Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
March 8, 2006

I.  Eulogy for Kevin C. Sheard (Law)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the March 8, 2006 Meeting
III.Approval of the Minutes of the February 8, 2006 Meeting
IV.University Curriculum Committee
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. University President's Report
VII. New Business

PRESENT: A. Benander, Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, J. Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Dougherty, Falk, Forte, Gelman, V. George, Govea, Jeffres, L. Keller, LaGrange, Lehfeldt, K. Mason, McCahon, McClain, N. Nelson, Poznanski, Rom, Slane, M. K. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Steinberg, Visocky-O'Grady, Weyman, Ziolek.

Barlow, Bufford, Droney, Heinrich, Kuo, Margolius, Mills, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, Sadlek, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Thornton.

ABSENT: Atherton, Bauer, Duffy, Ekelman, Gao, Gorla, Hansman, Hoffman, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, Loovis, Martins, J. Moore, O'Neill, Sawicki, D. Shah, J. Webb.

C. Alexander, Boyle, Dillard, Hanniford, Humer, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Mooney, Pereces, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Scherer, A. Shah, Spiker, Tumeo.

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Sutton.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

Senate President Gelman stated that Professor Stephen Werber will give a Eulogy for our colleague Professor Kevin C. Sheard.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:08 P.M. He thanked those faculty and administrators who accepted the Senate's invitation to hear President Michael Schwartz's report today.

Senate President Gelman stated that Professor Frederic Hampton will give a Eulogy for our colleague Dr. Daniel D. Drake.

I. Eulogy for Kevin C. Sheard (Law)

Professor Stephen Werber delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Kevin C. Sheard. His remarks follow.

“I met Kevin Sheard in 1969 as part of the interview process for a faculty position at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He was about 53 and, I later learned, considered part of the old guard whereas I, after my appointment to the Faculty, was the new kid on the block at my advanced age of 30. Today, I am 65 and staring at retirement – something Kevin was clearly not thinking of in 1970. As a result, I had the privilege of working with him for a decade.

“It was thanks to professors like Kevin that our College of Law gained accreditation from the Association of American Law Schools – a major step in the creation of a strong and vibrant university based College of Law . He contributed greatly to new policies in regard to enactment of grading practices, academic regulations and the honor code – all of which remain the foundation for our current policies. Perhaps more important, Kevin showed our growing young faculty the meaning of dedication to the profession of teaching and the values we were expected to impart to our students.

“Kevin's major field of study and teaching was constitutional law – a subject then and now among the most comprehensive and important in the Law School curriculum. His focus was on imparting knowledge of the subject and revealing the intricacies and challenges of constitutional interpretation. In this effort, he was far more concerned with teaching and application than publication of scholarly works. Indeed, his major publications addressed academic heraldry and a text explaining law to young persons. His explanation of academic regalia is still part of the Law School commencement exercise program. Its importance to Law professors is extreme in regard to a key sentence – he tells us how to wear the tassel.

“Nowhere was Kevin's dedication to the values of the legal profession more visible than when this former soldier, who served at Guadalcanal, founded the John Adams Society to provide pro bono legal assistance to individual members of the National Guard involved in the tragic events of May 4, 1970 at Kent State . This act, in a Law School whose then Dean gave a visiting professor slot to an outstanding scholar who just happened to be working on the plaintiff's action against the State, was an act of courage. This was an outstanding example of: I don't just talk about professional values, I act on them.

“On a lighter side, Kevin would never forgive me if I did not remember his office. On the walls there were at least seventy-five Ph.D. Doctor of Divinity and other diplomas. All were there to illustrate that for a few bucks and a stamp, a person could become a doctor of anything. I think, but will never know, that this was an outstanding example of Kevin's sense of humor. Of course, it could also have been a warning to his students: never take things simply because of how they appear.

“I sincerely hope that these few comments will aid Kevin's many children, grand-children and great-grandchildren in their grief and their understanding of Kevin's importance to two decades of law students. Kevin Sheard's contributions to our College of Law will endure for many years to come. His presence has been missed by many of us for many years. That empty spot will remain with us always.

