Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

December 1, 2004

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 10, 2004 Meeting
III. University Faculty Affairs Committee
IV. University Curriculum Committee
V. Status Report on the College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 13, 2004-2005)
VI. University President’s Report
VII.New Business

PRESENT: Angelova, Bauer, A. Benander, Berlin-Ray, Boyle, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Gelman, Ghorashi, Gorla, Govea, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Humer, M. Kaufman,
S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Lehfeldt, McCahon, McClain, Mikelbank, Mills, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Poznanski, Reichert, B. Rucker, M. Schwartz, Silberger, Slane, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Tewari, E. Thomas, Thornton, Tumeo, Visocky-O’Grady, Ziolek.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Atherton, Cherry, Dillard-Mitchell, Li, Lopresti, Makridis, McLoughlin, P. O’Donnell, Perkins, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Saunders, Sawicki, Scherer, Shah, Spiker, Steinglass, Walton, L. C. Wang, J. Webb.

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Steinbacher.

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

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for December 1, 2004 was moved, second, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 10, 2004 Meetingg

Acceptance of the Minutes of the November 10, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. University Faculty Affairs Committee

Professor David Larson, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that the Committee has two items to bring before the Senate.

A. Proposed Policy for Appropriate Use of University Computing Resources (Report No. 10, 2004-2005)

Professor David Larson provided some background for the proposed policy. On April 3, 2002, Faculty Senate passed a document called, “Computer Security Policy” which dealt with computer security. The proposed Policy of Appropriate Use of University Computing Resources is a follow-up to the Computer Security Policy, which deals with appropriate use as opposed to simply security. Most of its provisions are in line with the earlier document. Apparently, it has been floating around for a couple of years. Dr. Larson commented that he had a long hiatus from the Faculty Affairs Committee – he has been off for ten to 15 years and when he came back on this year, this was one of the things that greeted him. He has been told by previous members – Professors Barbara Green and Rodger Govea – that this has been kicking back and forth between IS&T and Faculty Affairs for a couple of years now. He informed the Senate that he sat down with Fabian Ferreri of IS&T after the Faculty Affairs Committee had discussed it one more time this year and pointed out areas that the UFAC had problems with. Fabian was extremely reasonable in addressing the problems and changed those that he thought could be changed. Fabian said that he would take the proposal to Legal Counsel and let Dr. Larson know if Legal Counsel had any problems with it. Dr. Larson noted that he has not heard back from Fabian so he is assuming that Legal Counsel did not have problems with the revised version.

Dr. Larson then moved, on behalf of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, the approval of the proposed Policy of Appropriate Use of University Computing Resources.

Professor Paul Doerder referred to page 4 of the document under Unacceptable Use. He noted that there is something there that some people may be exempted from these restrictions. In addition, down below is a list of activities that are strictly prohibited with no exceptions. Concerning revealing your account password to others, he is assuming that means the administrative account password and not an email password. Professor Larson said he felt that in this case, they were talking about the password that gets one into the CSU administrative system.

Professor Doerder noted that for some of the faculty, courses are taught jointly and only one person is given access to grading and sometimes that means that we have shared passwords. He noted that the document says no exceptions. He stated that he didn’t know who would ask for an exception. He asked if he would get into trouble for doing that. Dr. Larson replied that he did not think so unless Professor Doerder’s co-grader does something really strange on the network. This policy is a follow-up to the Security Policy that has already been approved by the Faculty Senate. It says that you are responsible for all activity that occurs on your computer user ID. If you give your password to someone else, you will be responsible for his or her actions. Therefore, do not give your user ID and password to anyone. Conversely, do not ask anyone for his/her ID or password. Passwords should be changed every six months or immediately after a security breech. They should never be written out and posted in a conspicuous place or given to someone else. This is just a reiteration of something we have already passed. Dr. Larson said he was assuming that reasonable exceptions have to be made in these cases. He was informed by Fabian that the concerns are with people who have access to administrative systems and do have the capacity to change grades and things like that. Other than that, of course, giving your password out really could lead to excessive use of computer resources. Dr. Larson noted that he doesn’t really see this proposal as changing significantly anything that Senate approved two years ago.

Professor Surendra Tewari asked who would be responsible for fixing a computer in his lab that has been compromised by someone from the outside who gains access without his permission. Dr. Larson replied that this situation is not part of the proposal.

Senate President Konangi asked Vice President Mike Droney if he would address Professor Tewari’s concerns.

Vice President Mike Droney stated that he could hardly hear the question. Dr. David Larson then repeated Professor Tewari’s question which was: “If you have a computer in a lab and someone hacks into it, who would be responsible for straightening out the mess?” Mr. Droney responded that IS&T would be a bit partner in that relationship and would be glad to help, but the ultimate responsibility is the owner of that unit. IS&T has always chipped in to help.

Professor Tewari stated that this was a “catch 22” when he had to go out and spend $1200 to hire a consultant to come in and fix the unit’s damage. So that can happen a lot of times to a lot of us. At that time, IS&T was not willing to take any responsibility. Mr. Droney replied that IS&T is a new group today.

