I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 9, 2005 Meeting
III. University Curriculum Committee
IV. Admissions and Standards Committee
V. University President's Report
VI. New Business
PRESENT: E. Anderson , Atherton, A. Benander, Berlin-Ray, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Gelman, Govea, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoke, Humer, M. Kaufman, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Margolius, McCahon, McClain, Mills, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Poznanski, Reichert, Rucker, M. Saunders, Sawicki, Schwartz, Shah, Silberger, Slane, M. Smith, Spicer, E. Thomas, Visocky-O'Grady, Walton, L. C. Wang, Ziolek.
ABSENT: C. Alexander, Angelova, Bauer, W. Bowen, Boyle, Cherry, de Felice, Dillard-Mitchell, Forte, Gorla, Heinrich, Hoffman, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Lehfeldt, Li, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Nuru-Holm, O'Malia, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Scherer, Sparks , Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Thornton, Tumeo, J. Webb.
ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for April 6, 2005 was moved, seconded, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the March 9, 2005 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
A. Proposed Revised Executive MBA Program (Report No. 29, 2004-2005)
Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposed revised Executive MBA Program. This is an existing program which has been significantly revised in order to revive it and to attract new students. It was reviewed by Graduate Council and approved by them. It was then sent to the University Curriculum Committee. The UCC reviewed it as well. Basically, what they have done is to specify fairly clearly their admission requirements and to reduce the number of hours that the program requires to make it more comparable to other competing programs in the region. Our program apparently was out of line with the programs being offered by other schools and that was handicapping our ability to recruit students. The program was very cooperative and made various modifications that the UCC and Graduate Council requested, and so the UCC recommends it to the Faculty Senate.
Since there was no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed revised Executive MBA Program was unanimously approved.
B. Proposed Revised Program Review Process (Report No. 30, 2004-2005)
Professor Peter Meiksins presented the UCC's second item which is a significant revision of the program review process that is currently being put in place on campus. As everyone will probably recall, there is a long history to this process. In the past few years, the program was suspended at the request among others, of the Graduate Dean. It was reviewed by a Task Force that reported back and essentially recommended that there needed to be more follow-up to the program review process. Subsequent discussions were held in the UCC and in response to some things that were said on the floor of Senate, a Task Force was appointed consisting of three members of the faculty and two members appointed by the administration. The Task Force met and drafted the document before Senate today. Vice Provost Gitanjali Kaul worked with the UCC to produce a final version of the document. The UCC saw the document on several occasions and read it through as carefully and made various suggestions which were incorporated in the final document. As this process was evolving, the strategic planning process also was finalized and so the UCC and the Vice Provost's Office met to try to make what the document said compatible with what the strategic planning documents said. This represents a blueprint for how program review will be conducted on campus. Obviously, there are a lot of things about this that are different from what we currently do. Dr. Meiksins drew the Senate's attention to the several substantial differences.
Professor Meiksins stated that first, the document moves us away from a one size fits all approach to program review. It visits the possibility of different forms of program review for programs that are under different circumstances. It frequently happens, for example, that a professional program which has outside accreditation requirements currently will have to go through a second round of reviews because our program review process doesn't accept the external review process as comparable. Under this proposal, programs in that situation could opt for a different form of program review which might focus on a particular aspect of the program so that it would be something that would actually be useful to them as opposed to a redundant exercise in jumping through hoops. So, there is a provision for a more flexible approach to what kind of program review gets done.
Dr. Meiksins noted that a second change is that it builds into the process a routine external consultant so that all programs will be reviewed by a committee which will include at least one external consultant who will be appointed in consultation with the department and the Provost's Office. This is an approach which is used on most campuses and we have been actually unusual in not doing that. In the past, we have only used external reviewers in cases where the department was seen as being in trouble. This makes it a routine and ensures that the program review committee will have some input from a person with expertise in the discipline under review.
Dr. Meiksins said that the third major difference is that there is an attempt here to specify a follow-up process involving routine meetings between or among the program, the Provost, the Dean of the College in question, and a record of what was said and what was agreed to so that there would be some ability to actually follow-up and determine whether, in fact, the recommended changes actually got made obviously depending upon whether resources were available and all of the usual constraints.
