Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

May 4, 2005

I.  Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 20, 2005 Meeting

IV.Admissions and Standards Committee
V. Update on the University Budget (Report No. 40, 2004-2005)
VI.University President’s Report
VII.Annual Reports
VIII.New Business

PRESENT: A. Benander, Berlin-Ray, W. Bowen, Cherry, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Gelman, Gorla, Govea, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, Heinrich, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Humer, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Lehfeldt, Margolius, McCahon, McClain, Mills, Nuru-Holm, O’Malia, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Poznanski, Reichert, M. Saunders, Sawicki, Shah, Silberger, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, E. Thomas, Thornton, Walton, L. C. Wang, Ziolek.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Angelova, Atherton, Bauer, Boyle, de Felice, Dillard, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, Li, Lopresti, McLoughlin, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Rucker, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Slane, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Visocky-O’Grady, J. Webb.

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Steinberg.

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

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for May 4, 2005 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 20, 2005 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 20, 2005 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Elections

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

University Faculty Affairs Committee
Two-year terms:

Professor David Forte
Professor Rodger Govea
Professor Cheryl McCahon

Minority Affairs Committee
Two-year terms:

Professor Gregory Conerly
Professor Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady

Budget and Finance Committee
Two-year terms:

Professor Paul Doerder
Professor John Holcomb
Professor Barbara Modney

One-year term:

Professor Alan Weinstein

Board of Trustees
One-year term:

Professor Edward Thomas
Board Committee on Honorary Degrees,
Citations and Recognitions

Three-year term:

Professor Sarah Matthews

Ohio Faculty Council
Two-year term:

Professor Rodger Govea

Copyright Review Committee
Three-year term:

Professor John Jeziorowski
Patent Review Committee

Three-year term:

Professor Paul Sung

Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Three-year terms:

Professor Eileen Berlin-Ray
Professor Dena Davis
Professor Connie Hollinger
Professor Jeff Karem

Senate President Vijay Konangi noted that there are two business items from the Admissions and Standards Committee. He reported that Professor Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the committee, is still recuperating from her surgery so he will be presenting the items from the committee.

IV. Admissions and Standards Committee

  • Proposed Revised Policy on Re-Admission of Academically Dismissed Students (Report No. 38, 2004-2005)

Mr. Peter Trumpower, Coordinator of Assessment and Retention Studies, reported that the proposed revised policy on Re-Admission of Academically Dismissed Students is to align the re-admission policy with the Graduate College policy specifying a one-year waiting period and also specifying that these students are eligible for re-admission only once. In exceptional cases, the University Petitions Committee would review a petition for waiver of the mandatory waiting period or a possible second re-admission.

Professor David Forte referred to the proposed new wording, fourth line down, where it states: “In exceptional cases, the University Petitions Committee may act on a petition for waiver of the mandatory waiting period or a second readmission.” He asked if there are published standards by which the University Petitions Committee decides whether a petition for re-admission or waiver of the mandatory waiting period is appropriate.

Mr. Trumpower responded that he was not aware of any published standards.

Senate President Konangi stated that these are mostly done on the basis of humanity and considerations.

Professor Forte commented, “So when you say that students should not assume that all petitions will be approved, can he assume that most will be?” Senate President Konangi stated that this is just a disclaimer to dissuade frivolous petitions. Professor Forte noted that some people said no. He then inquired if most petitions are denied under the current practice.

Mr. Trumpower replied that he did know anything about the accurate status of the petition process but, as Dr. Vijay Konangi indicated, it is more of a disclaimer so that the students don’t think if they petition it will automatically be approved.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked senators to vote. The proposed revised policy on Re-Admission of academically Dismissed Students was unanimously approved.