Dr. David Larson reported that in cases not that serious, IS&T has stepped in to help when his computer was malfunctioning and when computers of other people in his department were malfunctioning, but in fact that is not part of this proposed policy. That would be connected to the Computer Security Policy that the Senate already approved.

Professor Candice Hoke commented that she is a Law professor but she has to ask about one of the aspects of the policy beginning at the bottom of page 1 which states: “The only extraordinary circumstances in which university personnel may read or otherwise access faculty and student email or faculty computer files are as follows: 1) when ordered to do so by a court”, etc. And then it states that the person will be notified. What is not clear here is whether the person will be notified before access is made or after. The faculty member or staff member may actually want to retain legal counsel to protect privacy. There may be good and legitimate reasons for doing so and the University may be interested in this as well. Professor Hoke stated that she is somewhat concerned that this policy doesn’t state, “that upon receipt of such a court order” or any of these other predicative events.

Dr. David Larson responded that he could take that as a friendly amendment. What he is trying to do though is to see if those kinds of things are covered in the Computer Security Policy where that whole thing is actually discussed at more length. This is a reaction of that fuller discussion and frankly, he had not considered that issue. He said that he didn’t think there would be any objections on the part of the University Faculty Affairs Committee to accepting Professor Hoke’s language as a friendly amendment – that people would be notified if legally allowed to – whenever the order occurs.

Senate President Konangi asked Mr. Fabian Ferreri if he wanted to comment on the discussion. Mr. Ferreri stated that in the Computer Security Policy in the first part under Basic Tenets and the General Statement are identical in the Computer Security Policy and the Appropriate Use Policy so there is no area where one covers the other. Mr. Ferreri stated that both of those sections were written by Professor Thomas Buckley, Professor of Law.

Professor Hoke asked if such a friendly amendment would then go into existence even though it would be a departure from the earlier language. Professor Larson replied that it would go into existence in this policy, which is a more recent one, assuming that it is bedded and approved by the University Legal Counsel. It is a legal part of the document and would have to be approved by both sides.

Professor Jeffrey Dean suggested that it might be useful if the enforcement is spelled out not for just one example for how violations would be handled but for all of the groups that would be responsible for the different violations. Professor Larson asked Professor Dean to which section of the proposed policy he was referring. Professor Dean replied that he was referring to page 3 under Enforcement where it talks about the penalty and it says: “For example, alleged violations by students will normally be investigated.” He suggested that it would be useful to include the specification that corresponds for staff and for faculty just so that the policy is clear.

Professor David Larson noted then that they would have to go through the appropriate procedures in the “Greenbook” or the “Contract” as it applies. For students, it is Student Life; for us, it is the “Greenbook” or the “Contract” depending upon which applies in this case. He added that they couldn’t possibly all be spelled out because we would end up adding many more pages from those documents.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate members to vote on the proposed policy. The proposed Policy for Appropriate Use of University Computing Resources, as amended, was unanimously approved.

B. Proposed Recommendations on Strategic Planning
(Report no. 11, 2004-2005)

Dr. David Larson noted that the second item has a more complex background than even the first. Some of you who have been on Senate for several terms will remember that this is the third time and the third academic year in which we have seen the document on Strategic Planning. And, that is important because this document represents about three years of effort on the part of a lot of people. The first document was presented to Faculty Senate at the end of a very long meeting. A few comments were presented to the Academic Steering Committee and the Steering Committee remanded it to the University Faculty Affairs Committee for review. The Faculty Affairs Committee then last year examined it, came up with a document that greatly simplified and drastically altered the original plan and presented it to Senate, which then remanded it back to UFAC for further consideration. Dr. Larson reported that he was not involved in any of this by the way, except as a Senate member until this year, but he was a Senate member and was implicated in that respect. This year, two people from UFAC, Dr. Rodger Govea and Dr. David Larson, and two people from the original Task Force on Strategic Planning, Professors Susan Hill and Roberta Steinbacher met to try to work out some common ground between the two very different plans – the plans of the strategic planning task force and of the UFAC last year. The document before Senate today is the result of that meeting. It has since been approved by UFAC and has gone to the Academic Steering Committee, where it was critiqued again. We now see a substantial modification. That is the reason many of you are seeing this particular version of it for the first time because it has been done more or less under the gun. There is great pressure to get this done for the obvious reason that we have spent three years now trying to get going on strategic planning. The Trustees want us to plan, the accreditators want us to plan, and we are not planning. So, that is the background of this particular document.

