Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
May 5, 2004

I. Eulogy for Jerrold Burnell (Curriculum/Foundations)
II. Approval of the Agenda
III. Elections
IV. University Curriculum Committee
V. University Curriculum Committee
VI. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee
VII. University President’s Report
VIII. Annual Reports
IX. New Business

PRESENT: E. Anderson, Angelova, D. Ball, Barbato, Bathala, J. Bazyk, W. Bowen, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Flynn, Ghorashi, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoke, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Konangi, Kuo, LaGrange, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, McLoughlin, Mills, Misra, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Quigney, Rom, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, E. Thomas, J. G. Wilson.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, Atherton, Boyle, Charity, Forte, Hoffman, Jeffers,
L .Keller, Lopresti, O’Donnell, Rafiroiu, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, A. Schwartz, Shah, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, D. Webster, F. White, Zhou.

ALSO PRESENT: Drake, Goodman, Govea, Meiksins, Steinbacher, Steinberg.

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

I. Eulogy for Jerrold Burnell (Curriculum/Foundations)

Professor David Adams delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Jerrold Burnell.

“When I came to Cleveland State in 1974 one of the first persons I met was Jerrold Burnell. The terms under which we arrived were considerably different. Whereas I was a green-behind-the-ears assistant professor, Jerry had come as a full professor with a distinguished career in higher education. To the best of my recollection, other than Walter Waetjen, then President of CSU, and Sam Wiggins, Dean of the College of Education, Jerry was the only full professor in the College of Education.

“Jerry was born in New York City, the son of a rabbi and a New York City school teacher. Perhaps these twin influences help explain why he would end up in the field of education. While I have no idea when Jerry decided he wanted to be a teacher, when he did make the decision, he no doubt also decided not to be a dull one. He frequently mentioned to me how his father, when a student at Columbia University, had taken a course with the great John Dewey, and how almost all the students resorted to gazing out the window to avoid dozing off. Jerry Burnell would never be accused of putting students to sleep.

“Graduating from the New York City Schools, he ventured off to Indiana University where he attained his B.A. After a stint in the military, which took him abroad, Jerry attended the University of Michigan where he earned a masters in social science education, followed by a year as a high school teacher in Los Angeles. Through his military experience and reading, Jerry developed an intense interest in comparative and international education, earning his Ph.D. in this area in 1964, also at the University of Michigan. In the process of earning his degree he was granted a research fellowship at International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan. The result of his research was his dissertation, subsequently published under the title The American Movement to Develop Protestant Colleges for Men in Japan, 1868-1912.

“After leaving Ann Arbor, Jerry became an assistant professor at Hunter College, City University of New York. After three years, he was recruited by Ball State University to serve as European Division Director of the school’s overseas masters and doctoral program, a program that served some 500 students at 12 locations over a span of 12 years.

“Jerry’s great passion was the cultural and international foundations of education. In the area of scholarship, he published numerous articles on such subjects as Japanese education, foreign language policy, immigration legislation, ethnic and racial attitudes, and affirmative action. On a human level Jerry was known throughout the department for seeking out international students, whom he readily engaged in conversation about their home countries. The course which he developed and taught in Comparative and International Education was one of the most popular in the department. I cannot begin to describe the number of students over the years who have told me what an eye-opening and intellectually challenging educational experience it was to take this course with Jerry Burnell.

“Jerry’s international interest extended beyond the world of teaching and research. On one of his stints in Europe, he met and married the lovely Ellen Burnell, whose lively intelligence and German accent lent a good deal of joy to departmental gatherings. And the international connections continue. Jerry and Ellen’s daughter Karen, a former student at CSU, now lives with her husband and two children in Serbia, where her husband, a graduate of West Point, and a fluent speaker of Serbian, serves as a military attaché at the U.S. embassy in Belgrade.

