Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 20, 2005

I. Eulogy for Marvin H. Jones (Art)
II. Approval of the Agenda
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 6, 2005 Meeting
IV. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 33, 2004-2005)
V. Announcement of Elections at the May 4, 2005 Meeting
VI. Announcement of Coming Faculty-Wide Elections
VII.Student Life Committee and the Committee on Athletics
VIII. University President’s Report
IX. Annual Reports
X. New Business

PRESENT: Angelova, A. Benander, W. Bowen, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Forte, Gelman, Govea, Hanlon, Hanniford, Heinrich, S. Hill, Hoffman, Hoke, Humer, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Lehfeldt, Margolius, McCahon, McClain, Mills, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, Poznanski, L. E. Reed, Rucker, M. Saunders, Sawicki, Shah, Slane, M. Smith, Sparks , Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton , Visocky-O’Grady, Walton, L. C. Wang.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Atherton, Bauer, Berlin-Ray, Boyle, Cherry, de Felice, Dillard-Mitchell, Ekelman, Gorla, Gross, Hinds, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, Li, Lopresti, McLoughlin, O’Malia, Ozturk, Reichert, Rosentraub, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Silberger, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, J. Webb, Ziolek.

ALSO PRESENT: Deering, S. Richmond .

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

I. Eulogy for Marvin H. Jones (Art)

Professor George Mauersberger delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Marvin H. Jones. His remarks follow.

“Marvin Jones, Professor Emeritus of Printmaking in the Art Department , died on February 23, 2005 at the age of 64. He came to Cleveland State University in 1976 and played an important role in developing the CSU Art program. He received a B.A. in Art from Anderson College in 1964 and an M.A. in Art from the University of California , Davis in 1968. Before coming to Cleveland , he taught at the Kansas City Art Institute, the University of Alberta , Sierra College , and in public schools in California and Indiana . He is survived by his mother, Lila, two sisters, and two sons, Ben and Michael.

“Marvin was an extraordinarily prolific artist who exhibited widely in the United States . He also participated in many international exhibitions, including shows in Korea , Japan , Finland , Germany , and Poland . His work was reviewed in many important art publications including Art in America, Artforum, and ArtNews. In addition to creating an extraordinary body of work in printmaking, painting, drawing, and sculpture, he was also an avid collector of art, including Native American, Oceanic, African, and self-taught or “outsider” art. His house was filled to the brim with his own artworks and those of others, to such an extent that it was literally difficult to find a place to walk.

“One of his last contributions to the University was to organize and curate an exhibition of the work of outsider artist Sid Rueben in Fall Semester 2004 for the CSU Art Gallery . He also was co-curator of the 2002 “Visionaries” exhibition, also at Cleveland State , which included many works from his own art collection.

“Marvin Jones was intolerant of pretension and academic falsehoods, particularly as they applied to art and art theory. Marvin’s way of making art was cerebral and based on experience. He described his approach to drawing by saying, “Drawing is thinking.” His work was absurd, tragic, funny, and beautiful.

“Marvin loved CSU students. He believed in our students. He was serious about teaching, but often used humor to communicate to his classes. Sometimes when asked how to do something he would simply reply, “Do it like a normal person would.”

“One of Marvin’s former students recalled that, “He taught art not through demonstration. In fact, he actually taught very little ‘technique,’ but rather through inspiration, motivation and a cultivation of originality. He encouraged his students to bring their personal experiences and personality traits into their art, no matter how quirky or out of the mainstream those images might turn out. While Marvin’s classes sometimes seemed like a refuge for outcasts, any young artist who spent time with him learned to make their life their art and their art their life. If it was unique and heartfelt, and if it was executed in a way that was uniquely theirs, it was welcomed, encouraged and nurtured in Marvin’s classes. He helped students find a truly personal and inimitable creative voice, and there can be no greater gift for a young artist.”

“Marvin Jones was a tremendously intelligent man, a former philosophy student, well read, with a dry sense of humor that kept everyone around him on his or her toes. His one-liners and wisecracks were a constant up until the very end of his life, even as he coped with serious health problems. He will be missed by all of us who knew him as a colleague, friend, mentor, and teacher.