Dr. Larson said that he would address some of the plan’s features, and its author, Dr. Rodger Govea, will help with it. Probably the most important feature of the plan is our insistence that it is written down and that the plan itself and the recommendations from the plan must be approved both by the administration and the Faculty Senate before they go forward. That was one of our concerns about the original plan. Dr. Larson is sure that it was implicit in the minds of the writers of the plan that that would happen but it was not explicit. We have made that as explicit as we can. It shows up three times in the document that Faculty Senate must approve the plan before it goes ahead and, of course, the administration must approve it as well. That is the basic principle. We believe that if something as important as a Strategic Plan to guide the University is to occur, it has to be agreed to and be signed off on by both sides of the University – by the administration and by the faculty. If the faculty wants to do something that the administration doesn’t, it simply won’t happen. If the administration wants to do something and the faculty doesn’t, then we have stalling warfare and all of the usual faculty techniques to keep something from happening that it doesn’t want to happen and everybody gets frustrated and nothing goes anywhere. So we built that in. It is also built in because there was a suggestion at Steering, which we thought was a good one, that there be a super majority required in this committee before it presents a plan. That had not been built in because frankly, Dr. Larson at least, had thought this group was working by consensus – that they would sit down and all would agree to something, but you might get one or two people who simply don’t like the direction that the others are marching so we agreed that both made sense. But support is needed from both the faculty and the administrative sides of the Strategic Planning Committee for it to work. That Committee has been cut down to eleven people – five faculty, five administrators, and one student. Dr. Larson stated that this is the ultimate outside size of a possible working committee. He has now served on three major University committees – the Admissions and Standards Committee, the University Curriculum Committee, and the University Faculty Affairs Committee and he has served as chair of two of the three. It is virtually impossible to get six faculty members together at one time in one place. If we went beyond this five faculty and five administrators, what is going to happen is the faculty are not going to show up and we are going to have them outnumbered by the administrators. So, we have tried to keep it small enough so it thinks it is a working committee and it can meet and get stuff done.

Dr. Larson noted that the other basic principle is that we try to use existing committee structures whenever possible. We are very aware of the danger of setting up shadow committees and that is for two reasons – one is just practical. Those of you who have served on Steering know how difficult it is to find qualified and willing volunteers for the committees we already have. It is personally impossible to cut down the committee size. He spent the summer going through those committees and recommended that five of them be abolished and one of the five was. People like having all of these committees although they don’t necessarily want to serve on them. So, that is the one area, but the more important area is that if we have shadow committees, there is always the question of authority. If the Strategic Planning version of this committee passes it, what does that do to the Senate version of this committee? Does it say to “rubber stamp?” Can you ignore them and bring it straight to Senate, etc.? So, for curricular areas, we put in the University Curriculum Committee; for budget and planning, the existing Budget and Finance Committee; and for capital needs, we have added to a committee which exists but has only administrators on it by adding three faculty so that faculty can have a voice in Strategic Planning. Dr. Larson said, so, the basic principle here then is that both sides must use a jargon that he hates which is to buy into the plan before it goes ahead. Both sides must approve it. Current faculty committees are used as much as possible so we have a relatively small and we think functional committee and it is going to have to be a very hard-working Strategic Planning Committee that actually does the work and then makes proposals for Senate and to the administration. That is basically the plan.

Professor Barbara Hoffman noted that she had a question on the first page in the last paragraph where the sub-committee structures that were proposed are eliminated. That has cut down on the number of people. Dr. Larson replied that this was for two reasons: one is to cut down on the number of people so that those sub-committees aren’t seen as making the decisions that we think should be made by Senate committees and so that they don’t serve as shadow committees to the Senate committee.

Professor Hoffman stated that she was not sure exactly what Dr. Larson meant by shadow committees but there are committees in existence right now, for example, on campus, that should have information that would be quite beneficial for a Strategic Planning Committee to have access to but they don’t necessarily have a clear path for getting that information to such a committee. She mentioned the President’s Commission on the Learning Environment and the Global Learning Task Force and asked if there is some way that we can add a clause here about those kinds of ad hoc committees that are not duplicating the work of other Senate committees. Dr. David Larson replied that he didn’t see anything wrong with adding a clause or a phrase saying that the Strategic Planning Committee shall survey existing committees to get information useful for its planning needs. They should have that authority. He said that he believes Professor Hoffman’s suggestion is a friendly amendment if his fellow committee members agree. He would just add it under General Principles as number 4. The more information we have the better.

Since there were no further questions, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The Senate unanimously approved the University Faculty Affairs Committee’s proposed recommendations on Strategic Planning as amended.

IV. University Curriculum Committee
Proposed Changes to the Honors Council (Report No. 12, 2004-2005)

Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that the committee had one relatively minor item for Senate’s consideration. As everyone is aware, the College of Arts and Sciences is no more and has been divided into two independent colleges – the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Science. One of the consequences is that this necessitated a revision of the procedures for staffing The Honors Council that previously had called for three representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences which obviously won’t work and so the decision was to try to split the difference and reduce the number of members from the two colleges from three to two and then to allocate one to each. The Honors Council desired this change both because it is fair and also because it makes The Honors Council smaller which is, as Dr. Larson just pointed out, desirable. The footnote at the bottom of the page of the proposal indicates how the present sitting members will be phased out by replacing them gradually as their terms expire. The UCC saw no controversy here and didn’t think that there was any problem and so the committee recommends the proposed changes to the Senate.

