Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
September 15, 2004

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 21, 2004 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the May 5, 2004 Meeting
IV. Senate Nominating Committee
V. Committee Elections
VI. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 1, 2004-2005)
VII. Student Life Committee (Report No. 2, 2004-2005)
VIII. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 3, 2994-2005)
IX.University President’s Report
X. New Business

PRESENT: E. Anderson, Angelova, A. Benander, Berlin-Ray, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Gelman, Ghorashi, Govea, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Humer, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Lazarus, Lehfeldt, McLoughlin, Mikelbank, Mills, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Poznanski, L. E. Reed, B. Rucker, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Shah, Slane, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Tewari, E. Thomas, Thornton, Visocky-O’Grady, Walton, Ziolek.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, Atherton, Barbato, W. Bowen, Boyle, Cherry, Dillard-Mitchell, Fadlalla, J. O. Flynn, Gorla, Gross, Hanlon, Lopresti, McCahon, P. O’Donnell, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, Silberger, Spiker, Steinglass, Tumeo, J. Webb.

ALSO PRESENT:Deering, Meiksins, Steinbacher.

Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:08 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for September 15, 2004 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 21, 2004 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the May 5, 2004 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the May 5, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

IV. Senate Nominating Committee

Senate President Vijay Konangi announced that the Nominating Committee is composed of Professors Rodger Govea, Larry Keller and Ken Sparks.

Professor Rodger Govea, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, noted that everyone probably received an e-mail soliciting nominations for the offices of President and Secretary of Faculty Senate. The Nominating Committee received six responses – five of which nominated Professor Vijay Konangi for President and one which nominated Professor Susan Kogler Hill for the office of Secretary. Those were the only nominations that were received. The deadline is now past and no nominations are allowed from the floor of Senate. Dr. Govea said that he would entertain a motion to approve Professor Vijay Konangi as Faculty Senate President and Professor Susan Kogler Hill as Faculty Senate Secretary by acclamation. It was moved, seconded and the Senate approved the election by acclamation of Dr. Vijay Konangi as Senate President and Dr. Susan Kogler Hill as Secretary for two-year terms.

Dr. Vijay Konangi thanked the Senate for its support and confidence. Dr. Konangi also thanked Dr. Susan Hill for taking on the responsibility as Senate Secretary, and he thanked Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis for his wonderful service as Secretary. In addition he thanked Professors Rodger Govea, Larry Keller, and Ken Sparks for serving on the Nominating Committee.

V. Committee Elections

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

University Faculty Affairs Committee (One-year term)
Professor Peter Garlock, Law

Minority Affairs Committee (Two-year term)
Election postponed to October 13, 2004 meeting

Budget and Finance Committee (One-year terms)
Professor John Holcomb, Mathematics
Professor Samuel Richmond, Philosophy

Copyright Review Committee(Two-year term)
Professor Angelin Chang, Music

VI. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 1, 2004-2005)

Professor Peter Meiksins, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that the UCC had one item left over from last year that came up too late in the year for Senate action. The College of Education proposed elimination of post-baccalaureate programs leading to mild/moderate and moderate/intensive intervention specialist licensure in Special Education. The UCC considered that request which was properly approved through the College of Education’s process. The justification for the elimination of this program is two-fold – 1) the program essentially duplicates a Master’s level program that requires only two additional courses, and 2) there is virtually no interest among students in this program. The existence of multiple programs which essentially did the same thing was confusing to the students in the College and therefore, the program was recommended for deletion. Students can continue to pursue this subject and the courses involved in it through other mechanisms. The UCC recommended unanimously that the deletion be approved, and recommended it to the Senate for approval.

Professor Lillian Hinds commented that having just come back to from working every day since the Cleveland schools opened, the busiest people there were the interventionists. She noted, however, that she was not aware of the similar master’s program.

Professor Meiksins responded that students can pursue this form of intervention training through a Master's level program with slightly more coursework, and it makes more sense for students to pursue licensure at the graduate level given the state's current professional development requirement for teachers.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate members to vote on the proposal from the University Curriculum Committee. The motion to eliminate post-baccalaureate programs leading to mild/moderate and moderate/intensive intervention specialist licensure in Special Education was approved unanimously.