Professor Meiksins noted that this is a quick summary of what the changes represent. He said that Vice Provost Gitanjali Kaul is present at Senate today to respond to questions. She knows more about this document certainly than he (Professor Meiksins) does and probably more than anyone else. He noted that Professor Leo Jeffres chaired the committee that drafted this process.
Professor Rodger Govea questioned whether the Handbook or the Policy Abstract governs. Dr. Gitanjali Kaul responded that the Policy Abstract is actually a section by section summary of what is in the Handbook. There is no new material in the Policy Abstract from the Handbook.
Dr. Govea commented, for example, in the question of external consultants, there is quite a difference between what is in the Policy Abstract and what is in the Handbook. There is a full process in the Handbook which is not the same as reported in the Policy Abstract. Dr. Kaul responded that the Handbook will have more detail.
Dr. Govea noted then that the Handbook is the governing document because it contains things that are not in the Abstract. Senate President Konangi stated that his understanding is that the Policy Abstract is the defining document, and the Handbook can be revised as necessary. The Handbook is intended to provide additional details which are not in the Policy Abstract document. So, we should still confine our discussion to the Policy Abstract. Dr. Kaul agreed with Dr. Konangi and noted that that was what they had discussed earlier. Dr. Gitanjali Kaul stated that the detail is there if needed but really the Policy Abstract captures what we want to present for approval today.
Professor Govea referred to the section in the Handbook titled, “Selection of External Consultant.” The Abstract has a very simple process being that the dean selects four candidates. He noted that in the Handbook, there is an entire process in which the faculty identify a list of candidates and preferences. The chair/director may add additional comments and forward the list to the dean. This creates what actually looks to be two different processes. In one, the dean is simply forwarding the names and in the other there is a consultation with the faculty, a submission through the process with the chair.
Dr. Kaul replied that the Abstract is a summary of the Handbook, but the detail points out the extent to which the faculty is involved in nominating names, having the chair summarize the names, etc.
Dr. Susan Kogler Hill stated that the Faculty Senate Academic Steering Committee asked the Program Review Task Force to expand on the process for selecting external consultants by including faculty more directly in the process. Apparently, when the Task Force made the revision, it was made only in the Handbook and not in the Abstract. Professor Hill suggested that to correct this discrepancy we can either change the Abstract and say, “As specified in the Handbook”, or we can take the wording that is in the Handbook and put it in the Abstract. But Steering felt it was important to specify faculty involvement in this selection of the consultants.
Dr. Kaul thanked Dr. Hill saying that she had not been aware of the recommendation of the Steering Committee.
Senate President Konangi suggested to Dr. Rodger Govea that he propose an amendment to include the language from the Handbook in the Abstract. Dr. Govea noted that the language on page 11 of the Final Draft of the Handbook could be inserted on page 4 of 5 of the Policy Abstract. Dr. Konangi agreed that the language under Selection of External Consultant on page 11 of the Handbook could be inserted under Selection of External Consultant on page 4 of the Policy Abstract. Dr. Rodger Govea then moved that the Senate supersede the language in the Abstract.
Senate President Konangi then asked for discussion of Dr. Govea's amendment. There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi then called for a vote on the proposed amendment. The amendment was approved.
Senate President Konangi then asked for any further discussion on the Policy Abstract.
Professor Beth Ekelman stated that she appreciated the incorporation of a different approach for programs that have to undergo accreditation review. She asked if there had been any discussion about, for example, her department (Health Sciences), which has three programs that have external accreditation review and of course they are all at different times, and then they have programs that are not accredited. She asked if there was any discussion of how to manage that. Senate President Konangi responded that this would be a management issue so he would defer to Vice Provost Kaul to respond.
Vice Provost Kaul responded that they work with the department within the college to figure out what would constitute a good unit analysis for that particular department to review. That case applies to many departments. In Business for example, all of the undergraduate programs are accredited but the graduate programs are not. Those in the CIS department are not accredited. She asked how we go about organizing this. It is a question of working on the schedule with the dean and the chair of the department.
Professor Beth Ekelman asked if there would be any kind of change in the schedule or would Dr. Kaul change the procedure. She wondered if it would be appropriate to have the University Curriculum Committee look at that because some of these can get complicated in terms of making their recommendations.