“In closing, though written by a Rabbi many centuries ago, I believe these thoughts encompass much of what Kevin Sheard stood and stands for:

“Let your pupils' honor be as dear to you as your own;
And your concern for your colleagues' honor as great as your reverence
for your teachers;
And your reverence for your teachers as your reverence for God.
“Rest in peace.
“Shalom my friend.”

Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of Professor Kevin C. Sheard.

II. Approval of the Agenda for the March 8, 2006 Meeting

Acceptance of the Agenda for March 8, 2006 was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 8, 2006 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 8, 2006 meeting was moved by Professor William Bowen, seconded, and unanimously approved.

IV. University Curriculum Committee

Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that there are two items of business from the University Curriculum Committee that are before the Senate.

A. Proposed Honors General Education Alternative (Report No. 5, 2005-2006)

Professor Meiksins noted that the first item is a proposal to create a General Education Alternative for students participating in the University Honors Program. This is not meant to be a mandatory program for all honors students but it creates an option for those students. Rather than requiring those students to do the menu of courses that traditional CSU students are required to take, it offers honors students the option of taking two clusters of courses concentrated in particular departments and then there are some remaining requirements that they would have to complete. By taking this program, these students will still have to do the Writing Across the Curriculum and the university requirements specifically. The University Curriculum Committee had a lengthy discussion about this proposal but, in the end, the UCC recommends this proposal to the Senate. The Honors Steering Committee is aware that there is currently a revision of the General Education Requirements for the University as a whole being discussed and are aware that they may have to retro-fit or abandon this particular proposal should the two groups become incompatible and thus changes would be made. But since that is not likely to come on line for a year or two or longer, given the slowness with which such things work, they wanted to go ahead with this as a pilot program essentially to see how it turns out.

There was no discussion. Senate President Gelman noted that there is a motion from the University Curriculum Committee to approve the proposed Honors General Education Alternative. He then asked Senate members to vote. The proposed Honors General Education Alternative was approved unanimously.

B. Proposed New Minor in Native American Studies within Anthropology (Report No. 6, 2005-2006)

Dr. Peter Meiksins noted that the second proposal from the UCC is a new Minor in Native American Studies which would be housed within the Anthropology Department and within the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences but which draws on a number of courses from other departments entirely within the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Basically, this proposal makes use of existing courses and eight new courses created to make this possible but it is already on the books and there are proposals to create additional courses. The program doesn't hinge on whether those things go forward or not. It appeared to the UCC to be a sensible proposal and one which might add something to the diversity of the curriculum of the University so it was recommended to Senate. Professor Meiksins noted that there is someone at Senate from the Anthropology Department who can respond to any questions.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman noted that Senate has a motion from the University Curriculum Committee to approve a new Minor in Native American Studies within Anthropology. He asked members to vote. The proposed new Minor in Native American Studies within Anthropology was approved unanimously.

V. Admissions and Standards Committee

Proposed Honors Recognition Policy (Report No. 7, 2005-2006)

Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that when the Honors Program was approved in March 2003, it was stated that there should be formal recognition of Honors students and so the Committee is proposing how this recognition would occur on both the diploma and the transcript. The Committee is proposing that the Honors Diploma will state “University Honors” and that Suma Cum Laude or Magna Cum Laude designations would also be appropriate. On the transcript it will state both “University Honors” and “Departmental Honors.” It is useful to know that the courses that are Honors courses will be designated with an “H” on the transcript.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked members to vote on the proposal. The proposed Honors Recognition was approved unanimously.

VI. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz reported that the search for a new Provost has begun. The first meeting of the Search Committee was held yesterday afternoon ( March 7, 2006 ). The Faculty Senate Steering Committee was very helpful to him in putting the committee into its final form recommending that a Senator be named as the co-chair of the committee, that a representative from Continuing Education be added, and that a faculty member from the College of Engineering be added who does not hold an administrative title. To this last idea, President Schwartz stated that he consented only very reluctantly. The Committee is now formed. The Committee is co-chaired by Vice President Jack Boyle and Professor Teresa LaGrange. The Council of Deans' representative is Dean Mary Jane Saunders of the College of Science . Dr. Bahman Ghorashi represents the cadre of Assistant and Associate Deans. The members of the faculty of the several colleges are as follows: Professor Santosh Misra from the Nance College of Business Administration, Professor Ralph Mawdsley from the College of Education and Human Services, Professor Norbert Delatte from the Fenn College of Engineering, Professor Teresa LaGrange from the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Professor Mekki Bayachou from the College of Science, Professor James Wilson from the Cleveland Marshall College of Law, Professor Mittie Olion Chandler from the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Professor Barbara Margolius, Director of the Honors Program, Ms. Vida Svarcas from the Division of Continuing Education and Ms. Evette Clark will represent the graduate students. The undergraduate Student Government Association has still not named an undergraduate student to the Committee. President Schwartz commented that he will work on that. He stated that he will also put this membership roster out on a mass e-mail later today.