VII. Student Life Committee (Report No. 2, 2004-2005)

Professor Lynn Deering, chair of the Student Life Committee, stated that the Committee is proposing a small change of language to the Student Conduct Code. The language of “72 hours” that appears in Section IX. University Judicial Procedures D.1.1.2 (and anywhere else in the code) is changed to read “by 5:00 P.M. three (3) working days”… to clarify the time frame in which certain actions must occur.

There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The Student Affairs Committee’s proposed revisions to the Student Code were unanimously approved.

VIII. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 3, 2994-2005)

Professor Kenneth Sparks, chair of the Committee on Athletics, noted that this is a report on the upcoming NCAA accreditation. The University Athletics is up for recertification this next year, and this report is actually a summary. The entire report is available in the Library. He wanted to talk to Senate about the process because there was a lot of involvement in terms of getting more faculty and students involved in putting this self-study report together. This started back in the fall of 2003. There was a 17 person steering committee appointed by President Schwartz, and it included four faculty members as well as a faculty member of the Senate Steering Committee. There were five appointed working committees. Each committee had at least one faculty member and also at least one member of the Faculty Senate on the Committee on Athletics. The committees were assigned to explore four operating principles of the NCAA. Each committee answered the self-study questions posed by the NCAA in the following areas: governance and commitment to rules compliance; academic integrity; fiscal integrity; equity, welfare and sportsmanship. In addition, interviews were conducted across the campus in which over 100 faculty and staff were interviewed. In addition, they interviewed the coaches and student athletes through surveys. Responses were obtained from about 81% of the student athletes. Focus groups were also held with coaches, athletes, student services personnel, and key offices with which the athletes had direct interaction such as financial aid, the bursar’s office, residence hall, etc. Drafts of the report were then reviewed and approved by the Faculty Senate Committee on Athletics last spring 2004. Copies of the full report are located in the Reserve Room of the University Library. In addition, the Executive Summary has been posted and a small Executive Summary was distributed with today’s meeting materials.

Professor Sparks noted that in summarizing this report, the most important recommendation centers on creating more of a central and active role for the Faculty Senate Committee on Athletics. This report has been presented to Faculty Senate to keep everyone up to date on the certification process. There are still some remaining steps that need to be done. The Board of Trustees will review the self-study at their September 2004 meeting. The self-study will then be mailed in to the NCAA on October 15, 2004. A visiting committee from the NCAA will be on campus to conduct interviews in February 2005 – from the 2 nd through the 9 th. Professor Sparks suggested that if Senators had any feedback or questions on the summary or the self-study itself, that they contact Professor Susan Ziegler or Professor Louis Barbato.

Professor Candice Hoke commented that after reading the short version of the self-study report, she understands that the focus is on process. She further commented that self-studies can be performed with the express goal of showing compliance with every single requirement to obtain certification and accreditation. But, hopefully we are also going to go into the process of self-study in a real spirit of self-criticism to see how we can improve. Other than process, she did not hear about areas where Senate's involvement could lead to improvements. She was wondering if Professor Sparks could give the Senate some highlights.

Professor Sparks explained that the NCAA only asks for responses in certain problem areas. We can make additional recommendations, but they are not necessarily going to be acted upon because the NCAA only deals with certain questions.

Senate President Konangi requested that Mr. Lee Reed, Director of Athletics, also respond to Professor Hoke’s question.

Mr. Reed responded that in the Library, there are many recommendations that have been incorporated into a five-year plan in all of the areas that Professor Sparks mentioned. They took very seriously the recommendations by each of the sub committees, and they are definitely trying to implement those recommendations over the next five years. That was the part of the global process of the steering committee, the President’s office, and this body to bring about those recommendations. Those recommendations were not distributed to Senate, but they were placed in the Library and on the Web site. Everyone can review those recommendations. He noted that they are attempting to make significant improvements in the Athletics Department. He expressed pride in the process, and the willingness of the faculty at CSU to take on more of a role in intercollegiate athletics. He expressed his desire to see to it that these good recommendations on behalf of the University and our student athletes move forward. He commented on the importance of the increased involvement and oversight by the Senate Committee on Athletics in this process. He noted that a comprehensive report outlining successes will have to be compiled at the end of each year.