“I think it is fair to say we will not see a person like Marvin Jones again. As another of his former Printmaking students so aptly put it at his memorial service, ‘Marvin Jones is etched in my brain.’”

Senate President Vijay Konangi asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Marvin Jones.

II. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 20, 2003 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 6, 2005 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 6, 2005 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

IV. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 33, 2004-2005)

Professor Samuel Richmond, chair of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, noted that the members of the Senate Budget Committee also sit on the University Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Over the years, our group has focused on category 01 of the budget which is Instruction and Department Research. This is the sum of the expense budget for departments. Up until the mid 1990s, this was above 50%. From 1996 to 1998, there was a big shift down to 45% where it has been basically since then. As faculty representation, we generally argue in favor of restoring this back up toward 50% on the grounds of quality of instruction. The committee members currently are pleased with the attention that we receive from the administration – they seem to know the budget well and to be making a good faith effort to increase full-time faculty and reduce non-academic expenses.

Professor Candice Hoke said that maybe she is not plugged in sufficiently to university coded language but she heard Professor Richmond’s presentation that this is the line that pays for faculty salaries, but it also says departmental research. So, she was curious as to what kinds of projects go into that particular portion (departmental research) and she was curious as well as to what else goes into instruction other than faculty salaries so that we know the entirety of what is currently in that category.

Senate President Konangi requested that Mr. Tim Long, director of the Budget Office, respond to Professor Hoke’s questions.

Mr. Tim Long responded that what we have in this one category is about four or five programs that we divide expenditures into. In addition to the salaries for instruction, there are the other expenses associated with instruction. CSU follows the NACUBO (National Association of College and Business Officers) classification. This organization classifies accounting standards across the board for all universities. So, when we look at a balance sheet or income statement, we are doing things consistently. Departmental research does not have anything to do with the specific research grants that the university may be involved with, but it has to do with the non-instructional writing and research work of faculty members while they are still instructing. All of this is captured in this category that we call Instruction and Department Research.

Professor Candice Hoke asked about things like chalk for the blackboards. Mr. Long responded that chalk is an instructional cost. There are other ways that things are classified. This is a functional classification and then within a department, that chalk would go into supplies but that is another way of classifying things within the department. But across the board, chalk is considered instructional and departmental research.

Professor David Forte inquired, “As the funds were diverted out of the Instruction and Department Research, was there a particular area they tended to gravitate towards – the proportion of funds?” Professor Sam Richmond responded that this would be very hard to document, but there were a couple of “crises” back in the latter half of the 90s which had to do with PeopleSoft and our computer failures. There were a couple of times when explicitly a crisis was declared and millions of dollars were taken out of the instructional line and put in to pay for computer and programming.

Professor Forte noted that this raises the question as to whether this dip is then episodic because of emergencies or whether it is organic and it represents a change in the manner in which we finance operations. He wondered if Professor Richmond knew whether it is episodic or organic.

Senate President Konangi stated that Professor Sam Richmond would prefer that Mr. Tim Long take on all of these hard questions.

Mr. Tim Long stated that he would actually rather talk about chalk! He stated that what we have to do is look at the pie and the total as it grows from year to year to year. Some of the things that affected that ratio were definitely episodic in terms of the PeopleSoft project, and it is not necessarily taking the funds out because the absolute dollar amount for instructional and departmental research actually grew. But, certainly percentages change when we take in extra funds for different things like scholarship funding. For instance, in the last two years, we took in a 3.9% additional tuition increase to fund scholarships for low income needy students by virtue of the budget bill that was passed two years ago. That would then have the effect of increasing the pie, but it also increases scholarships from a source of funding that came from tuition revenue. That increased the percentage for scholarships, and it may have affected the percentage for instructional and departmental research. So, the percentages vary depending upon what is happening. It is kind of a misnomer to say money was taken away from one category in a purposeful way and put in another. The pie is growing and as a result of certain things that are happening, the percentages are different. Now, that is not an excuse for the trend of the percentage that has been slightly going down and then evening up. Now we are intending to bring that percentage back up to 50%. He could research that for Senate, but off hand, he doesn’t know of specific items that would affect each of the other categories, but that certainly could be shown.

