Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
April 19, 2006

I.  Eulogies
II. Approval of the Agenda for the April 19, 2006 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the March 8, 2006 Meeting
IV. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 2006 Meeting
V.   Announcements
VI. University Curriculum Committee
VII. University Curriculum Committee
VIII. Admissions and Standards Committee
IX. University President’s Report
X. New Business

PRESENT: Bauer, A. Benander, Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, J. Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Dougherty, Ekelman, Falk, Gelman, Govea, Hansman, B. Hoffman, Jeffres, L. Keller, LaGrange, Lehfeldt, K. Mason, McCahon, McClain, N. Nelson, Rom, Slane, M. K. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Steinberg, Ziolek.

Barlow, Boyle, Bufford, Dillard, Hanniford, Heinrich, Humer, Kuo, Mills, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, Sadlek, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Spiker, Thornton.

ABSENT: Atherton, Duffy, Forte, Gao, V. George, Gorla, M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman, Loovis, Martins, J. Moore, O’Neill, Poznanski, Sawicki, D. Shah, Visocky-O’Grady, J. Webb, Weyman.

C. Alexander, Droney, Lopresti, Margolius, McLoughlin, Mearns, Mooney, Pereces, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Scherer, A. Shah, Tumeo.

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

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Sutton.

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

Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that there will be three Eulogies today.

I. Eulogies

A. Eulogy for Lawrence R. Walker (Health Care Administration)

Professor Emeritus Stuart Klein delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Lawrence R. Walker. His remarks follow.

“Larry Walker was Professor Emeritus of Health Care Administration, College of Business. Larry died suddenly last fall in Albuquerque, New Mexico a victim indirectly of diabetes. I regret that it took so long to provide his Eulogy but for one reason or another it was just impossible to do it properly. His death should not and could not go unnoticed at this institution for which Larry did so much. He was a large man, six foot three, 225 pounds and he left a very large footprint here at CSU. Larry was 67 when he died, much too young, I think. Although I do not know the precise circumstances of his death, his widow, Beth, filled me in to a large extent when we visited her in New Mexico last fall shortly after Larry died.

“I do know that Larry had been suffering from the ravages of diabetes and although death is rarely a blessing, in this case it may have been a welcome relief from further suffering. This was never stated explicitly but it was inferred by me from my knowledge of the man.

“The last time I saw Larry was shortly before he and Beth left for a new life in New Mexico. He was sorry to leave Cleveland – the city he had grown to love and the city that provided him the love of culture, a challenging job, and a lot of good restaurants. He hated the grayness of Cleveland which is why he left even though the grayness only occurs during the winter time. So, he and Beth escaped to sunny New Mexico. For the last few years of his life, Larry was able to enjoy that sunshine.

“Larry was born in California but he spent most of his adult life eastward. He received a Masters Degree and a Ph.D. from Temple University. He taught for a number of years at Widener University where he was chair and professor of the Health Care Administration program. In fact, he created that program there and for all practical purposes he did the same here at Cleveland State University. It was through our Health Care Administration program in the College of Business that I got to know Larry. In 1988 when our previous HCA director resigned to become the Dean of the School of Health Care somewhere in New England, I think it was New Hampshire, several members of the CBA were appointed to a search committee to find his replacement. I was on that committee and I could tell you that Larry’s candidacy was clearly the best of the lot. He was our man and fortunately, we nailed him.

“When Larry first came here in the Fall of 1988, the program was in disarray. The previous director had just begun to get things organized when he left. So, it was up to Larry to essentially start from scratch. He had to hire a faculty and build a curriculum which he did efficiently and effectively. The program was accredited in a little over three years. It became the foremost HCA program in the area enrolling students from every local health care facility and hospital. We could count right now as graduates many people who are currently in management positions in those facilities. That was his mark.

