Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 5, 2006

I.  Approval of the Agenda
II. University Curriculum Committee for the March 8, 2006 Meeting
III. Admissions and Standards Committee
IV. Status Report on the College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 12, 2005-2006)
V.  University President's Report
VI. New Business

PRESENT: Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, J. Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Dougherty, Duffy, Ekelman, Gao, Gelman, Govea, B. Hoffman, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, LaGrange, Loovis, Martins, K. Mason, McClain, N. Nelson, Poznanski, Rom, Slane, M. K. Smith, Spicer, Steinberg, Weyman, Ziolek.

Boyle, Bufford, Droney, Hanniford, Heinrich, Humer, Kuo, Margolius, Mills, L. Mooney, Nuru-Holm, L.E. Reed, Sadlek, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Thornton , Tumeo.

ABSENT: Atherton, Bauer, A. Benander, Falk, Forte, V. George, Gorla, Hansman, M. Kaufman, L. Keller, Lehfeldt, McCahon, J. Moore, O'Neill, Sawicki, D. Shah, Sparks , Visocky-O'Grady, J. Webb. C. Alexander, Barlow, Dillard, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Patterson, Pereces, Rosentraub, Scherer, A. Shah, Spiker.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 5, 2006 was moved by Dr. Rodger Govea, seconded, and approved.

At this point Senate President Gelman requested unanimous consent for two changes to the Agenda. First, Rosemary Sutton, the chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, would prefer that item IV.A. be taken up last. If there is no objection, we will proceed in that way. Second, the Minutes of the March 8, 2006 meeting were circulated only yesterday. They were received only a few hours before being circulated. There were a number of errors in them and rather than proceed as a Committee of the Whole and revise the Minutes, Senate President Gelman requested unanimous consent to table approval of the Minutes of the March 8, 2006 Senate meeting until the April 19, 2006 meeting so they can be taken up at our next session. There were no objections.

II. University Curriculum Committee

Proposed New Undergraduate Minor in International Business
(Report No. 8, 2005-2006)

Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that the UCC has one item for Senate which is a proposed new Undergraduate Minor in International Business. This is essentially a sister program of the Major in International Business which had been reactivated and approved last year. It offers opportunities for students primarily outside the Business School to get some kind of training in this area without actually going the whole distance of completing a major. As you will see, it requires 19 credit hours although there are a number of prerequisites for quite a few of the courses. The UCC didn't have any objections to the program as such but the Committee did ask that the hidden prerequisites be made not hidden so the proposal before Senate indicates which courses have prerequisites and it makes it clear to students that, were they to attempt the program, they might very well have to do more than 19 hours if they didn't already have the prerequisites. Under that condition, the UCC felt that this is a fine program and recommends it to Faculty Senate.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked Senators to vote on the proposal. The proposed new Undergraduate Minor in International Business was approved unanimously.

III. Admissions and Standards Committee

Dr. Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, noted that the Committee has three items for Senate approval. The first item is the proposed Five-Year Academic Calendar for FY08-FY13.

A. Proposed Five-year Academic Calendar for FY08-FY13
(Report No. 9, 2005-2006)

Dr. Sutton noted that there are just a couple of things that will be different in the Academic Calendar. A few clarifications have been added to make it a little clearer about what the holiday times were for people not familiar with Cleveland State or perhaps not familiar with United States terminology for holidays; for example, what Columbus Day might be. The Committee also had some concern about those missing Monday classes. At this point Dr. Sutton thanked everyone who participated in the recent survey and particularly thanked those who added comments with lots of colorful adjectives about the survey. But it was very clear that the majority of faculty don't want to change the status quo and if anyone had to teach a class one day per week on a Monday and you missed several Monday holidays, those individual faculty members wanted to decide how to take care of those themselves. Dr. Sutton then asked if there were any comments about the proposed Five-Year Academic Calendar.

Senate President Gelman noted that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed a Five-year Academic Calendar and asked Senators to vote. The proposed Five-year Academic Calendar for FY08-FY13 was approved unanimously.

B. Proposed New D Grade Transfer Policy
(Report No. 10, 2005-2006)

Professor Sutton noted that the second proposal is a New “D” Grade Transfer Policy. The Ohio Articulation and Transfer Council has required us to accept courses with a “D” grade for students transferring from Ohio accredited state-assisted institutions. We don't have a choice about that. We have to accept them. The choice we do have is what “accept” means. We are defining “accept” to mean that the courses will be added to the CSU Transcript as transfer courses. The credits will be added to the total cumulative credits but the program rules that apply will still apply. So while a “D” course could be transferred in, if the program has a rule about this particular course which has to have a “B” average in order to meet the program standards, those same rules will apply. This has two advantages. First, it is equal both for our transfer students and our home institution students and it also is administratively simple. The courses will be transferred in on the student's transcript in the regular kind of fashion and then the program requirements will just kick in the way they always do.