Dr. Peter Meiksins noted that this would be helpful for the UCC to look at, and the UCC could certainly do that in situations of impact. If there were some dispute between a program and the Provost's Office, it might be useful to have a third party make a recommendation. He certainly has no objection, and he didn't think that any other members of the UCC would have an objection.
Professor Beth Ekelman stated that she felt that language indicating that if there is a dispute, it could be referred to the UCC for their recommendation. Professor Meiksins inquired if Professor Ekelman was proposing an amendment.
Senate President Konangi stated that this is a matter of standard practice as far as the Greenbook is concerned. It will either go to the University Curriculum Committee or to the University Faculty Affairs Committee if there is a dispute.
Dr. David Larson added that anybody can appeal to the Greenbook. Dr. Konangi stated that this is standard Greenbook procedure anyway. Dr. Ekelman stated that she just wanted to make sure.
Professor Larson stated that any time faculty feel their rights are being ignored, they can appeal to the University Faculty Affairs Committee to look into it. If it is a curricular issue in specific, then they can go to the University Curriculum Committee.
Professor Michael Spicer noted that one of the reasons we knocked this down for a while was the section, at least among some, that these program reviews had not really had much impact. They all sat on the shelves as it were. He asked what is it about this current iteration of program review that would mitigate against that.
Senate President Konangi deferred to Provost Chin Kuo to respond to Professor Spicer's question. Dr. Konangi noted that Provost Kuo has made a commitment to take action.
Provost Chin Kuo commented that one of the key issues criticizing the past is we go through all of these reviews and do nothing and put them on a shelf. This is the one area we tried to address. We already have two out of three and pretty soon it becomes three out of three. In all of the previous program reviews, agreement was reached on all of them. Agreement means that we came up with a spread sheet, and this is the order of the recommendations. Then column by column, this is what the department will do, this is what the college will do, this is what the Provost will do, and, in fact, by the time we reached agreement, some of them had already been done anyway. We have a couple of department chairs at Senate today and they can probably speak to that. Physics and Health Sciences are already done. He noted that this is a very important step that is being taken to insure that indeed we do something. It is not just an exercise.
Professor Meiksins directed the Senate's attention to page 2 of the Policy Abstract which has a description of the follow-up process and he referred to Appendix B, p. 21 for a model of the memorandum of agreement that might be drawn up between a department and the university. That is what Provost Kuo was just describing. It is one of the things included in the document that the UCC thought was a positive step.
Dr. Michael Spicer wondered to what extent such a memorandum could be binding in a highly violatile budget situation where a budget comes to us with these decisions. Dr. Konangi deferred to Provost Chin Kuo to respond to Dr. Spicer's question.
Provost Chin Kuo responded that it comes down to resources. A lot of times you will see people asking for more faculty. That is not something we can resolve right away so we had to talk with the deans to see what their plans were for the next three to five years. Do they anticipate an opening coming up, what is your plan for reallocation, things like that. So, if Professor Spicer is talking about that particular issue, then he can respond to Professor Spicer that that is going take a while if there is not an immediate commitment. They are items we can not just take care of right on the spot.
Professor Spicer noted that essentially this process is divorced from the budgeting process.
Dr. Susan Hill referred to the bottom of page 2 of the Policy Abstract – “Relationship between Program Review and Planning.” After the program reviews go to the UCC, the UCC submits relevant comments then it goes to the Strategic Planning Committee and that is new.
Professor Meiksins stated that they did talk about whether implementation of specific recommendations in the program review would have to wait for the strategic planning process to continue, and the UCC's understanding was that this is not the case for all things. The strategic planning process is a long term view of things. There are short term recommendations that might be in a program review like the need for certain things that need to be fixed right now, and that could go ahead without waiting on the strategic planning process. Those two things can take place in parallel.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The Policy Abstract of the proposed revised Program Review Process was unanimously approved as amended.
Senate President Konangi thanked the Task Force that worked on the program review process: Mittie Olion Chandler, Leo Jeffres, Gitanjali Kaul, Lily Ng, and Jay McLoughlin. It was a long process and it took a lot of time and effort so he wanted to thank everyone.
Dr. Gitanjali Kaul also wanted to thank the University Curriculum Committee stating that they really did a great job going through it with a fine tooth comb.
Senate President Konangi reported that we have two proposals from the Admissions and Standards Committee. Professor Steinbacher is still on medical leave so he will introduce both of those motions on behalf of the Committee.