Professor Barbara Hoffman noted that Dr. Meiksins had said that the number of representatives was reduced from three from the College of Arts and Sciences to one each from the two new colleges. She asked, “Wasn’t it three for the College of Arts and Sciences because that is more representative of and proportional to the number of courses that are offered in the college?” Professor Meiksins responded that he wasn’t part of the original discussion of the plan. He assumes that that was the case. Part of the reason is that it is felt to be less important because there is a fair amount of membership on The Honors Council beyond these chosen members. There are representatives of people currently teaching the courses and various other constituencies and that fact is reflected in the membership of the committee. Professor Meiksins stated that he is on the committee because he is teaching a course and the committee doesn’t fit in the room. There are at least a half a dozen people from either COS or CLASS there on any given day so he doesn’t really think that this is an issue.

There being no further questions, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The Senate unanimously approved the University Curriculum Committee’s proposed changes to The Honors Council.

V. Status Report on the College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 13, 2004-2005)

Dean Mark Tumeo reported that almost five years ago now, there was a committee of the Faculty Senate headed up by Dr. Barbara Green that came up with a good suggestion and that was that at least once a year, traditionally he has been doing it now twice a year, he gives a report to Faculty Senate on what is going on with the Graduate Council, the Graduate College, and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research so that the Faculty Senate is fully included in what is going on. That is the purpose for his presentation today. He distributed several handouts to go along with his PowerPoint presentation.

Starting with the Graduate College, Dean Tumeo reported on the Internal Funding Programs and then reported on the activities of the Graduate Council.

Internal Funding. Dean Tumeo reported that there are currently two programs funded out of the Graduate College. One is the Graduate Faculty Travel Awards. He noted that in the material being distributed now, there is a complete summary of all of the awards that have been given in the past four fiscal years. They have already done the first two rounds of the FY 05 program and the recipients of that are listed. In the third round, applications are due on December 15, 2004. For those of you who are not aware of this program, it is a very simple one-page application. All of the details are in a matrix that calculates the score, and the top scores are funded until they run out of money. We don’t have a lot of money in there. He has taken $15,000 out of the Graduate College budget to support this research. The demand is going down this year because of the $1,000 allocation that is now a part of the faculty contract for professional development.

EFFRD Program. Dean Tumeo noted that this program enhances full-time faculty research development. This program is funded once per year out of the Research Challenge monies given to us by the State of Ohio based on how much external funding is brought into the University. The awards were made last spring. It is always a spring cycle. In the information being distributed, the recipients of last year’s process are listed. This is a competitive program. Proposals are reviewed by the Research Council, they make recommendations, and then that is what is funded. For the FY 06 applications, the RFP requests for proposals will be out in late mid-January. The Council is just finalizing it right now and then the applications will be due in late February, early March. This is the standard cycle that has been used for several fiscal years now.

Start-up Program. This program provides monies for recruitment of faculty. It was revised last January and is now being handled by the Provost’s Office instead of the Graduate College. The reason for this is that the funds that were available within the Research Office were only Research Challenge Funds. As a consequence, those come with a whole bunch of rules from the State as to what they can be spent on. By passing it to the Provost, the Provost is using other monies that have fewer restrictions, which brings more flexibility in terms of start-up packages. Those new policies and procedures are also noted in the materials being distributed. The department chairs and the deans were fully involved in creating this new policy.

Graduate Council Activities. Dean Tumeo noted that a couple of very interesting things have been going on. Last year, the Graduate Council passed ten proposed amendments to the College Bylaws. Those Bylaws amendments were reaffirmed this year by this seated Council, and they were sent out according to the Graduate College Bylaws to a mail vote of the entire graduate faculty. All ten amendments were approved by greater than a 2/3’s majority required. He distributed to Senate a copy of the letter he sent to all graduate faculty members informing them of the results and on the back of the letter is the summary of the voting on each amendment. That has now been passed along to the University Faculty Affairs Committee, which is the appropriate committee to review the proposed revisions to the Bylaws. The proposed amendments then go on to the Faculty Senate and to the Board of Trustees. Dr. Tumeo noted that if anyone wanted more information on each of the amendments, the amendments can be found on the Web.

Dean Tumeo referred to several policies that have been passed and noted that there was a question that Senate President Konangi was going to confirm. Dean Tumeo noted that they go through a process, which has been very coordinated with Dr. Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, for grading changes and the status of student policies. The Admissions and Standards Committee has been considering these changes for undergraduates and the Graduate Council has been considering them for graduates and then will pass them on to the Senate Academic Steering Committee for consideration. When these policies came to the Steering Committee, he also passed them to Dr. Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, and to Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee. Some of them were then sent back to the Admissions and Standards Committee because there was some confusion as to whether they had been approved. Dean Tumeo indicated that he is a little unclear at this point as to which ones were approved by Faculty Senate that applied both to graduates and undergraduates and which ones are still pending. He apologized if he was a little off and hoped that these items would be cleared with Dr. Steinbacher. His understanding is that the Graduate Council and the Admissions and Standards Committee both passed the elimination of the “NA” and the “X” grades. Undergraduates also had a “**” grade that never existed in the Graduate School so they did not deal with that. He understands that these were approved. Graduate Council also modified the “I” grade with some language, which he understands was also approved by Faculty Senate. A new option for meeting English as a Foreign Language requirement for admission was also approved by Faculty Senate. The ESL program has been set up in Continuing Education. When completed, it will serve as having met the requirements for admission into the Graduate College.