Professor Beth Ekelman asked if there is any way that the grade can be put on the transfer credit evaluation so that faculty know because otherwise the student has to provide us with a transcript. Mr. Edward Mills, Vice Provost for Enrollment Services, stated that perhaps it can be added in as a notation so that we can see it but it wouldn't count.

Professor Ekelman replied that Mr. Mills' suggestion would be fine because she needs to know the grades students received in those courses. Dr. Sutton agreed that this suggestion made sense.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed a New “D” Grade Transfer Policy and asked Senators to vote. The proposed New “D” Grade Policy was approved unanimously.

C. Proposed Revised Undergraduate Grade Dispute Language
(Report No. 11, 2005-2006)

Professor Rosemary Sutton noted that the Committee's last proposal is a revised Undergraduate Grade Dispute Language. As most of you know, part of the job of the Admissions and Standards Committee is to look at grade disputes that have gone through committees and evaluate them for due process. In the process of doing that and in talking to various people who have brought up these grade disputes, we discovered a couple of problems. We discovered that first of all the language in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogues, the Student Handbook and the Personnel Policies (Greenbook) is not consistent. We also noticed that in the Undergraduate Catalogue, there were language problems with coding. We checked examples, where there might be other fundamental errors that could occur and not just coding errors. She indicated that this has happened to her personally where after you have filed a grade, maybe a student, comes back and talks to you and says, “You know, I interpreted the question a different way.” and when you really have time to go back and think about it, you realize there was an alternative explanation and maybe you need to rethink what you did. This isn't a technical coding problem. It's something more substantial. So, the Committee looked at the Grade Dispute Language at other universities. We spent a long time thinking about this. We sent the draft language to the University Faculty Affairs Committee who added a very helpful paragraph. What we have here in our proposal is the current language, the proposed language on page 2 in italics and the rest of what you see is the Committee's thinking – the rationale which was sort of the thinking and discussion that we went through. If this proposal is approved, the change will only occur in the Undergraduate Catalogue. Then we will start the process of sending this over to the Graduate School to see if the Graduate College wants to revise their grade dispute language. Obviously what comes out of that will be what goes into the Student Handbook. We will probably need to go back and look at the Personnel Policies as well. So at the moment, it is a narrow focus just on the Undergraduate Catalogue.

Dr. Peter Meiksins indicated that he was still a little puzzled as to why the proposal is unspecific about what reasonable efforts means. He knows there is language in the Grade Dispute Policy and it may not be in the language governing the Admissions and Standards Committee, but language is just a due process description saying that a student must submit in writing some kind of explanation to the chair explaining why he/she believes the grade should be changed. When he was a chair, he handled a number of these and there was a kind of a routine process that he went through where you asked the student to explain what he/she thought should happen. The faculty member involved explained in writing what happened and then a meeting was to occur and the two were meant to try to resolve the dispute that way. This proposal leaves completely open what constitutes reasonable efforts and thereby invites all kinds of essentially argument and un-resolvable argument about when that condition has been met. That is the problem and it will be a problem when the Admissions and Standards Committee will have to deal with this.

Professor Rosemary Sutton reported that there were a couple of reasons the Committee said reasonable efforts to consult. We had examples where consulting initially says to have a meeting but we changed that language because the faculty members may no longer be on campus and the students may no longer be on campus or may not be able to come to campus for a physical meeting was one of the things that we decided to leave as is although that may be a reasonable change. The other thing we struggled with was how much of the procedures to put in the Undergraduate Handbook and how much to leave separate and what should be in the Dean's Office. The Student Handbook now says that students can find procedures in the Dean's Office which turn out not to exist. What is in some Deans' Offices is a sort of a check list of the order that you are describing. One of the reasons we didn't want to put that in the general language is it turns out that the names of the committees vary slightly from college to college. So we thought what we might do was leave the language like this and then each college would have procedures that should occur in their college. But, that may not be enough. That was the Committee's thinking about it.

Professor Barbara Hoffman indicated that it was not clear to her why the administrator in this process would have to be changed from the chair to the dean or the dean's designee. It seems that after the faculty member, the chair is much more likely to be familiar with the course or the requirements of the course and the performance on the part of the student. Professor Hoffman indicated that after reading through the Committee's rationale, she is still not clear about why the chair needs to be taken out of the loop.

Dr. Sutton responded that the Committee didn't intend to take the chair out. It is her understanding now for a grade (not an incomplete) to be changed it needs to be signed off by the faculty member and someone in the Dean's Office.