“Jerry’s contributions to the College of Education were enormous. In addition to being one of its best teachers, he played an important role in the founding of the College’s doctoral program in urban education. I suspect his greatest contribution, however, was his presence as a role model when the College was searching for its identity. In 1974, the College, while turning out innumerable numbers of teachers and school administrators, was largely a service-oriented academic unit. Jerry helped push the College in the direction where research and scholarship counted for something. This legacy continues to shape the College’s mission.

“Jerry retired from CSU in 1996. His unexpected passing at his home in the high desert country above Las Vegas, Nevada came as a great shock to all of us who knew him. We shall miss him greatly. He was a dear friend and colleague, the likes of which we will not see again.

Senate President Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Jerrold Burnell.

II. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for May 5, 2004 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Elections

Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty:

University Faculty Affairs Committee Minority Affairs Committee
   Two-year terms:    Two-year terms:
  Professor Chieh-Chen Bowen   Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss
  Professor Wendy Kellogg   Professor Michael Rand
  Professor David Larson Board of Trustees
   One-year term:    One-year term:
  Elizabeth Lehfeldt   Professor Edward Thomas
Patent Review Committee Copyright Review Committee
   Three-year term:    Three year terms:
  Professor Rama Gorla   Professor Jeffrey Dean
Budget and Finance Committee Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
   Two-year terms:   Three-year term:
  Professor Bahman Ghorashi   Professor April Cherry
  Professor Leo Jeffres   Professor Chia-Shin Chung
Board Committee on Honorary Degrees, Citations, and Recognitions   Professor Theresa Holt
Professor Diana Orendi
   Three-year term:    
  Professor Roger Marty    

IV. University Curriculum Committee

Recommendation that Black Studies and Women’s Comprehensive Programs Relocate to the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
(Report No. 31, 2003-2004)

Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that at its last meeting on April 26, 2004, the UCC received the proposal that the program in Black Studies and the Women’s Comprehensive Program, which currently report directly to the Provost’s Office, be located in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. This has been approved by the College faculty and by the University Curriculum Committee, which found no reason to object to this proposal in that it seems to suit everybody’s needs. The UCC recommends the proposal to Faculty Senate.

There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The recommendation that the Black Studies program and the Women’s Comprehensive program relocate to the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences was unanimously approved.

V. University Faculty Affairs Committee

A. Recommendation on Term Limits for Faculty Senate
Representatives from CLASS and COS (Report No. 32, 2003-2004)

Professor Rodger Govea, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that in a recent decision, the UFAC would send to Senate for its approval a recommendation that previous service by Senators from the two new colleges not be counted against the term limit requirement specified in the Bylaws. Those colleges are holding elections anew so that everybody is standing for election and there are no actual carryover terms. So they are starting brand new. They are using the precedent in what has happened in the College of Graduate Studies in the past, and after consultation with the transition committees and with the Arts and Sciences Caucus, all of whom have agreed that this is the way we should proceed. The UFAC recommendation therefore is that people representing the new colleges next year not have any prior service count toward term limits.

Professor James Wilson opposed the motion stating that it seemed to him that the purpose of term limits is to get some turnover in representation.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked Senate members to vote on the recommendation. The recommendation on Term Limits for Faculty Senate Representatives from the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and from the College of Science was approved.

B. Proposed Language Changes regarding Committee Composition
Arising from the Split of Arts and Sciences (Report No. 33, 2003-2004)

Dr. Rodger Govea noted that the proposed language changes regarding committee composition arising from the split of the College of Arts and Sciences involves rewording of the Bylaws that was essentially mandated by the change from the College’s separation into two separate colleges. There are five such changes listed on the second page of the memorandum included in the meeting packets.