Graduate Council has also passed policies that are now currently pending in their appropriate committees. One is the Visiting Student Admission Status, which as a status is not “admission”. It is a walk-in kind of thing and it goes with the undergraduate status that is currently being reviewed by the Admissions and Standards Committee. Another policy pending is the elimination of “S/F” and adoption of the “S/U” grading option. Dean Tumeo stated that he had done an extensive research of this and no one was able to tell him the origin of this. You cannot use these for your degrees. These are courses that we are encouraging graduate students to take because it expands their horizons and their knowledge base. It may be a language that they are interested in. We say if you do well, you will get an “S” and it doesn’t affect your GPA – it is for your own enlightenment. But, if you take those courses and spend the time and you don’t get a “D” or better, we are going to punish you – we are going to give you an “F”. You don’t get any other option and then it affects your GPA. So, it seemed like a bit of a disconnect. It came to light with the ESL program under the teaching assistantship program to meet the State of Ohio law. A person who doesn’t get a certain level on a test and he/she wants to hold a teaching assistantship has to take this 500 level course and it is an “S/F” course because it is a graduate course. So, these students are working to improve their language skills and they are not allowed to hold a teaching assistantship. If they don’t get their language skills up enough, not only can they not hold a teaching assistantship, we give them an “F” which could then jeopardize their visa status. It is really kind of a strange setup. Graduate Council discussed it and reviewed the academic reasons, and felt that the undergraduate approach, which is an “S/U”, neither of which go into your GPA, was a better rationale. So that has been proposed and is now in the Admissions and Standards Committee. Dean Tumeo reported that the University Curriculum Committee is considering approval of a new interdisciplinary MS in Software Engineering. It is a combined degree from the Colleges of Business and Engineering.

Dean Tumeo reported on two policies that are now under active consideration. Every semester, Dean Tumeo has separate meetings with the Graduate Program Directors and the graduate faculty. In the Graduate Program Directors’ meeting this year, it was brought up that sometimes the Graduate Program Directors are not necessarily aware of policies that affect their programs that are being considered by Graduate Council. While there is supposed to be feedback from elected representatives and feedback posted on the Web, etc., we don’t always get all of the information that we should. So at their suggestion, the Council thought it was a good idea for the passage of policy, to have it introduced at one meeting of the Graduate Council. If it is okay with the Graduate Council and they are willing to consider it, the policy is then sent out via email to all the Graduate Program Directors for their comments and feedback. Then in the next Graduate Council meeting, a month later, it can be acted upon. In that way, there is an additional feedback loop to the Graduate Program Directors so that they will know what is going on and can get their comments in. That allows the Council to be more representative. The two that are currently being reviewed by the Program Directors are: Time-to-Completion Petition policy and Modification of Conditional Student Admission Status. The Time-to Completion Petition policy has always been housed solely within the program. There is a recommendation that after ten years, the petition to extend goes to the Petitions Committee of the Graduate Council so it moves up a step. This is in response to a recent review they did of doctoral students. They have had a doctoral student in the program active for 28 years and this becomes somewhat of a problem so they are trying to get a handle on that. The modification of Conditional Student Admission Status is a policy they are working on in cooperation with the Senate Admissions and Standards Committee.

Research Activities. Dean Tumeo mentioned that he would go over three items in great detail. He referred to his PowerPoint presentation stating that this gives the information for FY 04. He said that he did not have the FY 04 data completed when he put the presentation together. He noted that he actually does have that data now. It shows the increase in proposals, but more importantly, it is not only that we are putting in more proposals; our success rate is going up. Partly that is because we are providing more support in grant writing and it is partly because we are now getting better experience in grant writing. We are now getting more awards for more successful writing. We are running around a 70% success rate, which is extremely high for proposals.

Research Awards and Expenditures. Dean Tumeo reported that we have been increasing our expenditures (expenditures are what we measure in the grant world because awards come in chunks in multiple years). For example, the reading award which we received in this past fiscal year was for $26 million but it is expended over five or six years. So you track the expenditures, which gives you the real indication of your activity because awards can go up and down. You can see the awards and you can see the big bump that we got from the Reading First grant. The other important thing with grants is the indirect recovery that we get from them. This is mainly on federal grants. So, as federal grants go up, we tend to see an increase in the indirect cost recovery. This is very important because this is money that comes back to the departments, the colleges, and the University as discretionary funds to help run the institution. Dean Tumeo reported that in the five years they have been working on this, the indirect cost recovery has almost been doubled. This is a very good indication for the University. There has also been a jump this past year. It is partly because we’ve had a big increase in awards and we also had a change in policy that was put in place in cooperation with Vice President Jack Boyle. Before FY 02, the indirect cost recovery went only to the college. His office took some to operate – salaries for individuals like Katie Watkins and Tina Sell and Lisa Camp. The University got 65% to pay for light and gas and the library – all of the kinds of things that keep the infrastructure running. Vice President Boyle agreed to allow them to take some of that money from the central administration and re-distribute it back to where Dean Tumeo felt some of the costs were actually being borne and that was at the department level – copying, secretarial support, and all of the things that faculty need to actually conduct their research and put in proposals as well as some for the PI in terms of incentivising indirect cost recovery. He noted that they shifted 15% of the indirect and increased what the department received and allowed the colleges to recover some. That is how indirect is now re-distributed. It very closely tracks where the indirect cost expenses are incurred. An indirect cost expense is dictated by the federal government. They have a formula of what can be listed. Those expenses are tracked every three years, and we negotiate our indirect cost recovery rate with the federal government. They tell us what indirect is and then we can match it that way.