Professor Hoffman asked, “What if the student wants to dispute the grade?” Dr. Sutton replied that it starts with the chair. Professor Hoffman stated that it starts with the instructor. Professor Sutton agreed that it starts with the instructor. The Admissions and Standards Committee didn't outline the procedures for all of the steps. We talked about the final – you signing off on the final grade dispute. Maybe it is different in Professor Hoffman's college, but Dr. Sutton understood from her committee that in all colleges, the final step before sending it on to the Registrar's Office is that the instructor has to sign it and then the Dean and that was the language there. Professor Hoffman is right. This doesn't detail the steps that the students have to go through in those procedures, but we may want to do that.

Dr. William Bowen said that he had two questions. One, he is concerned about the fairness of this because if there are more people interpreting what constitutes good reason to change a grade, then that means there will be more variation in how that's interpreted and so some people are going to be real lenient and others are going to be not so lenient. There is a sense in which it might be fairer to the students if we have a committee make the decision and it will be a little more predictable.

Dr. Sutton said that she was confused. She asked Professor Bowen if he could talk a little more about that.

Dr. Bowen stated that if there are grade disputes, as he understands it now, ultimately they end up in committees that make the decisions, correct? It's not up to individual faculty members to decide whether or not to make the change.

Professor Sutton noted that in the procedure as she understands it now, if both the instructor and the dean agree, it goes through. When there is a dispute, a student comes to me and says, “You gave me a C and I deserved a B.” and I go back and look at it and I see I couldn't click on the white little thing on the Web-based system which I did several times when it was new, then all I needed to do is write something about that and the dean or someone in the dean's office signed off and it was done. However, if it is a dispute which means the student keeps saying he or she deserves a better grade and I say no, and we can't resolve it with the department chair, then it goes to a grade dispute committee. Once again, that's what we decided not to do but maybe we need to put these procedures in. This is the language in the Undergraduate Catalogue and the question is whether we put these detailed steps in the catalogue and, if we do, whether we can find language that works across different committees because the committees are called different things in different colleges.

Dr. Bowen stated then that the net effect is going to be how do you expect this to impact on the grade dispute committee? Professor Sutton replied that she was not sure it will. It turns out that some grade dispute committees had been very generously interpreting the error on computation language. Basically nothing else was legitimate according to the current language and so open to interpretation of what an error in computation might mean. The only really substantive change in this proposal is the circumstances deemed “extraordinary” so the Admissions and Standards Committee tried to put in that language to accommodate something extraordinary. The Committee thought initially about listing off various categories but it was decided that this wasn't going to work.

Professor Sanda Kaufman said that she is a little bit confused about what the change entails and she is also worried about some other things of a different nature. She is a little bit concerned about the word “extraordinary” because at least some of her students will think that their case is extraordinary and so they will all be there. If you teach a course that is a little difficult, they will all have extraordinary circumstances. She noted that there are two groups of students in her class. Some are from Korea and it doesn't even cross their minds to challenge her decision whereas the American students think that they are just there until graduation. The first thing they do is negotiate and so she is going to have a group of students that will get their change every time. She will no longer be able to say, “Once it's out, unless I made a mistake and didn't compute real well, forget it.” The other group would never think of doing that and so even if she actually made a mistake, they would not challenge the grade or bring it to her attention. Dr. Kaufman said that she feels much more comfortable with a process requiring a student to bring a higher level of proof to a committee.

Dr. Rosemary Sutton stated that she is not convinced but Professor Kaufman may be right that our students should read the grade dispute language before they decide to file a grade dispute. She would like to think that they do but her hunch is that they don't but she may be wrong there. But, she is not sure because the Committee is not really making changes in the procedures. It is clear to her that this proposal is not clear to Senators which means that the Committee didn't write it clearly enough. They were trying to change some of the language and then they were going to go back and detail the procedures. It looks like the Committee should have done both by this conversation and may need to do that.

Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that there are several issues here. She likes the change made to the language about how a grade gets changed by the instructor. What has been done with the current Undergraduate Catalogue language about change of grade is very appropriate to add this other criteria that may be applied with some qualms about the word “extraordinary” although it does state that the faculty member, not the student, must consider the circumstances extraordinary. But in the proposed new language, the Committee has grouped together the language for grade changes and for Undergraduate Grade Disputes. She said that those need to be separated out. A third issue actually goes back to the original language and has been carried over into the new language. It's not clear to her that once the student has come to the instructor, the student is not changing the grade but is disputing the grade. The student comes to the instructor, the instructor says, “No, you get the grade I gave you.” The student goes to the chair and the chair says “No, you get the grade you were given.” The student then appeals to the college committee. When it goes to the college committee, does it say in there that the college committee must hear testimony from the instructor and the chair in addition to the student before a decision can be made? What she is reading here makes it seem as though the committee is going to listen to what the student has to say and make a decision based solely on that testimony and she feels that isn't what is intended.