8.2.3 E) University Curriculum Committee

Professor Govea noted that the first change concerns the membership of the University Curriculum Committee, 8.2.3 E). This is a temporizing measure perhaps because immediately upon finding out that this would be proposed, the chair of the UCC said, please don’t reduce this committee. If this is approved, in the fall, the University Faculty Affairs Committee will be considering an increase in the size of the UCC, perhaps with the addition of at large members. But, right now, we have to make a change that we can immediately use in the fall. The old language had three members from the Arts and Sciences College in each of the three traditional sub areas. We have simply changed that to a member from each of the two new colleges, which actually reduces the size of the UCC at least temporarily. Again, UFAC plans next year are to take up the UCC chair’s suggestion that we add some at large people simply because of the volume of work done by the UCC. But, for now the proposal is to recommend one member from each of the two new colleges.

8.2.3 L) Graduation, Convocation, and Assembly Committee

Dr. Govea stated that the membership of this committee does not change too much. There used to be two members from the College of Arts and Sciences. There will now be one each from the two new colleges.

8.2.3 M) Committee on Academic Space

Professor Govea noted that the membership of this committee would, again, change the situation from two representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences to one representative from each of the two new colleges.

8.2.3 O) University Personnel Committee

Dr. Govea noted that the UFAC is withdrawing this. There was an error pointed out to him by Vice Provost Bill Shorrock. Professor Shorrock was correct. The UFAC simply made a mistake in looking at the Bylaws and misread it. Therefore, there is no need to change the UPC which is in fact the leftover committee for Law faculty who are going through promotion. That does not need to be changed at all. The old language will suffice with regard to the makeup of this committee.

Professor Shorrock requested that the minutes reflect Professor Govea’s admission that he had been “correct” on this matter.
8.2.3 Q) University Petitions Committee

Dr. Govea stated that essentially, this committee in the past has had one representative from each college. Since there is an additional college being created by the split of Arts and Sciences, this would add one position to the committee.

Dr. Govea noted that these are all of the changes. Senate can vote on the changes all at once or take them in sequence as the Senate likes. The Faculty Affairs Committee believed that these changes are not substantive in that they are simply adapting the reality of the switch of the colleges into new language, therefore, the UFAC suggested that we could do this at this particular Senate meeting. So, with the Senate’s approval, he will propose these changes.

Dr. Jane McIntyre inquired if there was going to be discussion.

Dr. Rodger Govea asked the Senate if they wanted to do the proposed changes in a series.

Dr. Jane McIntyre was hoping that the Senate was not going to immediately move on to a vote.

Professor Jane McIntyre commented on the change to the UCC. She understands what Dr. Govea said about planning to propose further changes, and of possibly returning this committee to its current size or a bigger size in the fall. However, the presently proposed change would not be truly non-substantive. Given that one of the new colleges is the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, while the other one is the College of Science, the change should give the Humanities and Social Sciences’ two seats to the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, and the Natural Science single seat to the College of Science. This would leave the committee’s size the same. She would recommend that is what the Senate should do, and leave the committee size the same.

Senate President Konangi suggested that Dr. Jane McIntyre recommend an amendment to the UFAC proposal.

Dr. Jane McIntyre then moved to amend the proposal stating that the Humanities and Social Sciences be part of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Dr. Jane McIntyre noted that we could still specify that there be one representative from the Humanities and one from the Social Sciences.

Dr. Rodger Govea pointed to one problem, namely, exactly what happens to the Department of Psychology.

Dr. Jane McIntyre responded that this is their problem because they went with the College of Science.

Dr. Govea noted that they are still Social Science, and that is the problem.

Dr. Jane McIntyre still recommended keeping the committee’s size the same, with the same proportional representation.

Senate President Konangi said that the comments can be addressed once an amendment is accepted.

Professor Jane McIntyre recommended that there be two representatives from CLASS and one from the College of Science on the University Curriculum Committee. That also considers the proportionality in the difference in the sizes of those colleges.

Senate President Konangi stated that to be more specific, the CLASS would be one representative from Humanities and one from Social Sciences.

