve our congratulations. He wishes the College a lot of luck and great success with this very important program.
President Michael Schwartz commented that everyone may have read that with the approval of the Board of Trustees recently, plans for the conversion of Fenn Tower to student housing have been moved to a fast track. We have been having meetings with the company with regard to what the plans for those suites will look like. That is going well. If anyone has any questions, Vice President Jack Boyle can answer them since he has been sitting in on those meetings.
President Schwartz reported that the Inter University Council presidents met yesterday with Senator Randy Gardner and with Chancellor Chu. The hot topic was the Governor's latest cuts in the budget model. President Schwartz reflected that this is kind of interesting because the Governor set aside so much of the higher education budget and held a large portion of it harmless, that the total cut to the whole budget was around one half of one percent. It wasn't a lot, unless of course, it is your money, and then suddenly it is a lot. President Schwartz didn't remember the number it will cost CSU this year and next, but he does know that the urban university programs in the College of Urban Affairs got hit especially hard. That is the kind of thing one learns to expect in a fundamentally anti-urban environment. Also, Senator Gardner came to visit us and he was very helpful. He will probably be the number two person in the Ohio Senate next year. He was asked especially about a program called TOPS, which is the one whereby the government pays to send government employees back to school for earned degrees. This is a state where the Governor has been hollering that we need more people with degrees. In the Governor's own cabinet, he cannot get people to agree to cut this money loose. This is federal money that enables government employees to come back to school. These students are mostly in the Levin College . Senator Gardner has been trying to figure out what it would take to shake that tree and get that money lose, thereby allowing the government employees to come back to school. He has not been able to get a satisfactory answer, nor has Senator Spada, with whom President Schwartz visited in the afternoon. People are becoming quite frustrated with this delay. The reason it is so important to us is that a large proportion of those loans for those enrollments come to us, because of where we are located. We are working at the problem, but it is an odd one to have in the Governor's office. This would not, however, be the first time that Ohio found itself in the position of having to give back federal money it couldn't figure out a way to spend. We asked Senator Gardner about what he thought was coming as far as the next budget. He didn't see much hope. The revenue picture is still bad as you know, and the real problem is that next year the idea of economic growth is already built into the budget for next year, and it doesn't look like we are going to have much. This means that even though the Governor has announced some cut to us next year, President Schwartz wouldn't be terribly surprised if we saw more than that happen. Tight is the word. We are not getting a lot of help, especially in the House of Representatives where the only thing that really sells in the entire General Assembly is the link between learning and earning. Aside from that, there is no particular interest in higher education. When the Chancellor came to visit with the Inter University Council, he commented that the State's share of the instruction plus the challenge grant money taken together is what has been always understood to be basic funding. We always understood that that was the base funding for the universities – state share of the instruction, success challenge, research challenge, and access challenge – all together, that is the base funding. This time the Governor separated the challenge money out and cut it so he didn't take care of the base funding for the institutions. He thought he did, but he did not. The Chancellor was very disheartened by that, especially with regard to the access challenge money that is supposed to be given to institutions that are access institutions. That money comes to help hold your tuition fees down. Some schools, which have been successful with that, took a big hit.
President Schwartz commented that last week he was in Washington D.C. with some proposals from Cleveland State University for potential earmarks in Congress. He visited with a number or our friends there. They had a very good hearing on the kind of research that is going on at Cleveland State , and supporters are interested in finding ways to fund it. No one said no to us, which felt pretty good. Senator Stephanie Tubbs Jones was especially helpful to us. She doesn't have a whole lot of power on that side of the isle, but where she could she agreed to write letters of support to her colleagues on the other side of the isle on our behalf. That is very helpful to us as well.
President Schwartz stated that on a happier note, after some disappointments in our winter athletic season, six of our wrestlers qualified for the NCAA national championships next week in St. Louis . Those kids are good student athletes and our coaches, Jack Effner and the athletic director, all worked pretty hard making that program work. We should be proud of those people.
Finally, President Schwartz commented that this has been a rough winter in a lot of ways and from his point of view, everybody has worked very hard to make this place go well. With the break coming, he hoped everyone could relax and have some time to think great thoughts, come back refreshed and maybe together we can slay some dragons, so as to make this place even better than it is.
Professor David Larson noted that President Schwartz had reported that payroll is going down, among other things, and he wanted to be sure that everyone would get paid.
President Schwartz assured everyone that they will be paid.
Vice President Mike Droney stated that they were able to run the entire payroll on time. One reason they picked spring break time was that it works very well between the pay dates.
Professor Sanda Kaufman said that she has heard about the change in the budgeting system and what we are going to do, and what is going to happen. However, she hasn't yet heard what the good parts about it are. She has heard about what can go wrong with it but she hasn't heard any statement to the affect: “We are doing this because we are trying to accomplish that, and we are sure we will accomplish it.”