Professor Jeffrey Dean reported that his caucus chewed it over and some of the same points have already been raised. Thee are three points: one, his caucus was uneasy about “extraordinary” because it appears to raise a third category or grounds on which a grade can be changed whereas their interpretation was that really what it aims to do is to resolve a contradiction between the grade dispute procedure and what's in the Catalogue. So his caucus was going to suggest as an alternative to point (2): “as the result of resolution of a grade dispute between a student and a faculty member.” In other words, if the faculty member agrees with the student that a change should be made, the current language doesn't allow anybody to do that other than to go through the sort of pseudo grade dispute procedure. So, it seems to his caucus that this doesn't raise this “extraordinary” issue.

Professor Sutton asked Professor Dean if he was proposing that if the student and faculty member agree, it shouldn't require a dean's signature? Is that what is being proposed? Professor Jeffrey Dean said that this is the language in the Greenbook for a grade dispute. It suggests that it be resolved at the lowest possible level.

Dr. Sutton pointed out that it still requires the signature of the dean and that is thought by some to be protection of faculty members.

Dr. Jeffrey Dean said that this would be fine too, but what we want to do is to avoid this “extraordinary” grounds. If you want to have the dean sign off, that is fine. In fact it states there in either case that approval of the dean is required. We think that it should specify which dean should do this. He said he assumes it is the academic college dean that's meant there. Professor Sutton replied that this is once again found to be deliberately a little vague because different colleges have different rules of which dean. She doesn't want any in her college fighting for any of the deans. So it was deliberately left as a dean.

Professor Dean said that for faculty members it is unclear. You submit the grade sheet form and there is a place there for a dean's signature. Does a dean ever see that and sign on it? Professor Sutton replied, “Yes.” Professor Dean went on to say that if there is a place for the signature, he has no idea where it is.

Dr. Sutton stated that the Registrar's Office will not take the form without the dean's signature. Is she correct about that? Yes, you have to have the dean's signature.

Dr. Barbara Hoffman commented, “That is not the case all of the time.”

Dr. Jeffrey Dean said that there is one grounds. Dr. Sutton noted that it is only for a change of grade if a student went from an F to a C or from a C to a B. She inquired if the signatures are changed? Professor Dean stated that the language should specify academic policy. He continued stating that his third point is that as a kind of check on whether there is a flood of such complaints, it seems to him that if a grade changed, this is not a third paragraph, it's made under condition a). His caucus would suggest that appropriate documentation ought to go to the College Petitions Committee so that there would be some sort of external control on how this procedure is being used and it's a way of maybe ensuring that.

Dr. Rosemary Sutton noted that Professor Dean is saying that if both the student and the faculty member agree and the dean signs off, he wants a record of that to go to the College… She noted that this is not the current procedure. But Professor Dean wants this added to the current procedure. Professor Dean said, “Yes.”

Professor Sutton noted that the Admissions and Standards Committees and the respective Colleges are going to have quite a lot of work to do.

Dr. Rodger Govea commented that we are back to the separation that Professor Barbara Hoffman was talking about that we need to do. We may be talking about a couple of different things. One is that the student comes in and says that the faculty member (unintelligible.) Then what happens? Is the dispute committee necessary in this case? You have a resolution so there needs to be a set of procedures for that case in which the faculty member and the student reach agreement among themselves and perhaps with the chair. And then another one details what happens if there is a failure of resolution at the departmental level. That would be sort of a road map for everybody involved because we can see. In those procedures, if you asked the average faculty member or student at gun point, he couldn't tell you what's really supposed to happen. There is need to go through all of these cases and perhaps not to make (unintelligible) language this way. We are really talking about separate cases. An appeal goes to the faculty member at the departmental level and then the dispute goes on to the college level. Everyone calls them chairs but in the different colleges … Some of that could be put in there.

Dr. Sutton noted that what Dr. Govea is saying is that the language for grounds should be separated out of the procedures. Dr. Govea said that he thought so.

Professor Michael Spicer stated that notwithstanding the problem that might exist with the present procedures, it isn't clear to him how this proposal solves the problem. The problem appears to be that there is an abuse of discretion or of the current exercise of discretion and this proposal would seem to enlarge the scope of discretion. And when one adds to that the complexity that this is going to create in the Colleges in terms of these new procedures, he is not sure we would be significantly better off than the status quo.

Dr. Sutton responded that it wasn't the Admissions and Standards Committee's intention to propose new procedures. The intention was to try to make a language and use a word like “extraordinary” that covered bizarre cases. We also wanted language for cases that might turn up that we hadn't thought of so we deliberately used some language and the faculty member has to agree that it is extraordinary. We were trying to broaden the language a little bit but to also keep protections. Grade disputes are complicated balancing of students' rights and faculty's rights and it is a balance that we need to do here to protect students. We have had cases this year of examples where faculty members clearly had committed some serious errors.