President Schwartz commented that as everyone may have heard, there are likely to be two versions of the TABOR-TEL amendment on the ballot in November. This is the constitutional amendment that would limit taxes on expenditures by the State. In the case of one of these, it is some combination of population growth and inflation or whatever it might be. This is the same general legislation that the citizens of the State of Colorado recently had to put on the shelf because of the serious damage it was doing or threatened to do to that State. President Schwartz noted that his understanding is that the current version of TEL here, while very much like the one in Colorado , is less well written and therefore even harder to decipher but no less threatening. One version is proposed by Mr. Blackwell and another probably will be proposed by Mr. Petro. Both Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Petro seek to be the gubernatorial nomination of the Republican Party. This proposed amendment may be a topic of conversation at the next Board of Trustees meeting. The Presidents of the public institutions have discussed it and it was also discussed at the last Inter-University Council meeting. At that meeting, a resolution in opposition to the amendment was passed and each President was asked to return to their campuses and engage the Boards of Trustees in a conversation about it and report back to the IUC about the results of their Board discussions. He reported that he has also been informed that the Regional Mayors and Managers Association is extremely concerned about this amendment and what it would do to local and county government. It is really imperative that everyone informs themselves fully about the proposals and then take whatever action they feel is necessary individually or maybe even collectively in some way. President Schwartz added, “But please be informed about this proposal.”

President Michael Schwartz reported that there are some proposed revisions to the formula that distributes the State's subsidy to us and that is called the State Share of Instruction. He hasn't seen this proposal yet, but it constitutes a re-grouping of disciplines for subsidy purposes. It applies some weights to subsidy for the so-called STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and on and on. He believes that it will become public here shortly – probably at the next Board of Regents' meeting and when it does, President Schwartz will see to it that everyone gets copies of it or are informed about the major provisions. It hasn't been done yet by any means but there is serious talk. President Schwartz said he learned this afternoon that the way it is modeled based on current enrollments around the State, most institutions would get what they have previously received but a few would be severely threatened. We probably would not be among them. He stated that he wanted everyone to know this is quite personal. He is a little ambivalent about the current emphasis on the STEM disciplines. He would say strongly ambivalent if that's possible. On the one hand, it is very clear to him that the economy is going to depend in large measure on our ability to be competitive in the world in those fields. He understands that. He doesn't live under a rock. On the other hand, he is gravely concerned about the current status of the thinking about the arts, the humanities, and the social sciences and the applied disciplines that depend upon those things. If we ignore the development of those disciplines, we do that at our ultimate peril as a democracy. The function of the liberal arts is to liberate the mind from ignorance, to provide for an enlightened citizenry, to provide the wherewithal for the individual defense of liberty, and finally to free the imagination of all people everywhere. Creating polytechnics as opposed to universities is probably a matter of enough concern that, even though the Senate doesn't need another burden, the Senate should be informed about it and from time to time should act. We need to pay attention of course to science, technology, engineering and mathematics and we need to pay attention at the same time to our poets and our professors of philosophy and history and even from time to time to recovering sociologists. President Schwartz said that he brought this to everyone's attention because he does worry about some things more than others. Let's think about this together for the rest of the year and in the years to come.

Professor Leo Jeffres commented that the large classrooms in the Main Classroom building have been some of the best classrooms for teaching the general education classes for several different departments and they hold up to 200 people. They were remodeled not too long ago and they have all of the appropriate technology. The story is that they are going off line this next fall to be replaced by some classrooms apparently that are much smaller and not necessarily equipped. In any case, several departments would like information about that and are more than a little concerned why they weren't brought into it early on.