Dean Tumeo reported that there are also a lot of other activities going on and he highlighted the President’s Initiative Fund. It is funded by the Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, and matched by money from Cleveland State from President Schwartz. Recently, the 1525 Foundation awarded an additional $100,000. We are now getting ready to enter into the third and final phase of this program. On Monday and Tuesday, the external review team will be on campus visiting with each of the five recipients that were awarded in the last round, evaluating their progress, looking at where they are headed, and then the RFPs will come out by the end of December, beginning of January 2005. Only these five programs are eligible and the RFP will delineate the proposal and the new awards will be made by the end of March 2005, beginning of April 2005. Once again, this program is to help build partnership and signature programs at Cleveland State.

Dean Tumeo noted that the other thing they have been focusing on a great deal over the past year, and he is sure that everyone will hear more about it as we move forward, is Technology Transfer at Cleveland State. The Board of Trustees has really taken this on and taken a leadership role in it. They have formed a committee. They have been working with Dean Tumeo and with other members of the University to try to increase not only our development of intellectual property, mainly patents, but how to get this intellectual property out into the community so that companies are licensing it, using it, having an impact, and bringing royalties back. We have worked on appropriate policies and procedures, and we managed to get a grant from the federal government. We are in the process of hiring a technology transfer officer who will serve as the Associate Director of the Industrial Technology Institute to spearhead these activities. As soon as that person is on board, we will start meeting with the faculty, and we will see a real gearing-up in that area.

Professor Surendra Tewari noted that as he understands it, one of the missions of Cleveland State University is to go from a Doctoral II to a Doctoral I institution. Professor Tewari asked two questions: 1) Are most of the faculty aware of what it takes to become a Doctoral I institution? and 2) Are most of the faculty in sync with that vision? Dean Tumeo replied starting with the latter. First of all, there is no such thing as Doctoral I and Doctoral II anymore in Carnegie classifications. That was done away with a few years ago. We now have Extensive and Intensive. CSU is a Research Extensive, and there is no conceivable way we can work into the next level because it would require a magnitude of more research, more doctoral programs, and more of everything, and the budget is just not there. Under the old Doctoral I and Doctoral II categories, the only distinction between Doctoral I and Doctoral II for us, if we were to classify ourselves that way, is the number of Doctoral students we graduate on an annual basis on average. We are already over what is required in terms of federal research expenditures to be a Doctoral I. We have enough doctoral programs – you need at least five and we have six – the requirement is that you graduate on average 50 per year over a two-year period. We currently graduate almost 40 per year over a two-year period. So, if we were to say as a goal we wanted to go from Doctoral II to Doctoral I, it means on average, we need to graduate ten more doctoral students per year. Now in terms of being in sync in what we are doing, Dr. Tumeo has been trying to increase doctoral education, not as a matter of going from Doctoral II to Doctoral I, but as a function of the research increase. If we are going to do research, we need undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students. We have the chemistry and the biology and applied medical programs in partnership with the Cleveland Clinic, but the Clinic actually funds the students. So it is only to our benefit as an institution to increase those programs and get more doctoral students. From that standpoint, yes, Dr. Tumeo is pushing to increase doctoral education at CSU. Is it explicit that we want to move from Doctoral II to Doctoral I? Not that he knows of. In terms of faculty being in sync with that, Dean Tumeo stated that the Research Council and the Graduate Council have supported that goal. Those are the kinds of faculty consulting and governance groups that he looks to help him with his strategic planning. From that perspective, the answer is yes.

Professor Tewari stated that what he is looking for is to have that goal within each college and have a body of staff whose priority it would be to avoid impediments if there are any in that particular process and encourage that. Professor Tewari stated that he doesn’t think that body exists in any one of the colleges. Dean Tumeo said he would imagine that until we go through the strategic planning process, we do not technically have a strategic plan for the colleges to move on so he would agree with Professor Tewari. If that becomes part of the strategic plan of the faculty and the University as developed through that very comprehensive and collaborative process the Senate just passed, then that is what is going to happen. Until that happens, he is just trying to help increase graduate education because it increases research, it increases subsidy, and it increases tuition.