Professor Spicer stated that faculty will have more opportunity to do so now. Professor Sutton agreed. The Admissions and Standards Committee also has cases obviously where students commit some rather serious issues so we need some balancing. She then suggested that the Admissions and Standards Committee withdraw the proposal and go back to the Admissions and Standards Committee and try to separate out the grounds from the procedures and come back to Senate with a revised proposal.

Professor Luiz Martins asked, “What would be extraordinary circumstances?” If it is something like a student didn't show up for a final, the thing to do is to give that student an X so that is not an extraordinary circumstance. If on the other hand it is something serious and the student says, “Well, I couldn't understand the questions in the exam” that will naturally lead to a grade dispute. Otherwise he could not change the grade of this student in fairness to the other students that took the same exam and didn't do anything. Professor Martins asked, “What exactly is an ‘extraordinary' circumstance?”

Professor Sutton gave a couple of examples of extraordinary circumstances. Some of the university grievance cases actually come from our part-time instructors who don't understand things. Sometimes our part-time instructors are wonderful. For example, there are no attendance requirements in class; there is a schedule of exams that are given and the instructor changes the date of the final exam and only tells the students once and there is no opportunity for a student who made arrangements to be somewhere else on that date to take the exam.

Professor Michael Spicer noted that there is a petitions process in place available to remedy that sort of thing.

Professor Martins stated that his point is this should come to the surface. We should know that the instructor is doing that and there should be a petitions process so that we know about it otherwise this thing will be just in the shadows.

Dr. Sutton said that when it is a grade that is disputed, perhaps the final exam was 20% of the final grade so the student now doesn't get an A but gets whatever it would be then the process that it goes through is typically a grade dispute process. That's the process that operates and that is a problem. We had some cases earlier this year in which the part-time instructor refused to participate in the process, refused to document how the grades were calculated and had no records of anything.

Professor Spicer commented that it weakens that case in the process. It sounds terribly unfair to him.

Professor Sutton said that she does have examples where this isn't a coding error or a recording error. This is something more substantial along the way.

Dr. Peter Meiksins noted that this language will not cause the instructors to change their behavior. This would not remedy that situation. What this does is to open up more of a negotiating excuse when students talk to faculty about trying to persuade the faculty to change the grade. He stated that he agrees with Professor Barbara Hoffman. You can no longer blame the students. The only reason to change the grade is because of an error in computation. Now, we may want to do that but I don't like the idea that I have to lie. But, this does not remedy the situation.

Dr. Rodger Govea tried it a different way. He said, “What if an instructor like me makes a mistake in the grade?” He noted that under the old system, if he discovers the mistake after turning in the grades, his only option is to lie and to say I figured it up wrong.

Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that you are allowed a computational error. That is the only official reason to change a grade.

Dr. Govea agreed, but noted that this isn't a computational error. This is a mistake. He tells a student that he didn't mention Sri Lanka in his answer and it shows up in a later paragraph. Dr. Govea noted, now he made a mistake. So as it currently stands, he is stuck with saying, “Oh yes, I added up the grades wrong.” It is a situation in which he and the student would probably know that he had made a mistake and the grade would need to be changed. Now, the original intent of the original language was to prevent excessive student pressure. Dr. Govea noted that as Rosemary Sutton points out, a lot of people are claiming computational errors where they are not and so you are in that position, and a distinct lie just gets you out of it.

Professor Sanda Kaufman commented that maybe it is an error in adding and subtracting, but just an error on your part which you are willing to recognize as opposed to being able to explain to the student that he doesn't write as much like Shakespeare as he thought he did.

Professor Govea asked, “Why would that threaten you? Just say that this is very poorly written.”

Dr. Rosemary Sutton reported that when the Committee looked at the Grade Dispute language in other universities, some had no reasons at all. She had no idea they had more grade disputes than we do. The Admissions and Standards Committee has seen about six this year. This is a fact of things that are not resolved because if they go to the local Admissions and Standards College Committees and they are supposed to come to us, it is not going to fly.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that it occurred to him that some like it cloudy in a proposal and there is a genuine difference of opinion which will probably have to be resolved in a vote. One side will win and one side will lose but we don't have a proposal. He then suggested tabling the motion and have the Admissions and Standards Committee bring it back. At that time, the Senate can vote on various amendments to it and the contending sides will divide into yeas and nays. Anybody can communicate with the Committee as it reconsiders the proposal to make their views clearer. There are at least two and possibly three distinct different positions that are being urged on the Committee.

Dr. Rodger Govea suggested that rather than table the proposal, he would move that the proposed Revised Grade Dispute Language be referred back to committee.

