I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 9, 2005 Meeting
III. University Curriculum Committee
IV. Admissions and Standards Committee
V. University Faculty Affairs Committee
VI. University President's Report
VII. New Business
PRESENT: E. Anderson , Angelova, Bauer , Berlin -Ray, W. Bowen, deFelice, Dean, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Gelman, Govea, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, Heinrich, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Li, McCahon, Mills, O'Malia, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Poznanski, Saunders, M. Schwartz, Slane, Sparks, Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton, Tumeo, Visocky-O'Grady, L. C. Wang, Ziolek.
ABSENT: C. Alexander, Atherton, A. Benander, Boyle, Cherry, Dillard-Mitchell, Dobda, Gorla, Humer, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, Lehfeldt, Lopresti, Margolius, McClain, McLoughlin, Nuru-Holm, L. E. Reed, Reichert, Rosentraub, Rucker, Sawicki, Scherer, Shah, Silberger, M. Smith, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Walton, J. Webb.
ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for March 9, 2005 was moved, seconded, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 9, 2005 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
A. Proposed BA in Criminology (Report No. 22, 2004-2005)
Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposed Bachelor of Arts program in Criminology. He noted that this is the second time this program has been through the approval process. Last year, it was sent to the University Curriculum Committee as a program development proposal. It was reviewed and approved by the UCC and then sent to Columbus . It was then approved by OBOR. We were given the go ahead to develop the program, and now it has made its way through the various steps and is again before Senate for consideration. This program will be housed in the Sociology Department, but it will be a separate major from the Sociology major. It makes use of courses in other programs that are relevant to the discipline. All of those programs have agreed to have their courses included. Therefore, the UCC recommends the program for approval.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed BA in Criminology was unanimously approved.
B. Proposed Revised Master of Science in Urban Studies
(Report No. 23, 2004-2005)
Dr. Peter Meiksins next presented the committee's proposed revised Master of Science program in Urban Studies. He stated that this is an existing program which has been substantially revised by the College of Urban Studies . Essentially, in a nutshell, it involves creating areas of specialization within the program that replaced what are now essentially optional areas of concentration. There are currently five outlined in the proposal. There may be other ones in the pipeline. There were several others in the original proposal that were sent back to committee. He did not know at what point those now are but eventually other additional proposals may come forward. Were that the case, then they will come to the University Curriculum Committee and go through the usual approval process. But, we are simply approving this proposal and this proposal will replace the existing Masters of Science program as described in the Graduate Catalog. So, it is not in addition to, it is instead of.
There being no questions, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote on the proposal. The proposed revised Master of Science in Urban Studies program was unanimously approved.
Senate President Konangi reported that we have five items from the Admissions and Standards Committee. As most of us are aware, Professor Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, is ill and unable to be at today's meeting. We tried to find someone else from the committee to take her place but we were unsuccessful. He noted that he will present the motions on behalf of the Admissions and Standards Committee.
A. Proposed Revision to the University's Undergraduate Academic
Reassessment Policy (Report No. 24, 2004-2005)
Senate President Konangi stated that the first proposal from the committee is to revise the University's Undergraduate Academic Reassessment policy. The proposal essentially states that if a student applies for reassessment, there are two conditions to be met. One is that the student first should have been dismissed because of the GPA listed below 2.00 and then the student has to complete 16 semester credit hours with a GPA at least 2.00. Subsequent to that, all courses in which the student has a grade of D or below will not be used in the calculation of the GPA. That is essentially what this revised proposal does.
Professor Jeffrey Dean stated that he would like to make three suggestions that he hopes will be viewed as friendly amendments. One, in the next to the last paragraph, strike the words “will not be granted retroactively” since it seems to him deadlines are already stated about that.
Professor Jeffrey Dean noted that the second suggestion would be to strike the word “immediately” in the second paragraph, fourth line. This is essentially when students can reapply. So in the wording, “with a CSU grade point average of no less than 2.00 immediately following the return,” “immediately” is never really defined so he would propose striking that word. Dr. Konangi presumed immediately would be the first semester in which the student is enrolled. Dr. Edward Thomas noted that it would be the first 16 hours. Dr. Jeffrey Dean stated that there is a clear specification that it is relating to the most recent one-year absence. So, suppose the student is here and takes eight credits, goes away for a semester, comes back and takes ten more credits, then immediately could be over a year after the absence. Dr. Konangi stated that this would still be along the lines of what Mr. Ed Mills is saying. Mr. Mills said that it meets the spirit if we take the word “immediately” out. Dr. Konangi said that it could be spread over two semesters. Professor Jeffrey Dean again suggested just taking the word “immediately” out.