Senate President Konangi reported that this was the discussion back in the spring of 2002 and the target was 55% because that is what it was originally in the early 90s. Mr. Long noted that this was the high point that was trying to be restored. Senate President Konangi responded that he could not specifically identify that as the high point but that is generally where it was in the early 90s and when we had this discussion in the Spring of 2002, the consensus was that we should restore that specific percentage.

Professor David Forte asked if it was possible for Senate to get a more complete categorical report on the trend of the other expense lines. Senate President Konangi stated that Mr. Tim Long has a lot of data, and if we identify what trend lines we are looking for, he would be glad to report at the next Senate meeting. Dr. Konangi noted that the Senate meets two weeks from today.

Mr. Tim Long inquired of Professor Forte what he would like for him (Tim Long) to put together because that information is available. Professor Forte stated that he needs to know more than the information that was provided.

Professor Candice Hoke suggested that it might be helpful to see the other categories of the budget in as far as in these large lines – four lines and then trending that across the same number of years from 1993 up to the present.

Senate President Konangi asked Mr. Tim Long if it would possible to have that information for the next Senate meeting. Mr. Tim Long replied that he would provide that information for the next Senate meeting.

Senate President Konangi mentioned that Vice President Jack Boyle was unable to be at Senate today because he had another commitment, and Mr. Tim Long agreed to substitute for Mr. Boyle.

Senate President Konangi asked Mr. Long to comment on the upcoming budget and the state funding.

Mr. Tim Long commented that most members know the period of time we are in right now is budget building for fiscal year 2006 and, of course that means we are waiting for the State to finish its work on the 2006-2007 budget bill. He reported that the bill is expected to be completed by the end of June in time for the start of the fiscal year. He brought the Senate up to date on what is known from the State as far as progress on the budget bill is concerned and how that may affect Cleveland State in the FY 06-07 biennium. Initially, the budget bill goes to the House of Representatives and they have just completed work on the bill and passed it out of the House, and it is on its way to the Senate. The Governor had established in his bill for higher education fee caps on undergraduate tuition at 6% with the option of adding an additional 3% for funding undergraduate scholarships for low income students. Once the House of Representatives received the Governor’s budget proposal, they eliminated that 3% extra allowable tuition increase and capped the undergraduate tuition at simply 6%. The other major category of work on the budget bill, at least as far as we are concerned, is the amount of subsidy that we will receive from the State. This will, of course, go through the gyrations in the Senate now that it has passed the House of Representatives. But essentially, we, as a community of higher education, have not seen in the House bill any kind of increase whatsoever in State assistance to higher education. We are flat funded compared to 2005 and 2006 and also for 2007. It is unlikely that the Senate is going to do something about that flat funding and, when the Governor signs this budget bill, it is not known what the chances are of this happening. We would hope that there would be a change to the House passed bill, but we believe that we are going to end up with a flat funded budget. What that means to Cleveland State takes a little bit more explanation. The pot of available money for state assistance is flat, but there is a formula for dishing out an additional amount to each university. The way the State formula works right now, it is dependent on growth – growth basically in our student credit hours. The way we have perceived the State formula to work for us in 2006 is based on our enrollment patterns over the last two years which is what the State uses to give us our allocation for 2006. We are estimating that we are going to be down about $900,000 in State subsidy assistance from what we received in fiscal year 2005. For comparison, we received about $67.2 million in subsidy for fiscal year 2005 and it looks like we will receive about $66.2 million in subsidy for fiscal year 2006 if what we see now holds true. So, what we have to do, and what we are about to do is take the budget requests that are due in the Budget Office as of today, combine all of those from all of the administrative departments as well as all of the academic departments and look at what our expenditure requests are. We’ve based our estimate of enrollment on 364,000 credit hours for FY 06 which is essentially what we experienced in FY 05 so we are saying our enrollment is going to be flat. We will price out our revenue at the 6% tuition increase, which is the cap, and right now we have 6% applying to graduate as well as law tuition. Graduate and law tuition are not legally capped under the budget bill. We could raise those higher than 6% -- it is only the undergraduate tuition that has this cap applied to it, but in the President’s message to all of us out in the community in late February or early March, the President mentioned the desire to actually hold that tuition increase for graduate and law students at that same 6% level. There have been years when we have been capped at one amount for undergraduate and we have had a higher increase for law and for graduate students. He noted that they are going to try to see if they can fit the expenditure requests they receive from everyone into what they estimate our revenue to be and that is what they will be busy doing over the next week to ten days. We will see where we go from there. He indicated that he didn’t have a full expenditure picture for everyone at this point in time but that should come into focus within the next week or so. He added that this is essentially what is happening now.