Senate President Gelman noted that there is a motion to refer the proposal back to the Admissions and Standards Committee. It is a motion that the Admissions and Standards Committee Chair agrees to. He then asked Senators to vote. The motion to refer the proposed Grade Dispute Language back to the Admissions and Standards Committee was approved.

IV. Status Report on the College of Graduate Studies (Report No. 12, 2005-2006)

Dean Mark Tumeo distributed material pertaining to his report on the College of Graduate Studies. He stated that he was sorry that Senators didn't have all of this information in advance of the meeting today.

Policy Actions

Dr. Tumeo first referred to the Policy Actions of the Graduate Council as taken over this past academic year. A new procedure was instituted this year. Whenever Graduate Council is to consider a new Graduate Policy, it is introduced on first reading at Council and then circulated to all of the Graduate Program Directors for their comments. Then it is introduced as a second reading at the following Graduate Council meeting. So, there is one month for everyone to comment on the proposed policy. That was in response to a concern that policies were being done without necessarily enough notification. That seems to have worked very well. We get a lot of return comments from Graduate Program Directors if there is an issue. Also, in accordance with the requirements of the Faculty Senate, whenever policies are approved, they are passed on to the University Curriculum Committee which then determines whether the policies need to go any further, whether they want to hold on to them or whether they want to bump them up. In one instance there was one that was bumped over to the Admissions and Standards Committee which is currently pending there. We have the approved Specialization in Counseling Psychology that will be coming to Faculty Senate. Everything else then is processed in that way so there are plenty of checks. Back in 2000, there was a review of an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate that wanted to make sure that these kinds of things were put through all of the Faculty Governance processes so these are the procedures that have been instituted to make sure that this happens.

Readmission Policy

Dean Tumeo reported that the only substantive change of policy that has been done this year is the Readmission Policy for Academically Dismissed Students which is currently pending in the Admissions and Standards Committee of Faculty Senate. The reason this was brought to Graduate Council was because they currently have no policy. When a student is academically dismissed, meaning they received an “F” or two grades less than a “B-” or a program that they were on probation or decided to continue in, there were no rules for what those students have to do when they return to CSU. When you are going by GPA or their entire transcript, well they would never get back in. This policy says, if you are readmitted to the same graduate program, this is what you have to do. If you fail that and you are dismissed a second time, you are not readmissible to the same program unless there are “extraordinary” circumstances. We always have to give the student the right to petition. Dr. Tumeo noted that we have students who have been readmitted three or four times and then dismissed from the same program and this is just not fair to anybody. Dr. Tumeo commented that if a student applies to a different program, it is not a readmission – that is a new admission so the students start with clean slates and that is the standard rule. Dr. Tumeo noted that if anyone has comments or changes to this policy, please contact Dr. Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, because that is where this proposed policy is now pending.

Graduate Council Elections

Dean Tumeo noted that the Graduate Council elections are now ongoing. All of the nominations are in and the ballots are out. If you have not received a ballot and you believe that you should, contact the Graduate College because not all positions are up every year.

Dean Tumeo reported that there will be a meeting of the Graduate Program Directors on Tuesday, April 18, 2005 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. in UC 1. That has been announced and is up on the Web. The Graduate Council has been meeting with the Graduate Program Directors and Graduate Faculty every semester. The Bylaws require that the Graduate Faculty meet annually. So, starting this year, Graduate Council will continue meeting with the Graduate Program Directors every semester and will have one annual meeting with the Graduate Faculty and one annual reception for the Graduate Faculty more as a social get-together as opposed to a business meeting. The Bylaws only require one business meeting per year.

Graduate Student Credit Hour Production by College

Dean Tumeo reported on Graduate admissions and enrollment. He distributed a sheet showing graduate student credit hour production by college over the past four academic years broken out by the colleges. There have been pretty significant downturns. The biggest hits have been in Business and Education. This is true in the National trend. The condition of our school districts in Northeast Ohio are a big contributing factor. This is kind of the bad news picture. Looking on the back of the document, a new system has been instituted for tracking applications and admissions. You will note that for both summer and fall semesters, applications and admits are up. Dr. Tumeo is hopeful that a corner has been turned. There has been some good news coming out of the school district and they are having new hires. We hope that will generate more Masters students for our education program. Business has been very actively working on MBA recruitment. You may have some of the announcements for the fairs. We have a strong effort on to increase our graduate enrollment and we are seeing the payoff right now in applications and admits. We will see if that converts to credit hours as we move down the path.