Finally, Professor Dean referred to the next to the last paragraph. Again, he said that he would like to see a clear statement of what reassessment means. He suggested substituting the words, “Reassessment means” for “immediately following the grade for each reassessed course.” The sentence would read: “Reassessment means the Office of the University Registrar will insert a notation…” Mr. Edward Mills accepted the amendment stating that it clarifies the language because that is what was intended to be said.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed revision to the University's Undergraduate Academic Reassessment Policy was unanimously approved as amended.
B. Proposed Declaration of Major Policy for Undergraduate Students
(Report No. 25, 2004-2005)
Senate President Konangi presented the Committee's proposed Declaration of Major Policy for Undergraduate Students. Right now, we do not have a policy which makes students declare a major. Different programs have different policies. This proposal essentially requires students to declare a major before completion of 60 credit hours or, if they are transfer students, after one semester. The whole purpose of this proposal is to reduce our drop-off rate as far as undergraduate students are concerned.
Dr. Edward Thomas noted that along similar lines of Professor Jeffrey Dean's comments, this states that a transfer student who enters with more than 60 credits is encouraged to declare a major after the first semester. He inquired, “What does after mean? Do we mean immediately after in this case or before they enter the next semester afterwards or at any time after that?” Mr. Edward Mills replied that the intent was before the students enter their next semester of study. Professor Thomas suggested that that be stated somehow.
Senate President Konangi suggested stating, “Before enrolling in the second semester.” Professor Thomas noted that it only says encourage so the students probably won't do it anyway, but at least we give them some direction. Mr. Edward Mills noted that Dr. Thomas was referring to the second paragraph in the memorandum. The actual language below that paragraph states that we are requiring transfer students. It states, “Transfer students who are admitted to the university with more than 60 credits are allowed one semester of study…” Professor Edward Thomas stated that he was referring to language that was not in the catalog copy. Mr. Edward Mills noted that the proposal is just the very last paragraph that would be the catalog copy.
Professor Edward Thomas noted that if the catalog copy clearly states that the students should do that before the next semester, then we are okay. Senate President Konangi noted that the sentence would then read: “Transfer students who are admitted to the university with more than 60 credits are allowed one semester of study before enrolling in the subsequent semester.”
There being no further discussion on the proposal, Senate President Konangi called for the vote. The proposed Declaration of Major Policy for Undergraduate Students was unanimously approved as amended.
C. Proposed Revision to Conditional Admission Status to the Graduate
College (Report No. 26, 2004-2005)
Dr. Vijay Konangi Presented the third proposal from the Admissions and Standards Committee and the Graduate College : Proposed Revision to Conditional Admission Status to the Graduate College . He stated that this proposed revision will permit Graduate students who do not have the English language proficiency to enroll in the ESL program. Of course, it is under conditional admission status. If students have any academic deficiencies, they may still enroll under conditional admission status. Conditional admission is determined by the departmental program. It is not determined in a centralized office. So the control of the program is still decided within the department.
There being no discussion, the vote was taken. The proposed revision to Conditional Admission Status to the Graduate College was unanimously approved.
D. Proposed Revision in Time to Graduate Degree Completion Requirement
(Report No. 27, 2004-2005)
Senate President Vijay Konangi noted that the fourth proposal is from the Graduate College and that is to revise the time requirements for graduation. For a master's program, a student has six years from date of entry to complete the requirements. A student may petition the departmental/program graduate committee to extend the time period for up to ten years. If a petition for an extension up to ten years is denied at the departmental level, the student may appeal the denial to the College of Graduate Studies Petitions Committee . Such petitions must show compelling reasons for the extension and if granted, may include a requirement that coursework older than six years be repeated. For a doctoral program, a student has a period of ten years from date of entry to complete the requirements. A petition to extend the ten-year period must be approved by the departmental/program graduate committee and must be submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Petitions Committee . Such petitions must show compelling reasons for the extension and if granted, may include a requirement that coursework older than ten years be repeated. Finally, a student who enrolls consecutively in a master's then doctoral program without interruption of at least one academic year following receipt of the master's degree must complete doctoral requirements within ten calendar years from the date of admission to the doctoral program. Again, a petition to extend the ten-year period to complete the doctoral degree must be approved by the departmental/program graduate committee and must be submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Petitions Committee . Such petitions must also show compelling reasons for the extension and if granted, may include a requirement that coursework older than ten years be repeated.