“In addition, Larry was a scholar who published in the best journals of his discipline and, for better or worse, he was one of the first in the College of Business to become involved in teaching courses using the computer and email as a means of instruction and communication with students. Larry loved the computer. Larry was an advocate of civil rights. Indeed his advocacy was sometimes a bit of a nuisance to those of us with less refined sensibilities along those lines. When he perceived, rightly or wrongly, discrimination for reasons of gender, race, or religion, he then was agitated aggressive, sarcastic and in other ways difficult to be around. Occasionally, Larry was a hard guy to like.

“Larry was a big guy and like many big guys he could be intimidating. If you felt like taking him on for one reason or another, it was best to catch him sitting down. This is not to say that he was contemptuous or in any way a hard man. He was quite the opposite. He tended to be somewhat of a pussy cat. I sat on several promotion and tenure committees with him and he tried harder than most of us to find reasons to promote people. However, he had little patience with what he thought to be unduly inflated dossiers. He had a strong sense of justice, but he was tempered by mercy. He was after all an ordained Episcopal Priest in addition to everything else that he was. His congregation was in East Cleveland. The church building was in some disrepair. The roof leaked and there was water damage. In Larry’s judgment the primary reason for this state was that the congregation was poor, few in number and largely African American. This led to some battles with his diocese most of which he lost. I think that this led to his disavowal of his priestly duties.

“Larry was a talented guy, bright and focused with superior leadership skills. He was chair of the College of Business Curriculum Committee when we were undergoing some significant and very complex changes. Under his guidance the committee did a splendid job working with the faculty all along the way. That, of course, is the way it’s supposed to work and it did. When it came time for Larry to present the committee’s recommendations to our faculty, the presentation was a tour de force. At the time our faculty were surly and contentious – I don’t expect that they are that way anymore – yet there were few questions of the committee’s recommendations. It passed pretty much as presented.

“Larry was a talented pianist and in at least his opinion, a very, very good cook. I can attest to the fact that he made a really good filet mignon with Bordelaise Sauce and Crème Brule. For all I know, that may have been the only thing that he could cook since that is all he served when we went there for dinner.

“Well, Larry was a good guy and he will be missed by those of us who appreciated him. As a note, his widow Beth is doing well under the circumstances. She has a job with the University of New Mexico, a nice circle of friends and she stays fit by jogging and working out.

“Thank you.”

  • Eulogy for Mary E. Friedmann (Music)

Professor Emeritus William Martin delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Mary E. Friedmann. His remarks follow.

“I am honored to have been asked to present a Eulogy before the Faculty Senate for my friend and valued colleague, Mary Friedmann.

“I remember Mary Friedmann’s first appearance on the CSU campus when she was a candidate for a tenure-track position in the Education Division of the Music Department. The decision to appoint her was an easy one; she was simply the ideal person for the position, a fact evidenced by her many significant contributions to the growth of our music education program.

“Mary’s education includes degrees from Mount St. Scholastica in Kansas for her bachelor’s degree in music education, a master’s degree in music theory from Indiana University in Bloomington, and her doctorate in music education from Case Western Reserve. Before coming to CSU, she had teaching experience at all levels in the parochial schools, followed by college level teaching at St. John College in Cleveland where she attained Associate Professor status. Her numerous publications and papers centered in music theory and music education. It was in 1973 that she brought her rich experience in music education at all levels to our expanding program at CSU. Drawing order out of the web of cross relationships created by requirements in education promulgated by the State, University, accrediting organizations, and Department and Division regulations, she never failed to provide her students with clear guidance through the certification process. She was a highly effective teacher successfully preparing her students for their own future roles as teachers. Her classrooms were where she brought together her breadth of background, enthusiasm for her subject, currency of her knowledge, and genuine caring for her students.

“She never sought recognition for her service as teacher, coordinator, and adviser, but rather found her gratification in the success of her students. It is fitting that we recognize and salute her contributions to Cleveland State University.”

  • Eulogy for Ralph Brody (Social Work)

Professor Murali Nair delivered the Eulogy written by Professor Maggie Jackson for the late Professor Ralph Brody. Remarks follow.