A. Proposal for Recognizing Outstanding Student Achievement:
Establishing a President's List at Cleveland State University (Report No. 31, 2004-2005)
Dr. Konangi reported that the first proposal of the Admissions and Standards Committee is for Recognizing Outstanding Student Achievement. It proposes establishment of a President's List. Dr. Konangi referred to the document under “Eligibility” and noted that for a student to be placed on the President's List, he or she has to take 15 credit hours and have a grade point average of at least 3.9.
Senate President Konangi noted that if there are any questions about this proposal, Mr. Peter Trumpower, the author of the proposal, is at Senate and would be glad to respond to questions.
Professor Jennifer Visocky-O'Grady commented that she didn't mean to be opening a can of worms because she loves the idea of a President's List, but she would really like to see it not be only based on grade point average though. We have spent so much time talking about building good citizens that it seems like it would be interesting if we combined grade point average with some leadership skills. Dr. Konangi noted that we need somebody to evaluate all of those soft leadership skills, and that would be faculty. So we would need a faculty committee to do all of those things. Professor Visocky-O'Grady stated that she felt that would be a valuable committee.
Dr. Konangi asked, “What criteria do we have for these intangible things?” Professor Visocky-O'Grady responded that we could put leadership on a student group – something that the Student Government Association has given credit to as a student group. She felt that this would be something to think about besides pure academics if we are going to call it the President's List – it is sort of the upper echelon.
Senate President Konangi responded that it is meant to be the upper echelon in the sense of being a little bit higher than the Dean's List.
Professor Candice Hoke stated that she appreciates the concern for recognizing leadership but she would also like to put in a plug for recognizing academic commitment and excellence because we need to do more of that and there are a lot of quiet people who are scholarly but not “leaderful”. Can we not recognize them through this list and say they have reached a pinnacle of academic achievement? She added that this would be a wonderful way of recognizing them. Dr. Konangi responded that he felt that was a wonderful solution, and he would request Peter Trumpower to take that under advisement. This would be a potential proposal for the future but it has to be examined carefully.
Dr. Edward Thomas reported that in the Academic Steering Committee he had asked the question why this was restricted to full-time students, and he pointed to the two purposes of the President's List. One purpose is to recognize academic performance and the other is to encourage timely completion of your program. He stated that he is sure we can find a student with a 3.9. Part-time students, if you go back, as we used to do when we were looking at probation and dismissal, we used to look at steps so every fifteen hour segment or whatever would be looked at, but the answer was that this has a different purpose in only recognizing academic achievements and also trying to encourage timely completion.
Professor Stephen Lazarus inquired, in terms of the way the grading systems work, is it possible for someone who doesn't get a 4.0 to get a 3.9. Professor David Larson commented that we have A minuses and B pluses.
Since there was no further discussion on the proposal, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposal for Recognizing Outstanding Student Achievement: Establishing a President's List at Cleveland State University was unanimously approved.
B. Proposed Revised Admissions Policy for Undergraduate Transfer
Students (Report No. 32, 2004-2005)
Senate President Konangi presented the second item from the Admissions and Standards Committee which is a revision to the Admissions Policy for Undergraduate Transfer Students.
Mr. Peter Trumpower, Coordinator of Assessment and Retention Studies, noted that this proposal is to close a policy loophole with new freshmen admissions standards. We are only addressing brand new students and the situation is that if these new freshmen don't meet the regular admission requirements and they have earned credit hours somewhere else, they can transfer in which effectively negates the new freshmen admissions policy. This policy is to apply the new freshmen admissions standards to all students at the freshmen level which would be up to 30 credit hours.
Dr. David Larson stated that he was curious if someone had figured this out theoretically or if someone had actually done this? Mr. Peter Trumpower responded that there are students that fall in between that group. Dr. Larson said that is what he wanted to know.
There being no further questions or discussion on the proposal, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed revised Admissions Policy for Undergraduate Transfer Students was unanimously approved.