Senate President Konangi asked for a second to Dr. Jane McIntyre’s amendment. It was seconded by Professor Susan Hill.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that it would be a mistake to reduce the size of the University Curriculum Committee. It is a mistake given the fact that the College of Arts and Sciences, as presently constituted, teaches about 60% of the student credit hours. The Curriculum Committee is the committee that deals with that 60% of the students that we have taught. That same number of students is going to be taught by those other two colleges and the Curriculum Committee deserves stronger representation from those areas as it has had since this committee has been in existence. That is her reason for recommending that two representatives from CLASS be on the UCC.

There being no further discussion on the proposed amendment, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on Dr. Jane McIntyre’s amendment to the UFAC proposal. The amendment was approved unanimously.

There being no further discussion on the main motion as amended by Professor Jane McIntyre, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the amended proposal. The proposed language changes to the Bylaws as amended were then unanimously approved.

VI. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee

Professor Daniel Drake, chair of the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee, reported that at the April meeting of the Committee, there was a lengthy discussion on two topics along with other agenda items, all of which are contained in the Committee’s Annual Report.

A. Proposed Recommendations on Mercury Reduction
(Report No. 34, 2003-2004)

Professor Daniel Drake, noted that the first item deals with any mercury containing equipment that currently may be in use in academic departments. The second recommendation addresses Laboratory Safety with respect to facilities, equipment and safety inspections. Dr. Drake indicated that the committee unanimously endorsed these recommendations. The Committee is requesting approval of the Senate for both items based on twin goals: one, we want to provide a safe environment for students, faculty, and staff. At the same time, the Committee wants to prevent putting the University at risk. The Committee exhorts the Senate to look favorably upon these proposals. Mr. Paul Novak, Director of Environmental Services at the University, is at Senate to respond to any questions since he (Dr. Drake) would not be able to deal with the specificity of those questions.

Professor Candice Hoke noted that she teaches occupational safety and health in the Law School. She was on the committee that helped the Safety Committee at the time that the original recommendation for periodic repeated safety inspections of laboratories be performed by the university administration and was presented to Senate and acted upon favorably. She is very pleased to see that the Committee is coming back for reinforcement. But it concerns her greatly given the tremendous amount of very, very serious information that the Committee was given about dangerous laboratory conditions that posed serious threats to human life and property. Years later now, the inspections have not been performed regularly. The changes in the buildings, whether it is ventilation or safety procedures have not ensued and so she is hopeful that Senate will not only endorse the Safety Committee’s proposals, but now that we have a new university administration, that they will move very expeditiously to implement these proposals.

There being no further discussion on the proposed recommendations on Mercury Reduction, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote. The proposed recommendations were approved unanimously.

B. Proposed Recommendations on Laboratory Safety
(Report No. 35, 2003-2004)

Dr. Daniel Drake referred to the proposed recommendations on Laboratory Safety.

Professor Susan Hill inquired if there are any details on how many additional resources or staff are needed as stated in the first Summary item on page three of the proposal.

Mr. Paul Novak noted that Professor Susan Hill is looking for costs in terms of resources of the program. The applicable department shall develop the accurate inventory, and based on that inventory, will be able to develop costs with some of the individual costs for items per se. As far as particular resources to actually perform the inventories, that he doesn’t have. It would be pretty much applicable to departments obviously that have mercury containing equipment. He is not at liberty to speak for those departments but as with any other inventory, there may be some additional activities. There would not be an ongoing thing in terms of inventory – it would be a one time deal to get the inventory.

Professor Susan Hill stated that she wasn’t asking about the mercury item that the Senate just approved. She was asking for clarification on the second item (Recommendations on Laboratory Safety) where it states in the Summary, “Allocate additional resources for staff to the Department of Environmental Health and Safety to facilitate attention to laboratory safety needs of the campus on a routine basis.”

Mr. Paul Novak responded that basically, he is looking for adequate staffing to perform these inspections on a routine basis that is indicated through the OSHA Lab Standard. He has made some requests, and as far as dollar amounts, he does not have that information but we are talking about costs for personnel, etc. He is sure he could obtain that information if the Senate desires.