“We are saddened by the recent death of Dr. Ralph Brody. One could always find him working in his office on projects. He was in the process of working on three different books, i.e., the eighth edition of macro practice, a case study on management decisions, and thirdly, the grassroots movement in community development. How like Ralph to be doing several different things at the same time – he was always multi-tasking in his productivity. He enjoyed working on large systems issues of social work practice. He was in his element in describing ways to change systems whereby the well-being of citizens is enhanced. He loved the challenge of getting students to think in broad terms, to encourage them to be creative and to never give up their dreams.

“Dr. Ralph Brody worked with students in ways that others didn’t know. He didn’t publicize his helping relationship, however quietly went about reaching out and being there when needed. He didn’t seek thanks or rewards, but helped anyway. He didn’t care who you were, but helped anyway. He didn’t seek the lights, but went into the villages of Africa and assisted people in the development of their communities without monetary gain. He took great pride in relationships developed and was able to nurture overtime these important friends.

“Ralph was truly a man of many gifts and talents. He was a musician, playing the mandolin. During one holiday celebration at his home, he played with a group of his community colleagues. Few of us knew of this talent before this event. As he played, one could tell how ‘at home’ and how comfortably he embraced this time of entertaining faculty colleagues. He was outstanding with photography and shared photos with the School of Social Work. Please visit our home on the third floor of Chester Building and enjoy beautiful photos taken by Ralph. He truly had an eye for beauty. Ceramics and glass blowing are other examples of talents bestowed upon Ralph. His unique talents made these hobbies look easy, but this is an indication of his giftedness.

“Dr. Ralph Brody was an educator and provided consultation to over 40 agencies at home and abroad. He left imprints at such places as Catholic Charities Services Corporation; the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services; the Ford Foundation; the Ohio Department of Human Services; YMCA of Kenya; People’s Republic of China; the School of Social Welfare in Barcelona, Spain; community leaders of Nigeria; NGO directors in China; the Alliance for Arab Women in Egypt; Forum on Street Children in Ethiopia, etc. Persons touched by Ralph will always have a warm memory of an exceptional human being.

“Dr. Ralph Brody will always have a special place in our hearts. May we be so fortunate to leave such a legacy as we depart this earthly life? He was an ordinary person doing extraordinary things with an unbelievable capacity to embrace the peoples of the world without judgment, but with acceptance and grace.”

Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of Lawrence R. Walker, Mary E. Friedmann, and Ralph Brody.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked to note three things before considering the proposed Agenda.

The first concerns item (VI) (B), the material on the Proposed Merger of the Speech & Hearing Department with the Health Sciences Department. A revised document was distributed today. In connection with this proposal, some documentary material was inadvertently sent by the College of Science to the University Curriculum Committee. It was then sent by the Curriculum Committee to the Academic Steering Committee and it appeared in the materials we distributed late last week for the Senate meeting. The material was attached in error. On Tuesday, April 18, 2006, the Steering Committee voted to substitute the revised document that was handed out today for the materials that were originally included with the Agenda. The result of this is that the Agenda being proposed by the Steering Committee includes the material just distributed today and not the materials members received by mail last week.

Second, there was a typing error in connection with the Eulogies which was noted in an email sent out earlier today. And third, the announcement of forthcoming elections includes an error which will be described later when we get to the appropriate part of the meeting, but that error has been corrected as well in an email earlier today.

With those notations, Senate President Sheldon Gelman requested a motion to approve the Agenda for today

II. Approval of the Agenda for the April 19, 2006 Meeting

Professor Veronica Dougherty moved that the Agenda for April 19, 2006 be approved. The motion was seconded by Professor Kimberly Mason and approved unanimously.

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

Professor William Bowen moved to approve the Minutes of the March 8, 2006 meeting. The motion was seconded, and approved.

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 2006 Meeting

Professor Barbara Hoffman moved to approve the Minutes of the April 5, 2006 meeting. The motion was seconded by Professor Cheryl McCahon and approved.