President Schwartz responded that one of the most important outcomes that can happen here is that colleges and the units within them that earn money can be assured that is where that money is going to be. Once they have paid the expenses they have incurred, they will be able to keep some of anything over that – 80% of anything over that they will keep for program development of one kind or another. Those decisions will then be made locally, not centrally. This literally puts the faculty in charge of their own long-term best interests in their own program development, in ways they generally aren't at most universities.
Professor Kaufman commented that she has great concerns about this because the university basically swims or sinks as a whole, and she has some very worrisome feelings. Even though President Schwartz may be right, she doesn't feel that way. For instance, we are already setting up new competition among colleges, competition that was rather fierce before, and we are undermining any attempt at collaboration between the colleges. She is now fully prepared to teach Biology, if that is what it is going to take to maintain our environmental program, because Biology is now teaching Planning. Certainly, Engineering is already teaching Law and Planning, and so she is going to teach Engineering because we are going to have to fight over the same number of students. Each of us is going to tear these students up in every direction. She can see, for instance, whereas now one class that was joint under General Education was making it, would soon become one where each of us is going to try to offer it on our own turf, so that we get the credit. The result may be neither unit is going to make it on their own. These cascading effects are very scary to her. In her view, the future seems to be interdisciplinary. In other words, the students of the future are apparently going to have to fill five jobs in their lifetimes, these jobs are all going to be different, and we are trying to equip them with a host of skills to cope with this future. Dr. Kaufman said that she may be wrong. However, in her estimation, this interdisciplinary activity is not going to happen the way we are trying to operate. It cannot happen in an environment where everybody is pulling you in, and where there is no advantage coming to her personally as a faculty member trying to go across a college, trying that is to cooperate to co-teach a course, to involve another discipline in one of our degrees. She is terribly concerned about that impending isolation.
President Schwartz responded that we are going to skin our knees along the way here. We are going to have some real bumps and a number of problems that we are just simply going to have to address and figure out how to manage. Some departments, no doubt, will really be intensely interested in taking in as much of their own laundry as they possibly can, and the danger in that is that you turn bachelors degrees into mini master's degrees just to keep the dollars flowing into the department. It becomes a zero sum game after a while, and we are going to have to find some ways to manage that. Another problem, which may be a good thing, is that these kinds of issues may force us in maybe the middle range or the longer range to start thinking about new ways to organize the academic life of the university. Instead of perhaps spending all of our lives being led in departments, we might want to start considering our lives being led around problem issues, which we share from department to department, and start thinking about how to reorganize that. Nothing is off the table.
Professor Sanda Kaufman said that she liked that idea.
President Schwartz noted that the question is, “How we can do that? Should we do that? Can we do that?” All of these things will come up. In the meantime, the pluses of doing this, in his opinion, really do outweigh these problems, which are manageable problems. He would like to see the faculty, at least in the early range here, get a feel for their own program development. We may have to step in and mitigate, and this body may have to step in and mitigate against this business of everybody taking in his own laundry. That is a real function for the Senate. The time may come when the Curriculum Committee, having the idea of its function being a regulatory agent, may become more important than it has been. But that is for the faculty to understand. He doesn't disagree with Professor Kaufman. He thinks that there are some real problems here. Now we are going to find out how good we are at managing. But in the long term, he would rather see departments in control of their own future directions because they've got their own capital to invest in the way they think is best for their departments. Maybe that will work.
Professor Lawrence Keller inquired if colleges could decide to create tenure-track positions, if they have the funding. Vice President Jack Boyle responded that he wouldn't dare gaze into the Provost's area.
President Schwartz added that they didn't set any restrictions on that, just so you can keep paying that person.
Provost Chin Kuo commented that if you look at the budget model, to make a long story short, you are deemed able to generate enough revenue to pay two parts – one is your own operation, plus how the university operates. If you generate more revenue than is required for this, you will create a so-called margin; in industry they call it a profit. Eighty percent of that margin stays in the college. Suppose a college continues to grow and you feel very confident that you can hire more faculty, nobody will say no. However, you would not want to take a high risk. That is the decision and the risk you have to take.
President Schwartz commented that the question is, “How much of a high roller do you want to be?”
Professor Barbara Hoffman noted that Provost Kuo was talking about revenue or margin at the college level, but she thought she heard President Schwartz talking about margin at the departmental level.
President Schwartz responded that right now we are holding the units, later the colleges will have to make some determinations within.
Professor Sanda Kaufman referred to her colleague's question about tenure lines. The minute we feel rich we are going to be compelled to hire three adjuncts rather than one tenured person, because that is much more cost effective. And pretty soon, we are not going to be distinguishable from Tri-C, because we will probably be hiring the same people. Anybody who is looking at the two courses, one here and one there, will say, “Why should I pay CSU money to take the course, when I could take it from somebody else more cheaply?” A whole chain of events comes to her mind when she considers the implications of this change.
President Schwartz stated that the hiring of those people is related to answers to questions about strategy. If you are feeling rich, you might want to be investing in some tenure-track positions.
Professor Sanda Kaufman said that she certainly would, but the question is how much of a high roller one is willing to be.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 P.M.
Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate President
[Top of Page]