Professor Susan Hill inquired if the number of personnel would be eight or five or ten, twenty. Mr. Novak replied that he is looking at approximately two personnel.

Professor Paul Doerder inquired if this proposal is referring to teaching labs or research labs. Mr. Novak replied that he was referring to both in the proposal.

Professor Doerder asked why Mr. Novak excluded the Science Research building. “Is it simply because that building is newer or is that on another plan?”

Mr. Novak responded that the impetus was at the time to crawl before we walk and to concentrate on the basic sciences and basically based on the laboratory inspections that were done. The Committee felt that there were immediate needs present in the basic Science building. The omission of the Science Research building in this proposal by no means indicates that we are not going to attend to that building and draw attention to it in the near future.

Professor Leo Jeffres commented that this is the type of thing that should go to one of those capital planning committees that was proposed this past year. It seems like precisely the type of thing that should go to that committee rather than necessarily to the Safety and Health Advisory Committee.

There being no further discussion on the proposed Recommendations on Laboratory Safety, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote. The proposed recommendations were approved.

VII. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz commented that at the last meeting of Senate this academic year, he wanted to begin by congratulating all of our students who graduated in the class of 2004. He hopes that many Senators will be able to join him for the commencement exercises on June 15, 2003.

President Schwartz wanted to talk about a couple of special undergraduate students. Every year fourth year students from the 64 Ohio Board of Regents authorized public and private colleges and universities compete for Board of Regents graduate fellowships. Many schools get one of those. Sometimes Ohio State or Cincinnati might receive two of them. This year, and for the last five consecutive years, Cleveland State University has received three Ohio Board of Regents fellowships and we have had at least two every year for the last decade. So this year congratulations go to Debra Dickson, Heather Hlasko, and Eugene Dawson. Our academically gifted seniors are among the best in the State and he would like everybody to know it. And congratulations to the Thirteen Student Delegation of the Cleveland State University chapter of the American Marketing Association. They received the outstanding chapter title at the mid-west annual meeting. This is the first time in their twenty-five year history that they have achieved that honor and, of course, their faculty advisor should be thanked as well and that is none other than Professor Edward Thomas. And we should congratulate him again because he was elected as the Vice President of the Collegiate Chapter’s Council of the American Marketing Association.

President Schwartz commented that on another note, we are continuing to wait for the other shoe to drop in Columbus with regard to our subsidy allocation for fiscal year 2005 and for the 2006 and 2007 biennial budget. It is the 2006 and 2007 biennial budget that he is quite concerned about now. So, if the economy recovers and the Ohio tax revenues start to reverse their trends, that would be very nice. His concern is that even if that happened, if there is any improvement in the revenue picture, that largely Medicare, Medicaid, and K-12 education probably would chew that up in nothing flat. So this has been a very tense and a trying year for all of Ohio’s public institutions and there have been dire predictions about private institutions turning out the lights, giving the Chancellor the keys and all the rest of that. None of that is going to happen soon. What he wanted to do most is to thank everyone and applaud everyone this year. This has been a very productive and progressive year that we have enjoyed at this university in spite of declining support. The key is that we have all been able to keep our eye on our own future and understand what that can be. We have been willing to sacrifice in order to drive that forward and not just his congratulations but his deepest thanks go to everyone for as they say, “Staying the course.” None of you have let what we have been going through effect the quality of the education that you have been providing for our students. That is the critical matter and those students in turn have distinguished themselves by achieving high honors and new honors as he mentioned earlier.

President Schwartz noted that just yesterday he was invited to speak to a group of students who were honored by Beta Alpha Pi which is the accounting honorary and they asked him to speak to them, not about their accomplishments, but about this university and its future. They told the President that they were very proud of their university; that they were very grateful for the education they have received here. Clearly all of us are doing our job, we are doing it well, and our students know it. In good time, he hopes, we will be able to convince the legislature to let us do it better.