Graduate Assistantship Support (FY01-FY06)

Dean Tumeo noted that this document shows the Graduate Assistantship monies and the total amounts on the graph show the FY03 budget cuts. He indicated that they have recovered very nicely. The reason for the recovery is because he shifted money out of his general operating budget into Assistantships to get them back up to the level. It gives a breakdown of how that money is going out to the Colleges. The top of the document is back when the College of Arts and Sciences existed and then below are the three fiscal years that the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Science have been in existence. The Deans and he have agreed on a formula. There is a set amount and then some variation based on four factors: graduate student enrollment increase, undergraduate student enrollment increase, the increase in externally funded research, and the use of externally funded research for graduate assistantships. So, you can leverage your external success by supporting graduate students and that shifts monies to the Colleges. Assistantship money is given to the Deans' Offices and the Deans' Offices are responsible for distributing among programs and departments.

Professor William Bowen wondered what caused the dip in graduate assistantships in FY03. Dean Tumeo replied that there was a budget cut across the University and Graduate Studies that year took a seven percent cut across the board. Dr. Bowen asked if this was a one-time affair. Dean Tumeo replied that it was a one time affair. Dean Tumeo noted that the graph is a little misleading. It was about a $90,000 to $100,000 cut. It wasn't a drastic cut but the graph scale makes it look big. If he had scaled this to zero, it would have been just a blip. Looking at FY03, it doesn't have the $2.8 million of the College up above. He noted that there is an FY03 blip – he just noticed an error in the addition. There was a cut in FY03 but it was not as big as the graph indicates.

Graduate Faculty Travel Award Program

Dean Tumeo reported that this is an internal award given out every year. There are four cycles. The front of the document he distributed summarizes the entire existence of the program. The final round is in process of evaluation currently. It should be announced by the end of the week. On the back of the document is the breakdown of all of the awards by department and their success rates by applications. If there is any concern that some departments are better off, all of the data are on the document.

Dr. Tumeo noted that there has been a recommendation from the Graduate Program Directors that we find funds to support graduate student travel to conferences. There is no mechanism for that within the Graduate College right now. The vote was four to two. For the Research Council for evaluation, there was a fixed pot of money. Their recommendation is that we take one half of the Graduate Faculty Travel Award money and move it into a Doctoral Student Travel Award Program. That idea was presented to Graduate Council for discussion. Council is interested in it but would like to see specific policies and recommended that it not be just for Doctoral Students but that we find ways to include perhaps Masters Students in those areas where that is the highest degree we offer. For example, a Masters student in Biology might not be eligible because they have a Doctoral program, but a Masters student in English would be eligible because we don't have a Doctoral program in English. It is an idea to level the field. The Graduate Council asked that the Research Council put together specific procedures on how that would be implemented if it were to be implemented so that they could make that final decision. All of those kinds of policy decisions will come to the Graduate Council. Dr. Tumeo indicated that he doesn't know what will happen with that – that's the Graduate Council's decision. He knows from the discussion that there was a desire to fund it and there was a feeling that given that faculty now have a guaranteed $1,000 pot, the numbers do show that there has been a decrease in demand for Graduate Faculty travel although there is more demand than there is money. They may recommend shifting those funds. That is on the board in discussion but no decision has been made. Dr. Tumeo noted that he would welcome input on this proposal.

Research Awards and Expenditures

Dr. Tumeo next referred to the program for funding research for faculty and noted that those proposals are in and the Research Council is meeting tomorrow ( April 6, 2006 ) to make their final recommendations.

This final document has to do with the research side of the house. It shows Research Awards and Expenditures from FY99 to FY05. We are about half way through FY06 and are tracking for about a two percent increase in expenditures. Dr. Tumeo commented that they are going in the right direction there. There has been a drop off in the number of proposals submitted so that will bode ill for the future research. There has been a slight increase in the median size of the awards so hopefully it will balance out.

Dr. Tumeo called everyone's attention to one thing on the chart, the clear bar on the top which is the number that is reported to the National Science Foundation for research and development expenditures. There are specific rules on what you can count and what you cannot count so that is why it is always less than our total expenditures. Dr. Tumeo noted that that has been going up. In FY03, we passed Kent State University and remained there in FY04 and FY05. We are now ranked above Kent State in the National Rankings for Research and the next university above them is the University of Akron so that is who we are chasing.

Dr. William Bowen asked, “Why are the expenditures less than the awards?” He didn't understand what the difference was about. Dean Tumeo responded that he wasn't sure where Dr. Bowen saw expenditures less than the awards. Dr. Bowen said on the same table Dean Tumeo was just talking about. Dean Tumeo explained that the awards are the light bar and expenditures are the dark bar. Dr. Bowen noted that the expenditures are always shorter than the award. Dean Tumeo replied that Dr. Bowen was correct. For example, say you get a two-year award from the National Science Foundation for $500,000. That total $500,000 will go on the award list in the year when it is awarded even though you will expend it out over two fiscal years. So, the award letter says we have gotten the money but it doesn't say how many years that money is to be expended. Expenditures are those amounts that are expended in that fiscal year. So you always have awards more than expenditures because you get many multiple year awards.