Professor Alan Reichert noted that he is the finance representative of the doctoral program in the College of Business. He reported that they just started a program back up last year and they will be admitting students every two years. They have five students in the program this year in finance. Two are part-time and not supported by the college, two are supported by the college, and one is on an international grant. For the one student that he has been working with, he spent probably one third of his time this semester just trying to get assistantships and making arrangements for her so that she can support her international tuition, and that has taken up a lot of his time. In addition, when a student is brought in, and it is typically a four-year program, the college is finding it difficult to guarantee them international tuition waivers and graduate stipends for four years. The policy in the College of Business is three years. Nobody is going to finish a credible doctoral program in three years. So that leaves all of the students in the fourth year in limbo in terms of support. He is trying to patch support for the one or two students who have been working in the finance areas. We need to reduce that uncertainty for our students as long as they are making good progress. When we bring them in, it should be for a minimum of four years of support. Right now, the level of support varies semester to semester. We need the money to cover their living expenses.

Dean Tumeo commented that one thing they did do this past year in the Graduate College, once again working with Vice President Jack Boyle that has helped at the doctoral level, is that new international doctoral students don’t pay the 100% surcharge. It is only a 40% surcharge, so the total tuition for new doctoral students is going to drop by a substantial amount. At the same time, the amount of Graduate Assistantship monies that went to the colleges was not reduced meaning that what was saved this year from not having to pay as much surcharge is available within the colleges because that money is passed from him to the Deans, and the Deans then control it. All of the Academic Deans get an allocation every year for Graduate Assistantships. The policies and the distribution is controlled at the college levels because, as was stated by Dr. Tewari, the actual policies and strategic planning for graduate education at the colleges should be handled at the colleges. That is not something that the Graduate College is going to oversee. His job is to support and enable what the colleges and the faculty within the graduate program say they want to do. So that money passes to the Deans, and that is where those policies occurred. So, they tried to increase the flexibility. Formerly, it was received in stipends and tuition, and we couldn’t move it between these lines. We now can move it, and we can maximize it with Jack Boyle helping to reduce that surcharge for the doctoral students. Dean Tumeo added that those are the kinds of things they are doing to help. Concerning some of the internal policies, he would address those through the colleges.

Professor Alan Reichert asked if the reduction in the surcharge would still be in effect this coming fall. Dean Tumeo responded that this is now policy for all students from fall 2004 on. The surcharge for new doctoral students starting after fall 2004 is 40% and not 100%.

Professor Reichert asked, “But the ones who came the year before are still at 100%?” Dean Tumeo responded that Professor Reichert was correct. Professor Reichert wondered if it has been reduced for provisional students. Dean Tumeo responded, “Not at this time.” He is working on trying to get that done next. It is a financial impact because we don’t get doctoral subsidy anymore from the State of Ohio. So we can increase doctoral students and it means nothing to our subsidy. All of the money to run doctoral programs in terms of income comes from tuition. Now we say, look, we are going to take people that are paid and knock down what they are paid – we have an overall impact so we are trying to balance that out.

Professor Reichert commented that the subsidy from the State for doctoral programs is the same as for master’s programs. Dean Tumeo replied that for master’s level it is still driven by student credit hours and vis-à-vis the other universities. It is a real complex formula but you can still grow subsidy if the State will put more money into the subsidy. For doctoral students starting in 1999, it was no longer linked to student credit hours.

Professor Tewari commented that this is only one example of the impediments which exist that he was talking about. Apparently education and doctoral education in this institution is really like a step, step, step to the power of God knows what and being a positive number child of the education system. So unless the colleges and the faculty come in sync with the Graduate College, the Graduate research is not going anywhere. The faculty is going to struggle and get frustrated which is what is happening. Dean Tumeo stated that is why he is really excited about the strategic planning. The reality is, as a Graduate College Dean, he cannot dictate that. He tries everything he can. He meets with people and he has committee meetings, but ultimately, it is the faculty of each college that has to bring that as agenda forward because Dr. David Larson said it perfectly. If the faculty wants to do something that the administration doesn’t, it's not going to happen. If the administration wants to do something and the faculty doesn’t, it’s not going to happen. It has to be a partnership. He has been working hard for the graduate education from his side. He thinks they have been doing a great job. Graduate education is 33% of the enrollment at this University. We are the highest percentage of graduate students of any public institution in the State. It represents 40% of our income. Our research has doubled over four years. So, they are doing a great job. Are there impediments; are there problems? Yes. Can we all work together more to get this done? Without a doubt. But, we are doing okay given the circumstances of where we started.

An unidentified person asked, “What is the difference between an extensive and an intensive?” Dean Tumeo responded that for the larger one like Research Intensive, you need to have something like $50 to $60 million of federal expenditures per year; you need to have more than 15 doctoral programs; you need to be graduating somewhere around 100 doctoral students on average per year. It is places like Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve, and MIT – the big universities. It is a pretty unique group. He noted that he has been tracking our NSF national rankings. His goal is to bring CSU up into the top 200. We started at 231 and this last reporting period we were at 216 so we are on the right track. Just as a note, we passed Kent State University last year so now we are nationally ranked higher than Kent State.

VI. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz reminded everyone that Vice President Joe Nolan is retiring on December 10, 2004 and there will be a reception for Joe in Mather Mansion the afternoon of December 10th. He noted that he was sure that everyone will want to come by to say hello to him.