Since there were no questions or discussion, Dr. Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed revision in Time to Graduate Degree Completion Requirement was approved unanimously.
E. Proposed Conditional Admission for Undergraduate International
Applicants whose First Language is not English (Report No. 28, 2004-2005)
Dr. Vijay Konangi stated that the final proposal from the Admissions and Standards Committee is a proposal for Conditional Admission for Undergraduate International Applicants whose First Language is not English. This is a companion proposal essentially to what was just approved for graduate students but it applies to undergraduate students. The student should be admitable as far as academic standards are concerned. There is no change in the academic standards. This only addresses any English language deficiency. Students may then be given conditional admission status and be enrolled in the ESL program on campus. If the student successfully completes the ESL program, then the student can enroll and take classes in the academic program. There is a slight correction in the document distributed. Referring to the fourth bullet, Dr. Konangi noted that the language “Graduate Admissions, the related Graduate Programs” should be stricken. It does not apply to graduate programs. It only applies to undergraduate programs. The graduate one has been addressed separately.
Professor Candice Hoke stated that she had no disagreement with the policy whatsoever, but the writing needs to be a little bit clearer. She referred to bullet two and noted that the sentence has some no parallel construction. It states, “The Intensive English Language Program will provide the full-time instruction required for F-1 visa holders and the advising these students will need to be successful.” She would strike the words, “will need to be successful.” She felt that the instruction needs to be successful as well. The language would read: “The Intensive English Language Program will provide the full-time instruction required for F-1 visa holders and the Student Advising Services.” It is implied that it will be successful.
Professor Candice Hoke referred to bullet number three and noted that there is a phrase at the end of the first sentence that says, “within the time frame allotted.” She looked back to look for it, but of course, it is below that point. She would recommend that bullet four be moved up in front of bullet three so that the reader will find the timeframe before the reference to the time frame.
Dr. Rodger Govea asked to clarify. He noted that what was bullet four has become bullet three and a sentence in that bullet now reads, “While a student is under conditional admission, the IELP will inform Admissions and the Center for International Services and Programs…” Dr. Konangi responded that Dr. Govea was correct.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed Conditional Admission for Undergraduate International Applicants whose First Language is not English was approved unanimously.
A. Proposed Revisions to Graduate College Bylaws (Second Reading )
(Report No. 20, 2004-2005)
Dr. David Larson, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that this is a second reading of the proposed revisions to the Graduate College Bylaws. UFAC has looked at these revisions to see if there were any violations of university processes and procedures and rules and did not find any. The committee did not evaluate the merits of these revisions because the committee didn't think it was their business to second guess the Graduate College and running of its own affairs. The summary of amendments is on the first page of the document and then the detailed changes follow. He noted that Dean Mark Tumeo is at Senate to respond to questions.
Senate President Konangi commented that this is the second reading of the proposal. We had the first reading at our last Senate meeting. To approve these changes to the Bylaws, a two-thirds majority is needed.
Professor Beth Ekelman noted that Graduate Studies is defined as everything except the degree of JD. She asked, “If somebody has a degree of JD, they could still have Graduate Faculty status in the College?” Dean Mark Tumeo responded that this was correct. Dean Tumeo stated that Law faculty are under these Bylaws changes and also included in the Graduate Council for policy just like they are for Faculty Senate. Dr. Konangi noted that there is one position for Law on the Graduate Council.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed revisions to the Graduate College Bylaws was unanimously approved.
B. Proposed Resolution Concerning Ohio Senate Bill, S.B. 24
(Report No. 14, 2004-2005)
Dr. David Larson stated that members who were at Senate last time remember that the University Faculty Affairs Committee presented a resolution which was discussed, and, at that point, a substitute resolution was made and discussed. There was then a motion to table which he realizes now must have tabled the substitute motion because that was the motion on the floor. So, technically, the Faculty Affairs Committee's original motion remains on the floor because it was never released. He noted that he, however, withdraws the original motion at this point. He only figured this all out afterwards. What had actually been tabled was the substitute motion. He is now withdrawing the original motion and substituting the motion included in the meeting packets. It comes under the aegis of Faculty Affairs but it is not exactly a Faculty Affairs resolution.