V. University President's Report

President Michael Schwartz reported that next year, even with a tuition increase which he is anticipating, we are going to have to reallocate internally to solve some problems. They are health care, utilities, and salaries. It is our anticipation that we will have to reallocate internally all divisions – academic and non-academic about $7 million. This is not a budget cut because we are going to spend the same amount of money that we have this year but in order to solve these problems we are going to do some internal reallocating and it's going to affect every division. About roughly $4 million of those $7 million will come from the Academic Affairs division but every division is included, including the Office of the President.

President Schwartz noted that he has not heard yet which proposals he discussed with Senate before that are lurking in Columbus under the rubric of reform are likely to make their way into the General Assembly. When he finds out, he will let the Senate know but he just doesn't know yet and nobody else does either and there is a long list of stuff that people have been considering.

President Schwartz said that he would like to talk to the Senate soon about establishing a permanent Senate Committee on International Education. This issue is one in which it would be wise for the faculty to use such a committee, not to have a check list and say that this has happened but rather to have some statements of policy with regard to international education. Faculty need to make that policy. We are getting more and more involved in international studies and it seems to be that there is real wisdom in knowing how we are going to do this, what we want to do with it, etc. So, he would recommend such a committee.

President Schwartz reported that in the morning he will put out a mass email with regard to the CSU Employee Health and Safety Handbook and the Certificate of Receipt and Comprehension. It will read: “Last Friday, CSU administrators and representatives from the unions and other employee groups on campus met to discuss the CSU Employee Health and Safety Handbook and its accompanying Certificate of Receipt and Comprehension. That discussion resulted in a revised Certificate that more clearly articulates the University's intent and the Certificate's impact on employees' rights and responsibilities. You will receive a copy of the revised Certificate of Receipt and Comprehension within the next few days. If you already signed and returned the first Certificate, it will be returned to you. Please remember, Ohio law requires CSU employees to follow all applicable safety, health, and environmental programs established by the University, and our successful implementation of these programs requires everyone's attention and cooperation.” President Schwartz said that everyone will receive the email. If you want to delete it, you can but the new Certificate is on its way.

Finally, President Schwartz commented that with regard to enrollment for next fall, the figures that he sees indicate that for undergraduate students (new students) we are running ahead in applications from where we were a year ago. We are just a hair behind in admits. Part of that is because we had to go through all of those applications in terms of our new admissions standards in the first place and in the second place, we are finding some of those applications not to be complete. Mr. Ed Mills and his staff are calling every student who had an incomplete application and are trying to make sure that they know their applications are incomplete. The President reported that we are about dead even in terms of transfer students. So, Dean Mark Tumeo's news is good and he is looking forward to being able to maintain. It looks like summer is up as well.

Professor Bill Bowen asked President Schwartz if he could talk more about the $7 million cuts. President Schwartz stated that he didn't know how to talk more about $7 million. It is what it is. As he previously stated, it includes health care which is just going through the roof, utilities – we are paying for the cost of steam and electricity which are up, and we are trying to get some money to take care of some salary issues that are certainly going to come before us.

Dr. Bowen wanted to know if there are ways the Senate could see the numbers so that we can understand this more. President Schwartz said, “I suppose – what would you like to know?” Dr. Bowen asked if he could think about it; he can't think of anything right off. President Schwartz asked Professor Bowen to let him know.

VI. New Business

Student Representative Marcia Bufford stated that she had a couple of announcements from the Student Government Association. First, SGA did a constitutional change. As of the next academic year, an amendment was approved requiring every Senator to sit on one University committee. This will make someone accountable to bring the information back to the Senate. The Senate also passed a resolution in opposition of TABOR-TEL and another resolution in support of the Think Ohio Campaign. Both of these resolutions passed unanimously.

Ms. Bufford reported that five students from SGA went to the Ohio Statehouse on March 28, 2006 and put a signed copy of each resolution in the hands of the 33 Senators. She believes that they shook the hands of all 33 Senators. The SGA members were also introduced on the Senate floor. Everyone was very open and receptive to their questions and the things that the students had to say about their concern regarding Cleveland State University and with regard to funding of higher education. One of the State Senators, Joy Padgett, has agreed to come to visit Cleveland State University to help educate our campus on TABOR-TEL as well as the Ohio campaign. SGA is trying to make this happen during the month of April. If not, they will shoot to have it at the beginning of fall semester.

Senate President Gelman thanked Ms. Bufford for her report. He added that these changes which will make Student Government representatives available to committees are most welcome and the decision to do it is a little short of genius. We will now have student representatives on committees where we only have the words of student representatives.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4: 10 P.M.

Teresa LaGrange
Faculty Senate Secretary Pro Tem




[Top of Page]