President Michael Schwartz commented on the budget and activities in Columbus . As of today, he understands that the Ohio House is at odds with some aspects of the Governor's original budget. The Governor had proposed a tuition cap of nine percent, three percent of which would have been allowed if we used it for scholarship aid, for example, for needy students. The members of the House will approve the cap probably in their version of the budget of six percent and not allow the other three percent. Their view is twofold: One comment is that six percent will continue to make tuitions more affordable certainly than nine percent – hard to argue with that. The other is a somewhat more ideological point of view that essentially says that on the part of members of the House, we don't want to participate in wealth transfer programs which essentially would take three percent from full fee payers and transfer it to kids who need the money who are smart kinds. So they have put it on the table at about six percent. President Schwartz said that he suspects the Senate will go along with that. There was a proposal on the table for a sliding scale percentage that would have taken some of the universities with lower tuitions and allow them to go higher in their increases and schools that already are very high would have been restricted in how much they could go up from there. Those of us who are at relatively low tuition institutions have always complained about the percentage. We can't because we are always disadvantaged compared to Kent State , Cincinnati , Miami , etc. That proposal he understands died, but it may not be dead in the Senate. We will just have to wait and see if that happens. None of this covers the general fee. This is all that they are going to restrict in the instructional fee because they really can't cap the general fee where you have to put in fees for construction and retirement of debt and that sort of thing. The general assembly works its way toward a budget which will happen probably in June but the House is about to conclude this. At the same time, the Speaker has said he would like to have, after the budget is passed, some kind of review of the formula, organization, and structure of governance in higher education, etc. President Schwartz noted that he was not quite sure what that means and what is coming, but he thinks that from what he heard from Representative Webster, who heads the House Committee on Higher Education which is a subcommittee of the House Finance Committee, there is some real concern about all the line items in our budget. For the first time, there has been an understanding that there are a lot of line items in that budget which do not necessarily make sense. Maybe, for example, they should all be bundled together and put into the State's share of instruction, dolled out as part of that, and then let the universities use their money the way they want to use it. That would probably be a major assault of one of the lines important to us – the Urban University Program. Needless to say, we will watch that one very carefully. President Schwartz said that in the Governor's budget, the Urban University Program was cut ten percent each year but none of the agricultural programs were cut at all. He sees that as some case of bias. But more forgiving friends said, "No, it's probably a budget analyst who went looking for some money in order to bring the Governor's budget into balance". It's good to have people like that around to temper you. He added that he still feels it was a lot of bias. In any case, there are still a lot of questions up in the air. President Schwartz commented that he informed Senate when all of this first began that there will be four versions of this budget before we are through and we shouldn't get too excited about any one version. We are now in the process of completing version number two and then we will get version three with the Senate and version four will come out of the House Senate Conference Committee. He added that this is just the way it works. When we are down in Columbus , we are working very hard and we make a lot of calls to a lot of legislators. Mr. Bill Napier is doing the same. He and Laurie Day are down there all day, every day when they are in session. President Schwartz added that we are getting a very good hearing.
President Schwartz also commented that as everyone has probably heard by now, he has formed a President's Commission on the Conduct of Searches and the search process. He noted that when everyone came to Senate today, they received a list of the people who have been appointed to that Commission.
President Schwartz reported that at the last Board of Trustees meeting, Mr. Hill asked if we couldn't get some data about our status with regard to other urban universities because Maria Codinach, our Affirmative Action Officer, has presented data about our status with regard to minorities and women in faculty and administrative positions, etc. Mr. Hill said, “Well that's Ohio which includes a lot of these schools in the country.” “What about urban schools?” So Maria Codinach went to the data that were available and the last data available are for the year 2003. From an organization called the Urban 13, which has 21 members, the data that she has provided to President Schwartz which he has to provide to the Trustees tomorrow are interesting. Of the 21 institutions, Cleveland State ranks sixth in the employment of minorities on the faculty and it ranks seventh of the 21 with regard to the employment of African-Americans on the faculty. Cleveland State also ranks sixth with regard to the employment of Hispanic members of the faculty. However, it ranks fifteenth with regard to the employment of women on the faculty and that is something for us to pay attention to. These are 2003 data however, and we made a lot of changes since then so he was not quite sure what we will see in the future. In the meantime, going back to the 2003 data with regard to managerial and administrative, those kinds of employees, with regard to all minorities in those kinds of positions, of the 21 institutions, we rank third. With regard to African-American members of those categories, we also rank third. The sad news is that in those categories with regard to women, we rank 21 st and so he is going to ask the Commission to pay very careful and close attention to that matter. But again, he doesn't know what has happened in the last two years and he doesn't know where we stand. Clearly, that is a bad omen.