Professor Ken Sparks added that the new process provides checks and balances by the Senate that we have not had in the past.

Senate President Konangi informed the Senate that Professor Ken Sparks also had informed the Steering Committee that he will be bringing specific items back to Senate at the end of the semester.

Professor Sparks noted that once the Committee gets more into the process, he will be coming back with another report to keep everybody informed on what is happening with the NCAA visitation.

IX. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz provided an update on fall enrollment. After de-registration, he estimated that enrollments would be equal to last year's fall enrollments. It is hard to know because we have changed so many things that counting is going to be different. In years past, within about two weeks of the start of the semester, we would have a lot of people still registering for thousands of credit hours but not paying. We would then have huge de-registrations. Now we are not letting that happen. We face our first de-registration on October 2, 2004, and we will know better what our enrollment looks like after that. The President said that it will be a very modest de-registration compared to what we have had in the past, and he is expecting enrollments to be similar to last year.

That is not the good news, and it may be a little bit of the bad news because we budgeted to be a little off – but not by much. There may be a little bit of a spending problem, but we will take care of it during the course of the year. So, the question is, where did we get touched up? And the answer is in a couple of places. The College of Urban Affairs didn’t do as well with undergraduates as we had hoped, and so we have to look at that and see what exactly happened – we are just not sure yet. It is also the case that we didn’t do as well as we had hoped with regard to transfer students. We can understand and explain that, but we are going to look into it some more. As far as transfer students, President Schwartz stated that students are staying in the community colleges as long as they can, and it is a matter of price. And so we really felt the impact of this. Some other institutions have reported exactly the same thing to him, so he is guessing that is what is going on. And there is a campaign that our neighbors have been running in their ads, “Take a Class” and that is what the students are doing – they are taking a class. Progress toward degrees in the community colleges has really slowed, and the community college presidents are quite concerned about that fact. They are not producing as many degrees as they had hoped, and frankly, we would prefer to have those students transfer to us with degrees. Those are some of the issues, and we are going to get busy addressing them now so that we don’t repeat them next year. The President has accepted the plan proposed by Mr. Ed Mills to restructure the Admissions Office. More emphasis will be placed on transfer admissions as well as first year admissions. Mr. Mills has said that he wants to set up a very stretchy goal for freshmen admissions next year. He wants to see them increase by fifty percent. We typically have about 1,000 students enrolled at CSU as first time freshmen, and Mr. Mills believes that we can get as many at 1,500 each year.

President Schwartz also reported that the College of Law was off about ten percent in credit hours, and that is good news. Students who were not doing well were dismissed. They are taking the Dean at his word with regard to using the full range of grades, and that is good. We all know that what we have been trying to do in Law is to get it a little bit smaller and a whole lot better. So that is going to cost us some money. There is an effort to raise money privately for scholarships.

President Michael Schwartz noted that enrollment growth is going to be our way out of the serious budget problems that may come in the next year or two because of the State revenue picture. There is approximately a $4 billion problem down in Columbus as we look at the next biennial budget. They used a lot of one-time money (temporary sales tax, tobacco money, etc.) to plug the hole in the last budget. That is all gone now, and the question is, what are they going to do? President Schwartz said that he doesn’t think that anybody really knows. He suspects that there will be at least some talk about tax reform and some other things, but he also is anticipating that they will have a tough time to come up with $4 billion. Our answer has to be enrollment growth, and that is now everybody’s business. It is not just the Admissions Office – in one way or another it becomes everybody’s business. If anyone has any good ideas at all, we need to know. The President has asked the deans to take this up on a college by college basis and start thinking in terms of what is it that we are able to do that might promote growth and development, and we will do that.