  • Proposed Revision of the Honors Admissions Standards

(Report No. 39, 2004-2005)

Dr. Barbara Margolius, Director of the CSU Honors Program, stated that this is a proposed change in admissions standards for the Honors Program. The Faculty Senate Admissions and Standards Committee have approved the request of the Honors Council to raise our admissions standards from the present standards, which allow us to admit students who would meet at least one of the following three criteria:

  • A 27 composite score on the ACT standardized test
  • A 1220 total score on the old SAT
  • In the top 10% of High School Class

Dr. Margolius stated that this is a group of students from which we can select the students who we admit. It is not an automatic admission criterion. Dr. Marolius noted that the Faculty Senate is being asked to approve a new higher standard. The proposal is to raise the ACT to a composite score of 30 and the SAT to a number to be determined this summer when the concordance tables are available for the new SAT. It will become effective in fall 2007. There is a new component in the standard of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for writing that we don’t have much data on yet, or the top 10% of the high school class, or students who have performance in the Summer Scholars Program. The purpose of all three of these provisions is to raise our current admissions standards. We are trying to raise the profile of the program by having clear standards that students can recognize that are higher than what is presently out there. The 27 composite score on the ACT is roughly comparable to the top 10% of those who take the exam nationally. A composite score of 30 is comparable to the top 3%. Notice though that with both the old and the new standards it is a sequence of 4s. So, it may appear to be a greater increase in the standards than it actually is because we could still admit a student with a 27 on the ACT if they are in the top 10% of their high school class. We are trying to put forth a better image to assist in recruiting and also to put forth a better image to help clarify for students who are not admitted to the program what some of those reasons may be.

Dr. Marolius noted that there were some questions raised at the Faculty Senate Academic Steering Committee meeting about what the summer scholar’s portion of the program is for and what we are trying to do there. Dr. Marolius stated that the purpose is to raise the standards of the Honors Program. Right now, we have permission where we can admit students from the top 10% of their high school class. That provision has been used. Not all high schools in the Cleveland area are equal. Not all high schools in the country are equal. Last year we had an applicant from one of the Cleveland schools who had a 14 composite score on the ACT. She was not admitted to the Honors Program but she is at the University. This places her in the top 91% nationally. We want to be able to take students who come from some of the schools that have fewer advanced programs available and give them a leg up so that, if we admit them to the Honors Program, they can participate in the classes with the rest of the students. We are looking for bright students who maybe have not had as many opportunities. You come through one of the local schools and your school doesn’t have calculus, for example. We have a student here from one of the area high schools who took pre-calculus as a junior and then he took business math and consequently didn’t do so well in placement but with just a little bit of help, we can get the kids from a variety of schools and they can start at the same place. Almost all of the honors students placed directly into English 102. So if you come from a school system and you are not ready to go into English 102, you take English 101 in the Summer and if you can go into English 102, you can be there with the rest of the cohort – no difference.

Dr. David Larson indicated that he had a question about the fourth standard which implies that students only need one of these four criteria to be eligible for admission. This suggests at least that the people in the Summer Scholars Program, people who don’t need any of the other three… Is that intended or are these for students who meet the top 10% but don’t meet the other criteria? Making that an “OR” suggests that there are students who don’t need the top 10%, the 30 composite ACT or comparable SAT score. Dr. Margolius replied that it is attendant. The reason for that is that the Summer Scholars Program is designed to reach graduating high school seniors, juniors, and a select few sophomores for whom the class ranking may not make any sense. We want them to come for two years. We are starting the program this year and obviously they can’t come for two years right now, but we want them to come for two years. They may not know where they are going to end up. The students are selected competitively. They have to write an essay which is evaluated by people from your department; they have to do a math contest; we look for the students in the top of that group and from there we are going to place them into two sections of the courses for the Summer Scholars and then the student who did the best within the math program will be offered admission if they are graduating seniors. If they are not graduating seniors, they will be invited back the next year.

Professor David Forte inquired how many students Dr. Margolius projects will be admitted through the Summer Scholars Program in each cohort – seniors and not seniors. Dr. Margolius indicated that she was a little confused by the question. She noted that they are trying to have 40 students in the program and are hoping to get five into the Honors Program from that group. This is the first year of the program and the students we are looking at this year are pretty much in the top 10% of the juniors or sophomores.