V. Announcement of Elections at the May 4, 2005 Meeting

Senate President Konangi announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 4, 2005 as follows: three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; two faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; four faculty representatives to the Budget and Finance Committee; one faculty advisor to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Board Committee on Honorary Degrees, Citations, and Recognitions; one faculty representative to the Ohio Faculty Council; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representatives to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel.

VI. Announcement of Coming Faculty-Wide Elections

Senate President Konangi announced the upcoming faculty-wide elections as follows: one at-large faculty representative to the University Peer Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Academic Misconduct Review Committee.

VII. Student Life Committee and the Committee on Athletics
Proposed Missed Class Policy for University-Sanctioned Activities
(Report No. 21, 2004-2005)

Professor Lynn Deering, chair of the Student Life Committee, stated that the Student Life Committee and the Committee on Athletics have brought to Senate for adoption the proposed Missed Class Policy for university-sanctioned activities. Both committees have reviewed the proposed policy again and revised it according to much input. It is felt that it now provides clear guidelines to help assure partnership between faculty, students, and sponsors of university-sanctioned activities. Professor Deering noted that this is not an attendance policy but is a policy towards those activities which are university-sanctioned including things like athletic events or a performance in which students are basically contracted by the university through scholarship monies in order to participate so they have the monies that pay for their school.

Professor Kenneth Sparks reported that they also had a lot of input from the Senate Academic Steering Committee. The proposal was reviewed a couple of times by Steering, and he appreciates their effort in helping with this proposed policy. This is the policy that was brought before Senate about three meetings ago, and Senate referred the proposed policy back to committee. The Student Life Committee and the Committee on Athletics have revised the proposed policy and have now have brought it back to Faculty Senate for approval.

Professor Candice Hoke stated that she very much appreciated this revised version of the Proposed Missed Class Policy. She thought it was a very wise approach. She noted that she had a suggestion that might be considered rather trivial but the word “sanctioned” is one of those strange words that has the possibility of two complete opposite meanings. One is authorized and the other is punished and it would be nice if the word “sanctioned” could be changed to lose those possible opposite connotations to the word “authorized” or something similar so that we don’t have this weird sort of flipping back and forth between, is this something that we are committing or is this something we are going to punish. There are very few words like that.

Professor Ken Sparks accepted Professor Hoke’s suggestion as a friendly amendment. He asked Professor Hoke if she would like to have it read, “University Approved” or “University Authorized?”

Senate President Konangi noted that the text will also be changed to reflect the suggested change. Professor Ken Sparks accepted the suggestion.

Dr. Stephen Slane referred to page 4 under “Proposed Language for Academic Appeal for Class Absences.” He noted that in the first sentence there are some words missing from the language. He would suggest dropping the last few words in the first sentence and just put a period after the word “appeal.” The sentence now reads: “If a student believes he or she has been treated unreasonably because of participation in a university sanctioned activity, he or she can appeal the policy has been violated.” Words seem to be missing here. He suggested ending the sentence after the word “appeal.” The next sentence tells you what the appeal is and is fine. Professor Sparks accepted Dr. Slane’s suggestion stating that the sentence will end after the word “appeal.”

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed Missed Class Policy for University-Authorized Activities as corrected was unanimously approved.

Senate President Konangi thanked Professors Lynn Deering and Ken Sparks for their timeless efforts and patience in getting this proposal through. He also thanked Professor Sheldon Gelman who provided help to the two committees.

VIII. University President’s Report

Senate President Konangi reported that President Michael Schwartz was in Columbus yesterday and the early part today along with the members of the Board of Trustees for obvious reasons because this is the budget time. He will not be present at today’s meeting. He noted that Provost Chin Kuo has some comments.

Provost Chin Kuo reported the following:

“President Schwartz and the trustees are in Columbus to discuss the FY 06 state budget and other issues. Most likely, tuition will be capped at 6%.