President Schwartz also reminded everyone that Commencement is on Sunday, December 19, 2004 and he looks forward to seeing everyone there.

President Schwartz reported that he has been negotiating with the University of Akron and Kent State University in something they are calling a Shared Services Agreement. The idea is that we all are going to be on the same equipment software and do backroom operations with the same place and save ourselves a lot of money down the road. Those negotiations have been going on for some months. The Presidents have directed the Vice Presidents who are the chief financial officers or chief information officers at the three universities to come up with a final draft of a plan by December 21, 2004, and by then we will see exactly where we are going with this. This is not easy stuff to do but it’s on its way. It is a key piece of the report from the Governor’s Commission on Higher Education and the Economy so we want to see some real progress in this as we go forward.

President Schwartz commented that the Dean searches are ongoing. We have interviewed three of the candidates for Dean of the College of Law and four candidates for Dean of the College of Science. We haven’t begun to interview the candidates for Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences yet, but that is coming shortly.

President Schwartz noted that given what our fellow citizens did in the last election, we are somewhat concerned about where we stand with regard to domestic partner benefits. The universities that have those agreements, which are Ohio University, Miami University, Ohio State University, Cleveland State University, the University of Akron, and Cuyahoga Community College are, as they used to say in the UN, waiting for instructions from our government. We are trying to get the Attorney General to tell us what he thinks we are going to have to do, but we haven’t had any ruling from him. We are expecting that by Friday, at the latest, so President Schwartz said that he will keep everyone posted on what the Attorney General has to say.

President Schwartz stated that we have been having some Town Hall meetings on a couple of questions. One question is, “What should an educated person with a Baccalaureate degree from Cleveland State really be like and, therefore, what should our general education program be like?” In support of the answer to that question, we have had meetings in the College of Education and in the College of Business so far. They have both been extremely lively, and the kinds of responses have really been quite remarkable. The replies ranged from skills like reading, writing, speaking the language, etc. One comment which he thought was interesting, if not a little provocative, was when one of our colleagues said, “I think that the purpose of all of this is to produce a virtuous person.” So, back to Aristotle folks. It was a very good comment as a matter of fact because it did provoke lots of important conversation. In both of those meetings, that kind of thing happened, and he thought that was very good. He is looking forward to the remainder of those meetings.

President Schwartz reported that they have been having some meetings also with the Press, and they had a very good conversation with folks in management at Channel 3 recently. He thought that meeting went extremely well. Just last week, he had a very friendly wide-ranging conversation and frank exchange of views, with the editorial board of the Akron Beacon Journal. We are going to keep going to all of these places and more of those will be coming. The President noted that in the Channel 3 meeting, one of the persons there from the TV station thought we would be well advantaged by changing the name of this university to the University of Cleveland. President Schwartz pointed out to him that this may be the case but we have all of these new signs, and he really doesn’t know where he would sell the signs. That comment came up twice in the same day and it is one of two things that come up in more than casual conversation – change the name of the university to the University of Cleveland and play football.

President Schwartz reported that they have been very active in Columbus and in Washington with the last passage of the budget bill in Washington, D.C. We had a number of earmark requests in that bill and it looks like we are going to get several of them so we did pretty well this time.

The President commented that just yesterday, a team from the American Council on Education was at Cleveland State to talk to us about our progress in globalization in the curriculum. The ACE folks thought the report of the committee that Professor Barbara Hoffman has lead with great style and energy was just first rate. So congratulations to Professor Hoffman and to those who participated.

Finally, President Michael Schwartz wanted to simply wish everyone a very happy holiday season. He said that he hopes everyone gets some very much deserved rest after the grades are submitted, electronically, of course. Also, he gave his very best wishes to everyone for a very good New Year.

President Schwartz reported that Professor Surendra Tewari has earned a medal for his work for a society, a name of which he cannot pronounce, but it has to do with metals and materials. This is for his scholarship over the long haul. He has also been elected a Fellow of that same society. President Schwartz said that he sent his compliments to Professor Tewari by email. The distinction on our faculty is not exactly unknown but it’s always nice to see more come at us all of the time. Everyone applauded.

VII. New Business

Senate President Vijay Konangi stated that he had two items. First, he wanted to thank four faculty colleagues who worked in a very cooperative and collegiate manner to produce the Strategic Planning Process document. The original document was complex and because these four faculty colleagues worked cooperatively, we have a simplified process, which was approved unanimously this afternoon. He thanked Professors Susan Hill, Roberta Steinbacher, Rodger Govea, and David Larson for producing the document.

Senate President Konangi noted that as President Schwartz mentioned, this will be Vice President Joe Nolan’s last Senate meeting. He is scheduled to retire next week and from Dr. Konangi’s perspective, he is sure that his faculty colleagues will join with him in that we certainly have Joe Nolan to thank for our health insurance policy. Over the last few years we have seen modest increases in our premiums but no drop in benefits, and no need to change service providers, and we thank Joe Nolan for that. Dr. Konangi added that everyone wishes Joe Nolan well in his retirement. Every applauded.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M.


Susan E. Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary




[Top of Page]