Dr. Larson explained the background. After the meeting on February 9, 2005 , at the instigation of Senate President Vijay Konangi, there was a meeting of two people who had supported the substitute motion and two people from UFAC to see if we could work out a compromise. Within 35 minutes they had done so to his amazement. This is the Resolution before Senate. The essence, of course, is a response to Ohio Senate Bill S.B. 24 which was also included in the meeting packets. Senate Bill 24 is a bill pending before the Ohio State Senate which would attempt to provide an outside monitor to encourage universities to set up extra and new monitors for various kinds of issues. All of the people who met agreed that this bill is not useful and that it intrudes upon the autonomy of universities, and we thought we would take a lesson from the bill. The bill co-ops some of the AAUP's principles and uses them for purposes that the AAUP never expected. So, we have done pretty much the same thing. We have pointed out in part one, of the first Whereas, that we agreed with many of the bill's purposes, but that, in fact, it includes most of our fundamentals of academic freedom. But, in part two, by putting them into effect, the legislature would be both unnecessary and intrusive and harmful. So, we conclude with:
“We the Faculty Senate of Cleveland State University find S.B. 24 to be unnecessary and inappropriate,
“Be it therefore resolved that the Faculty Senate of Cleveland State University opposes S.B. 24 and reaffirms its commitment to the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity.”
Dr. Larson stated that since this resolution is not really coming from the Faculty Affairs Committee, he asked for a second. Dr. Rodger Govea seconded the motion. Dr. Larson noted that there have been five or six such resolutions passed by other institutions. This resolution is the most mild-mannered of them. It does the job perfectly well but it does so with much more civility than some of the others have done. He went on to say that it does what needs to be done, and he supports it and hopes that Senate will as well.
Professor Candice Hoke thanked those who worked so hard to make the Resolution a civil-toned but very firm discussion of our views because she knows that it took a good deal of work and massaging on very sensitive issues and thanked everyone involved.
Senate President Konangi thanked our colleagues, David Forte, Bill Bowen, Rodger Govea, and David Larson, the authors of this Resolution.
Professor Peter Poznanski stated that he thought it might be clearer and read better if we take the sentence, “We the Faculty Senate of Cleveland State University find S.B. 24 to be unnecessary and inappropriate,” and put that above the “Whereas, however,” and perhaps add the word “because.” To him the words “Whereas, however,” doesn't necessarily imply our logic if that makes sense. Dr. Larson said that he didn't see any problem. Professor Poznanski stated that it is not a big deal but the “Whereas, however, because”… Dr. Larson said that he thought that would work fine. Dr. Larson noted that the wording will now read:
“Whereas, however, we the Faculty Senate of Cleveland State University find S.B. 24 to be unnecessary and inappropriate because,” and then “a)…”
Professor Candice Hoke felt that the resolution was more effective the way it was originally because it states reasons before conclusion rather than stating the conclusion and hearing our rationales. It is more effective the way it is. The “however” can be struck and we could say “further” or something else, but at the bottom, we could just put “thus, we the Faculty Senate…” We could use some transitional words in that way, but she really encouraged putting the concerns before the conclusion because they lead to the conclusion.
Dr. Larson stated that if we are going to do that, he would like to leave the “however” because even though it may be a little lose it clearly indicates that we are transitioning and he wouldn't want to get rid of that. He is willing to go either way, but he really doesn't want to rewrite the resolution. He asked how many Senators preferred the revised version and there was no response. He then asked how many Senators preferred the original version. Senators preferred the original version. Dr. Larson then stated that the original version stands.
Senate President Konangi then asked members to vote. The proposed Resolution concerning Ohio Senate Bill, S.B. 24 was unanimously approved as originally written.
President Michael Schwartz first thanked Professor Susan Hill for agreeing to chair the University Planning Committee.
President Schwartz reminded everyone that the PeopleSoft settlement check has arrived. He noted that he has never seen a check made out for $4,250,000. We have not been short of creativity as a faculty with regard to the uses to which that money should be put. His email is clogged up with suggestions. He said that if anyone has more suggestions, by all means send them to him before next Thursday, when he will take a list of those suggestions to the Board of Trustees. If anyone were to ask him about his own opinion, and it is probably not going to happen so he will tell it anyway, it strikes him that the students of the university paid the heaviest price in the course of the PeopleSoft problem that we had in the late 90s. Therefore, the bulk of this money, it not all of it, ought to go to their benefit in one form or another. In that regard, he will probably tell the Trustees, if it were President Schwartz's money, which obviously it isn't, he would want to use it as an endowment for student scholarships so we don't just spend it. There are some really very good suggestions, and he will take all of those to the Board of Trustees.
President Schwartz commented that he can't make a formal announcement of this yet, but another gift to the university for scholarships of about that same magnitude is on its way. We are doing better and better with this all of the time.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:42 P.M.
Susan Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]