“Students from our Honors Program were also in Columbus last week for a study tour. With the assistance of faculty from the Urban College and Special Assistant to the President, Bill Napier, students gained valuable experience.

“I had an opportunity to attend the IUC Presidents meeting on behalf of the President last week. I learned the status of Senate Bill 24 on Student Academic Rights. Senators are still talking about introducing the bill. They said that if they are assured that students have venues to voice their concerns and there are ways faculty can present more balanced political views, they certainly will consider withdrawing the bill. The IUC Presidents group is working on a statement stating that the institutions can effectively address this issue without legislation. The IUC will also document all current student grievance policies and procedures from each campus as an attachment to the statement.

“I have appointed Dr. Vijay Konangi to the position of Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Relations effective July 1. Bill Shorrock plans to retire at the end of June. Vijay will begin to work with Bill on June 1 for a month of transition. Bill's dedication to work is appreciated. We will have a retirement reception for Bill Shorrock and John Holm who is also retiring this summer. The reception will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in Mather Mansion . All are invited.

“There will be a President's Spring Picnic on the newly completed Plaza on Thursday, May 5 from 11:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. This is to celebrate Cleveland State 's extreme makeover and the end of the semester. Please plan to attend. Construction attires are encouraged, and hard hats will be provided.

“Congratulations to the College of Business Administration . Both Business Administration programs and Accountancy program’s accreditation have been reaffirmed. Our Nursing program also had a clean and excellent visit by their accreditation agency.

“The Center for Teaching and Learning plans to award 9 projects to develop 12 web based courses beginning this summer by providing faculty release time and staff assistance. I hope to continue to move CSU forward to have more web based or supplemented degree programs.

“As you know, our West Center in Westlake is a success. That is why we established the East Center in Solon. Our goal is to have the first year student credit hour set at 2,500. Last fall was the first semester, we had 912. For this semester, we have 1,447. As of this week, we have 868 for summer. So far, we have a total of 3,227, which exceeds the goal by 727 student credit hours. This will be another success. Given the population migration from city to suburbs and our effort to bring our programs to where students are, the extended campuses have been very effective in our enrollment growth. We are exploring a South Center now. The location has not yet been decided.

“Enrollment is the top issue at CSU. We have reengineered all of our enrollment management and student services. We have increased articulation efforts with community colleges and do recruiting beyond this region, including our neighboring states and recruiting international students in Asia and in Europe . On May 11, 2005 , we will sign a partnership agreement with Lakeland Community College . We will have the first right of refusal in offering programs over other institutions in the future. Initially, we plan to offer 8-10 courses and Continuing Education on LCC campus. My strategic planning within our three county service area is to have our downtown campus as the anchor with more full-time students. To our west, we have the West Center and partner with Lorain County Community College to further west. To our east, we have the East Center and also partner with Lakeland Community College to further east. To our south, we hope to have a South Center and partner with Tri-C.

“Finally, we have had a very productive year in the academic area. The University Honors Program is off the ground. We have established a Math Learning Center located in the Main Classroom Building . We have implemented shared technical services between the University Library and the Law Library. IMS has been merged with the University Library. Both research awards and expenditures have increased. More laptop computers and faculty positions have been allocated. So far, we have received five Fulbright Scholar awards. We have received both Title VI-A for Mid-Eastern Studies and Title VI-B for international marketing. We have “Vision 2009” in place and approved by the Board of Trustees. We have implemented the new budget model. We have reviewed our P&T criteria. Several committees’ works are moving along smoothly. They include program reviews, outcome assessment, student engagement, global education, Gen Ed review, and strategic planning. Thank you for your involvement and support. Together, we can make CSU better.

“See you at the commencements. Have an enjoyable and productive summer.”

IX. Annual Reports

 Senate President Konangi noted that there are four annual reports from Senate standing committees. He asked for a motion to receive all of the Annual Reports from the standing committees. It was moved, seconded, and approved to receive the Annual Reports from the following Standing Committees:

A. University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 34, 2004-2005)
B. University Petitions Committee (Report No. 35, 2004-2005)
C. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 36, 2004-2005)
D. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 37, 2004-2005)

X. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 P.M.

Susan E. Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary



[Top of Page]