Professor Forte asked how many students will be admitted into the Summer Scholars Program this year. Dr. Marolius noted that the Summer Scholars Program is not the Honors Program. For the Summer Scholars Program, which may or may not let these students into the Honors Program, we are trying to get 40 students, but this is the first year and we may reduce the size of the program if we can’t get enough students. One, they have to do well, and, two, they have to be not over too broad a range of abilities or we won’t be able to run a sensible program.

Professor Forte commented that something like five out of the 40 may get into the Honors Program. Dr. Margolius said that Professor Forte was correct.

Professor Forte then asked how many total students would be in the Honors Program. Dr. Marolius responded that this year we have 44 students but that is because this is the first year of the program. Next year we are looking to have about 50 students as freshmen.

Professor Jeffrey Dean was curious and asked, “If the new standards are applied to the class cohorts from last year, what would the breakdown have been on meeting the different standards? In other words, would one of the criteria have been met by everybody or not met by anybody?” Dr. Marolius replied that most of the students would have met most of the standards. There would be about four students who didn’t meet any of the standards but they would just barely miss. So, one of the factors that have changed is from the old standards. With the new standards, most of the students would still be admitted but instead of meeting three standards (not really three because a lot of students don’t take both the SAT and ACT) so say two standards. Instead of meeting two standards they would meet one.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senators to vote. The proposed revision of the Honors Admissions Standards was unanimously approved.

Senate President Konangi stated that at the last Senate meeting there was a request for additional information on the University Budget. Vice President Jack Boyle will lead the discussion. Mr. Tim Long and Mr. Brian Cook are here as well to answer questions.

V. Update on the University Budget (Report No. 40, 2004-2005)

Mr. Jack Boyle announced that the plaza is open so when everyone leaves the meeting today they can walk through it. There will be a free lunch tomorrow, courtesy of President Schwartz.

Mr. Boyle noted that in today’s meeting packet there was a sheet with an enormous amount of numbers on it. He stated that he will go through the numbers and give a couple of highlights and respond to questions.

Mr. Boyle commented that in the last year from 2003 to 2004, the increased spending actually in dollars was $7.8 million between the two years of which $4.5 million went into the 01 instructional line of the budget. In the last year cash outlay, 57% of the new money did go into the instructional line. Since 2001 when President Schwartz took office and we first started discussing what had happened to the percent for instruction over the years, 48% of all new dollars have gone into the instructional line. Those are the two parameters in terms of what has been done in order to increase as rapidly as can be done the percent of the budget that is being spent on instruction. However, there are some caveats to how much that actually can be done and that is what we probably need to have a little discussion about. When you are dealing obviously with a 100% pot, for any section to go up, something else has to go down.

Mr. Boyle went through the sheet in general terms to explain each section so everyone could see what actually impacts the percent of the budget that is spent on any of the individual items.

Line 10, Separately Budgeted Research: This is pretty obvious. Since 1995, it has gone from 1.1% to 2.61%. Mr. Boyle didn’t think anyone would believe that was a bad thing as we try to do more research in the university setting.

Line 20, Public Service: Over $2 million of the total of $2.9 million actually goes to the College of Continuing Education. As we increase the offerings in that field, that line will also increase.

Line 30, Academic Support: Since 1995 we have actually decreased by about 1% the amount spent on that sector. Almost half of that sector goes to the two libraries. That is not necessarily a good thing because it went down but it also includes the Dean’s offices of which we have one more Dean now but it still did go down during that tenure span.