President Schwartz commented that the capital budget has been pared way back. Now the talk is that it will be $400 to $500 million which is not a whole lot of money. It was over $600 million a few years ago. It has all been scaled back. In the meantime, we have some construction about to begin on campus. He promised that some day the plaza will be finished. We will begin very shortly by the end of October to demolish the geodesic on Chester, and we will begin site preparation work for the new student recreation and wellness center at that spot. For those of you who don’t know, we are tearing up the soccer field, taking the grass out, and putting down artificial turf. We will put an inflatable plastic bubble up over that whole facility so that all of the activities that were in the old geodesic dome can, at least in the interim, be moved out to the covered soccer field. We are about to approve architects for the Howe Mansion and for a new administrative center. We are almost at the point where we will get the Fenn Tower project under way. That is supposed to open at the same time as the recreation center in the fall of 2006. The one project that we are desperate for is going to be slowed again, and that is a new building for the College of Education. With the capital building problems, it cannot go forward as planned. The President indicated that he cannot blame the Dean of Education for not being happy about this delay, but explained that we are doing the best that we can.

President Schwartz called everyone’s attention to the ground floor of University Center--Campus 411, which opened about a month ago. Campus 411 seems to be getting pretty good reviews from the students who no longer have to be running up and down, standing in line, being surly to us while we are being surly back to them. Now they can go to Campus 411 and get somebody who cares about what has happened to them and who will work to fix the problem. That was the right thing to do all along. Now it is done, and the students seem to be pretty content with it. If they do develop a line down there, students get a pager and are told that they will be paged when there is somebody available to help. It is working.

President Schwartz stated that the East Center is open, and the West Center re-opened. The enrollment at the West Center is beyond anything we had anticipated, both last year and again this semester. The East Center opened and did as well as we had expected. If you count the College of Business enrollments at Progressive Insurance on the East side and add those enrollments to what we have in our East Center, the enrollment is larger than it is on the West side.

President Schwartz talked about the university's remarkable research effort. We have two federal earmarks received through NASA – both of them in engineering. One of them is called CREATE that deals with the generation of electricity in space and the instruments, controls, and electronics that run the electrical systems in space. The other is called ITI (Industrial Technology Institute) whose purpose is translational research. It takes existing patents and tries to translate those into commercial products and transfer them then into the economy locally. This is the brain child of Dean Tumeo. A lot of grant and contract activity goes on at this university. The President commented that last year (FY 2003), we had about $17 million in grants and contracts that came to the university. In FY 2004, it was $31 million. There was an enormous change in just the one year. Last year we had eight different federal awards, and this year we had 22. So the level of activity is really very high. In the College of Science, our colleagues have had several million-dollar research grants, and everyone knows about the big money that comes into the University for the Reading First program ($28.8 million over six years, about $4.5 million each year). Tomorrow there will be an announcement by the Department of Education in Washington that two of our very junior assistant professor colleagues will be awarded a $3.5 million grant for pre-school reading.

President Schwartz commented that as everyone probably knows, we have taken our first class of Honors program students (40.5 of them; the .5 is because we had a visa problem and the student won’t get here until January). We had a very nice welcoming reception for them and for their parents. It was really fun to be with them and their mothers and fathers who are very concerned people. They are wonderful young people. The President indicated that he is pleased with how the program is prospering, and he was very grateful to Dr. Margolius for a job really well done.

Finally, President Schwartz commented that the next legislative session will begin with consideration of the budget for the biennium. He stated that he is concerned but not panicked. He also reminded those who are not familiar with the process, that there will be at least four iterations of this budget. The agencies are getting their recommendations to the Governor now. The Governor will prepare his budget paring back those recommendations. That will be the first budget that will emerge. This budget is then sent to the House, and the House will produce a version of the budget that probably will have not much to do with the first version. The House version of the budget will then go to the Senate where the third budget is produced. Then the budget finally gets made in a Conference Committee, behind closed doors. We will have done all of the lobbying we know how to do by then. Whatever comes out of this committee is likely to be signed by Governor, and that will be the budget. So you are going to hear about that budget by the end of this year, and you will hear about it for at least six or seven months but you can’t let it get to you. It is very easy to be distracted from the real business we are in, while all that process goes on. In one way or another, we will be ready for it.

President Schwartz reported that we have 41 new professors.

Provost Chin Kuo added that including some of the term and visiting faculty, we have almost 60 and more than 50 showed up for orientation.

President Schwartz said that the Provost’s office had a very nice luncheon and orientation for new faculty. The President indicated that we were really very fortunate to get some extremely talented people to this campus this year, and he wants to make them welcome in every way that we ossibly can.

X. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:46 P.M.

Susan E. Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

 

 

[Top of Page]