President Michael Schwartz responded that Vice President Jack Boyle has seen to it that there is a real survey of all possible spaces to replace those spaces that will be lost. We will have to get the new spaces ready for next fall. They will be properly equipped. With regard to representation in the group that has been doing this, he believes that the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Academic Space has been involved from the beginning. His response to Professor Jeffres is that with that involvement, the proper governance structure was involved in this. But, some of his colleagues would like to have not only the proper governance structure involved in this examination of these spaces but would like to then turn populist and have everyone involved in it all at the same time. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Boyle thought, and he was wrong, he thought that there was that proper broader involvement. There will be involvement now.

Dr. Rodger Govea asked President Michael Schwartz if he envisioned our drawing our Board of Trustees into this conversation about STEM and that emphasis. President Schwartz responded, “Yes.”

Dr. Govea stated that he is willing to act so far as we can act. President Schwartz said that the Trustees are more than a little interested in these things. They have revised the committee structure of the Board of Trustees and now there is instead of a Committee on Academic and Student Affairs, a Committee on Academic Excellence and Competitiveness. The people who serve on that committee are going to want to know something from the faculty. What constitutes a university and how do we make it the best that we can given the resources that we have? What's it going to take? President Schwartz said that he believes the Chairman of the Board wants to make the Board as accessible to those kinds of views as he can. We should look forward to that. We have every reason to.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that he wanted to add something to the recovering sociologist's remarks about academic space. He reported that the Senate Academic Steering Committee discussed this at least twice this year and possibly three times. Professor Joseph Fontes, chair of the Committee on Academic Space, is working effectively with a group of consultants entertained by the University for semi long term planning and there is also a group working on the replacement of these spaces. In fact, Steering considered the loss of those classrooms almost on an emergency basis. It didn't come from any committee when it was learned that it had happened. We were powerless to undue what was done but he does know that Professor Fontes is quite happy with his involvement in the planning for replacing those spaces. There are also revised procedures for consultation with the Senate body on capital projects that impact academic spaces. There has been an exchange of emails between himself and Vice President Jack Boyle about a month ago. He just circulated that to Steering and he will circulate that to all Senators. We very much hope that these procedures will prevent a repetition of the problem we had this year. He just wanted to say that he will put on the Academic Steering Committee Agenda for the next meeting the concerns raised by President Schwartz.

VII. New Business

Finally, Senate President Sheldon Gelman announced that on April 21, 2006 , an organization called the Ohio Faculty Council is holding what it describes as its first annual conference on academic governance. For those who don't know, the Ohio Faculty Council is a body sponsored by the Regents. The group meets once a month or so in Columbus in the offices of the Chancellor. There are two representatives from each of the public universities in Ohio and the body informally and sometimes more formally discusses general concerns. They are the sponsors of this retreat. Professor Rodger Govea and Senate President Sheldon Gelman are the representatives to the Ohio Faculty Council. Professor Govea is the secretary of the body. Five representatives from each institution are invited to this conference. Professors Gelman and Govea are attending and that leaves room for three additional representatives. If anybody is interested in attending the retreat on Friday, April 21, 2006 at 8:30 A.M. in Bowling Green , Ohio please talk to Professor Govea. Senate President Gelman went on to say that he doesn't know exactly what the agenda is but it should be quite interesting. In part, the Council decided to have a retreat before they had any idea of what would be discussed. If he remembers correctly, he asked the question, “What is faculty governance?” This seems to be a reasonable subject for discussion. It does promise to be a serious and interesting program. Again, if anyone is interested, please talk to Professor Govea or Professor Gelman.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green called everyone's attention to the exhibit that is on display currently outside of this meeting room in University Center . The University of Texas Center for American History is presenting this exhibition of photographs by Melina Mara – a remarkable documentary portrait of fourteen women senators. It was first exhibited at the Smithsonian Institution and we are very proud that Cleveland State has it now. We are the third institution to have the exhibit and we have it here for the month of March. On Friday, March 10, 2006 at 1:00 P.M. , there will be a reception and everyone is invited. The exhibit is called, “Changing the Face of Power: Women in the U.S. Senate.” We can all be very proud that we are third on the list of this special exhibit.

There being no further business, Professor Rodger Govea moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded and approved and the meeting adjourned at 3:36 P.M.

Jennifer Visocky-O'Grady
Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

 

 

[Top of Page]