Professor Leo Jeffres inquired how much of a reduction in the subsidy to Aramark would we get for next year for turning over the space in the basement. President Schwartz replied that he could not answer Dr. Jeffres’ question because he didn’t know the answer. Obviously our aim is to see to it that all of our auxiliary enterprises around here are self-supporting. He wanted everyone to know that there is a subsidy to Aramark not one dime of which is paid for from State subsidy internally to the auxiliary enterprises. That is where that money comes from. Nobody should think that the money is coming out of money set aside in the general fund for the educational enterprise – it is not. The bookstore provides it. So buy those sweatshirts, especially buy the tee shirt that says, CSU Football on it. On the back it says “Undefeated Since 1964” probably the most popular item in the bookstore.

President Schwartz noted that when this meeting is concluded, there is a reception out in the hall that he has been happy to provide for the Senate and that is his way of saying, “Thanks again for a great year.”

VIII. Annual Reports

Senate President Konangi noted the Bylaws require that we receive Annual Reports from the Senate standing committees. He asked for a motion to accept all of the Annual Reports from the standing committees. It was moved and seconded to receive all of the Annual Reports.

Professor James Wilson referred to the third sentence in the Minority Affairs Committee Annual Report which states: “That academic standards not become so exclusionary that minority students are denied admission to the Law School as well as to other university programs.” Professor James Wilson stated that he was a little troubled by this sentence in the Minority Affairs Committee recommendations. He has two problems with it. First of all, the mention of the Law School alone by name is a minor problem but he personally doesn’t like his school being singled out. The second one is far more serious and he is not sure what is meant in this sentence. It seems that in a reasonable reading of it, the best thing that he can come up with is that if there is a change in standards, we can’t deny any minority students admission who he assumes would have gotten in under the previous standards. That doesn’t sound right to him. Obviously we are committed to diversity in every sense of the word but it seems to him that if they are reading the sentence that minority students are denied because of our change in standards, that is improper and it is very possible we may be able to move our standards with other minority students and exclude a couple of minority students who otherwise would have gotten in. This sentence seems to conclude that and that is a problem.

Senate President Konangi noted that he didn’t believe that there was anybody at Senate from the Minority Affairs Committee to respond to Professor James Wilson’s concerns. But, by accepting this report, that doesn’t in any way, shape, or form indicate that the Senate concurs with it.

Professor Wilson stated, “Delete the statement in the report referring to the Law School.”

Senate President Konangi stated that the Senate is not concurring with the statement in the Minority Affairs Committee report. This is just an opinion and when this was formulated or what context it was formulated under, we have no idea. Since there is no one here from the Committee, we really cannot get a response from the Committee. He added that he does understand Professor Wilson’s concerns

Professor James Wilson noted that if the Senate is accepting in the sense of, here it is…

Senate President Konangi stated we are not concurring nor disagreeing with what is stated in the report. It is a neutral position. We are not agreeing or disagreeing.

Professor Andrew Gross asked if such reports in the future and/or other Senate proceedings could be filed on-line, this is to say electronically, or at the most, a one page printed summary in order to save our national and private forests.

Senate President Konangi stated that this issue needs to be addressed separately.

Senate President Konangi brought Senate back to the motion to receive the standing committee Annual Reports.

Professor Lillian Hinds commented that she felt the discussion of safety issues by the Safety Committee was extremely well done and she wanted to congratulate Professor Drake.

Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on receiving all of the annual reports from the Senate standing committees. The Senate received Annual Reports from the following Standing Committees:

A. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 36, 2003-2004)
B. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 37, 2003-2004)
C. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 38, 2003-2004)
D. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 39, 2003-2004)
E. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 40, 2003-2004)
F. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 41, 2003-2004
G. Library Committee (Report No. 42, 2003-2004)
H. University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 43, 2003-2004)

IX. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:07 P.M.

Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

[Top of Page]