Line 40, Student Services: The biggest increase obviously has been in Student Services. One of the things that has to be understood, and he said that he didn’t when he first got here, was an enormous piece of the increase that occurred there was the result of the PeopleSoft situation because that is where we charged the vast majority of PeopleSoft upgrades originally and the consultants that came in for two years to repair the damage that was done during that period of time. So, if we look through the dollars and see that in 1998 Student Services jumped up to $14 million, and that is when we first began implementing the program, and then in 2000, we brought in the consultants and we had two years of almost solid $3 million plus expenditures for the consultants that raised that $14 million up to $17 or almost $18 million. Then we can see that in 2002 we went back down to $14 Million. In the last couple of years, we have added the Campus 411 component which is also being charged to that sector. Mr. Boyle noted that this is the up and down rollercoaster of what happened in that section.

Line 50, Institutional Support: The vast majority of the increase there was because we are doing considerably more in advertising and in fund-raising. The Vice President of Development’s Office is charged to that division.

Line 60, Operation & Maintenance of Plant: In this line, we have actually gone down over one and one half percent between 1995 and 2004 which is the area we think we can do the most in controlling the non-academic costs.

Line 70, Scholarships & Fellowships: In this line, we are going to continue to go up percentage wise because our commitment is to increase the scholarship aid by whatever percent we increase tuition. So, as we get into the situation like we were in the last couple of years where the tuition has gone up, this year 6%, but close to 10% for two years in a row, that piece skyrockets compared to the budget as a whole. As we lost State funding, the 6% increase in tuition only brings us a little over 3% more in dollars because of the lack or reduction in State subsidy. That piece of the budget will continue to increase as long as we stay with our policy of increasing it by the amount of the tuition increase.

Vice President Jack Boyle noted that in a nutshell, this is what has happened and this is where we are. Our commitment continues to be to put more money into instruction than in any other area obviously but also to try to keep pace with our commitment to increase the percent by putting the majority of the new money to the extent we can into that line.

Professor Sheldon Gelman commented that the core instruction lines which are 1 and 10, the first two lines went down in FY 04 as a percentage of total university expenditures which surprised him given what we have in the budget. Mr. Boyle responded that one of the reasons is, if we go to the second sheet that he expanded, there was an over $2 million accounting adjustment that was made because the State made us increase our Worker’s Comp reserve in 2002 and then they changed their mind in 2003 and gave it back again. So that artificially deflated what 2003 was and is a little misleading in how could we put 57% of all new money into that and still have the percent go down but that would be the reason why that happened.

Professor Gelman noted that in FY 02 the percentage spent on instruction is high. Mr. Boyle replied that it did go down that year.

Professor Gelman stated that in the Law School, the clinical faculty were recently reclassified from general designation that suggested they were administrative to a general designation that suggested they were instructional. He stated that the second designation is more appropriate but it looked to him as though without any additional expenditure in instruction, this reclassification would suggest that more money is being spent on instruction. So, he wondered first whether in fact the reclassification of the Law School clinicians to legal writing instructors did result in an apparent increase in the instructional budget. Second, he wondered if there were other items like that which showed up in the instructional budget last year because they had been rethought and reclassified. Mr. Boyle responded that there were two areas where that was done, but the answer is no. Mr. Brian Cook tells him that he is in charge of the classified and they are not getting reclassified into instruction.

Mr. Brian Cook noted that these are based on the account number classification and not the classification of an individual faculty member. So, the department number did not change. Perhaps the coding in the HR system of the faculty within that department changed but that doesn’t affect this.

Mr. Jack Boyle noted that they try to use defined areas that OBOR and others use so that our data can be compared with national data and we try the best that we can to stay within the general guidelines of what gets put where.

Professor Edward Thomas stated that these are expenditures. He asked what happened to the revenue over that period of time. Mr. Jack Boyle responded that we actually made a profit in all four of those years. So, revenue increased slightly more than expenditures. We made between $3 and $4 million and increased our reserves from $9 million at the low point and we are now up to $28 million. But of that $28 million, $13 million of it is departmental carryover which technically is reserved. So, a lot of the money that shows up in profit at the end of the year actually belongs to departments and colleges. Almost one half of our reserves right now are made up of departmental carryover amounts that are savings accounts for the various departments. There are about $12 million totally unrestricted university reserves right now.