President Schwartz stated that somebody had asked him if he would comment on a Faculty Club or the idea of a Faculty Club and he would be glad to do that. Vice President Jack Boyle and he have been musing about this for some time as to where it might go – not if there should be one but where it might go and one proposal they have now is on the ground floor of the new Administrative Center which will be on Euclid Avenue . There is space designated in the architect's plans that could be leased for a restaurant, but he thinks that our preference would be to have a single vendor operate as a Faculty Club right there. If not there, then when this building is re-done ( University Center ) as a new Student Union building, this would be an ideal and much more central location which is another option. There is always the possibility of taking some space in Howe Mansion when it is done. There is still some space possible in the Baker's Union building that we have acquired. The lower level of the Baker's Union building is structured as kind of a restaurant and bar. When the Baker's Union leaves, however, they are taking their bar with them. President Schwartz said that he hopes we will have a Faculty Club long before he leaves CSU.
President Schwartz commented that the President's Initiative Fund, which we have had for three years, went into its final competitive round with three very good proposals, and Dean Tumeo did a great job of putting together a panel of judges including somebody from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and somebody from the State Government Economic Development, etc. They have advised President Schwartz to make two awards, and he has done that. One award will be to a program in Economic Development Studies jointly done by the College of Urban Affairs and the College of Business Administration . This is a very good proposal. It is a project being done by Ziona Austrain, whom you may know. He was able to fund that proposal with $350,000. The second award is a Health Sciences grant essentially with a combination of people in Education, Health Sciences, and elsewhere having to do with urban health issues with a special focus on health related matters of obesity. He was able to fund that proposal with a $200,000 grant. At the end of the grant period, these are supposed to become self-sufficient, and both of them have an excellent opportunity to make that happen.
President Schwartz also informed the Senate that Professor Joel Lieske got his (President Schwartz's) attention on a weekend email and noted that this university located in a big city as it is does not have an institution-wide survey research center that could serve multiple interests. He wasn't talking about a polling operation at all but a fairly substantial survey research center. The resources are already here and in place and the question is how do we combine them and lead them. He is certain that colleagues in Political Science and Sociology and Psychology and Urban, etc. can get together. He has asked Professor Lieske if he wouldn't at least make up a list of folks he would like to see us invite to a first meeting. He and Provost Kuo are going to do that to see if maybe that couldn't be pulled together. Among other things, it seems to President Schwartz that everybody has plans for Cleveland but there seems to be no particular way here to talk to the people who live in Cleveland and find out what's on their minds. That wouldn't be a bad thing for us to have. It is one thing to have political representation, but it is another thing to have a really good sample survey done. So he is going to see if that can be pulled together.
Finally, President Schwartz reported that Professor Candice Hoke has a new initiative also having to do with a Center for the Study of the Elections Process. We are moving very quickly on that because that is a way to get it federally funded. She has really taken the ball so that is moving along. Lots of other really terrific things are happening at the university as well.
President Michael Schwartz noted that this Sunday he will leave for Boston to lead the accrediting team for the University of Massachusetts at Boston . He said that he read their self-study a couple of times now and it is like looking in the mirror because they don't have any money either. In fact, their financial situation is much worse than ours but their self-study says that they have three problems – retention, research, and reputation. By the way, they were founded the same year that Cleveland State was founded. It is going to be interesting, and he is looking forward to it.
Provost Chin Kuo asked President Schwartz to mention the Academy of Teaching Excellence . President Schwartz stated that David Ball suggested that some academy of teaching excellence be looked into and formed so that membership in such an academy becomes a distinct honor and in addition that it might help us form a system whereby we can get colleagues to help other colleagues with issues and instruction.
Professor Cheryl McCahon commented that the plaza is beginning to look lovely and wondered when it is going to open. President Schwartz responded that it will be open as soon as it can be cleaned up. The one thing that won't be ready too quickly is the fountain. Letters were purchased to spell out the names of all of the colleges that will go on the fountain. Also, they are trying to figure out how to make the water part work. He said that it is really nice though, and he is excited about it. He added that the thought of the plaza has gotten him through this winter.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:48 P.M.
Susan Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]