Professor Andrew Gross noted that a minute ago, Mr. Boyle talked about classification schemes as national classifications. For many years, he advocated that we compare ourselves to other schools and so he is asking Mr. Boyle, in a couple of sentences, if he could give the Senate an idea whether the numbers we have compare roughly to other similar state universities or not.

Mr. Boyle replied that he did not have that information with him but he could easily get it. At the last Senate meeting, the material that Professor Sam Richmond distributed did compare us to four other state universities in the area but we can get it for all of them and we can get it for probably the 13 peers. In what was distributed at the last meeting, we are better than Youngstown and Akron – by far better than Akron and a little behind Kent in terms of the area we are in now.

An unidentified Senator inquired if these expenditures were on a student full-time equivalent basis particularly in line 01. Mr. Boyle said that he does it particularly in his area where he has a lot of comparative stuff in operations and maintenance which is the area he is responsible for and he just did that financial figure for operations and maintenance. The national figures show about $1700 expenditure for FTE for operation and maintenance and we are at $1500 and change at Cleveland State. So at least we are well below the national figures. He could get comparatives for the rest of it. He just received the operations & maintenance stuff yesterday, but he can get those figures for all of them. He doesn’t have it in front of him, but he can get it and share it.

Professor Edward Thomas asked if Mr. Boyle has to compute financial ratios for the State. Mr. Boyle responded that he did. Professor Thomas inquired how we are on those ratios compared to other schools. Mr. Boyle replied that Mr. Brian Cook could share that information but he knows that in the SB 6 ratio, the one we were concerned about which was the overall, we were at 3.6% last time up from 3.4% the year before even though we floated $50 million worth of debt which does have an impact. The factors that go into that are your debt to surplus ratios, your profit so to speak to expense ratio, the net income ratio, the equity to debt ratio, and he couldn’t remember the last one. Mr. Boyle commented that five is a perfect score. We have hovered between 3.2 and 3.8 in the last several years. He reported that Akron is way below us because they have a lot of debt. There are a couple of institutions at 4.0 or so but we are in the upper half for sure; 1.75 is where you are on the wash list so we are in great shape with that.

VI. University President’s Report

Senate President Konangi reported that President Michael Schwartz is not here now, and that he would be late because he had a conference call to attend to so we will skip his report.

VII. Annual Reports

Senate President Konangi asked for a motion to receive all of the annual reports of the Senate standing committees. It was moved and seconded to receive all of the Annual Reports.

Senate President Konangi asked if there was any discussion on the various annual reports submitted by the standing committees. There being no discussion on the reports, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on receiving all of the reports. The Senate received Annual Reports from the following standing committees:

  • University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 41, 2004-2005)
  • Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 42, 2004-2005)
  • Student Life Committee (Report No. 43, 2004-2005)
  • Committee on Athletics (Report No. 44, 2004-2005)
  • Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 45, 2004-2005)
  • Library Committee (Report No. 46, 2004-2005)

VIII. New Business

Senate President Vijay Konangi informed the Senate that this is his last Senate meeting because he has accepted an administrative position. He will now be excommunicated from Faculty Senate. He thanked everyone on Faculty Senate and said that he did enjoy his three years as the Senate President. He commented that there are several times when you are faced with a problem and you don’t know how to deal with it but there is always somebody to help you. You contact faculty colleagues and someone comes along and says, hey, this is the way to do it, and you find a way through it.

Senate President Vijay Konangi announced that Professor Mieko Smith will serve as Senate President during the summer and the Senate will hold elections early in the fall. Dr. Konangi thanked Senate Vice President Mieko Smith and Senate Secretary Susan Hill and of course Ms. Violet Lunder who really runs the Senate, for their help.

Dr. Konangi announced that Provost Chin Kuo is hosting a reception following the meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 P.M.


Susan E. Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary



[Top of Page]