V. Announcements

Senate President Gelman noted that he had two announcements.

A. Revisions to the New Minor in Native American Studies (Report No. 6, 2005-2006)

Senate President Gelman noted that a revised description of the new Minor in Native American Studies was included in today’s meeting materials. A proposal establishing this minor was approved at our March 8, 2006 meeting. After it was approved, it was noticed that some language in the proposal could have been read to mean that an advisory body, a body that included members not affiliated with Cleveland State University might, depending on how you read the document of authority that prescribed procedures for making faculty appointments, make faculty appointments. Noticing that, he did not formally present the proposal to the Provost which is the normal course of action when the Senate approves a program. Instead, he consulted with the chair of the University Curriculum Committee and he in turn consulted with Professor Jeffrey Williams, the chair of the Anthropology Department. Professor Williams then redrafted the possibly objectionable language. He reported this to the Academic Steering Committee and it was the judgment of Steering that these changes would not require formal action. But, in accordance with Steering’s guidance, it was felt that the matter should be presented as an information item today and that is what he is doing. It is a little odd when Senate approves a proposal and before it is presented to the University officials that we ask for modifications of it. Since this was an unusual feature of developments, he did want to describe to Senate what had happened.

B. Coming Elections

Senate President Gelman noted that at the next Senate meeting, there will be elections that are prescribed in the “Green Book.” In connection with item (D) under (VI) (B), it was indicated that a current incumbent on the Board Committee on Honorary Degrees was not eligible to be re-elected who is in fact eligible to be re-elected. We also noted that correction in an email distributed to Senate earlier today.

Senate President Gelman encouraged everyone to consider making nominations at the next meeting for these positions. He also encouraged Senators to establish ahead of time that persons being nominated for positions are able to serve.

Senate President Gelman reported that at the next Academic Steering Committee meeting, a variety of appointments will be made by Steering that fall within that committee’s jurisdiction.

Finally, Senate President Gelman explained the postponement of the elections to the University Faculty Affairs Committee to the Fall of 2006. The “Green Book” requires that there be one member of this Committee who is also a member of Faculty Senate. We will not know until the Fall who the members of the Faculty Senate for next year are, and rather than the possibility of having to re-conduct the election for one of those positions on UFAC, Steering thought it was best if we simply postponed the election to the Fall, and, barring any objections, that is what we would like to do.

VI. University Curriculum Committee

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

A. Proposed Specialization in Counseling Psychology (Report No. 13, 2005-2006)

Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposed Specialization in Counseling Psychology. He noted that this is not a new degree program but it creates an option within the Education program. The obvious issue here was the opinion of the Psychology Department about the creation of something called Counseling Psychology in the College of Education. If you read through the proposal, this is something that the College of Education obviously worked on in consultation with the Psychology Department. The University Curriculum Committee independently contacted the Psychology Department to ask them for their account of what had happened. Professor Meiksins noted that included in the meeting packet is a memo from the chair, David Grilly, indicating that the Psychology Department has no issue with the proposed program. At present, they are unable to offer the courses that the Counseling Psychology program would require because they have lost six faculty in the last twelve months for various reasons. They hope in the future to be able to replace some of that personnel power and, if so, they might become interested in being involved in the program. It sounds from what the document says that the College of Education would be interested in their involvement. To get this program underway, however, requires at this point an independent mounting of the program by the College of Education. The proposal indicates that only one additional faculty position would be required to do that. That has been authorized and the search was underway at the time that these documents were produced. There are a number of people on the faculty in the program who have training in psychology in which case the certification basis that they are seeking from the APA is much more likely. So, with all of those things taken into consideration, the UCC recommends approval of the modification.

Senate President Gelman noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed adoption of a specialization in Counseling Psychology and asked Senators to vote. The proposed Specialization in Counseling Psychology was approved unanimously.

B. Proposed Merger of the Speech and Hearing Department with the Health
Sciences Department (Report No. 14, 2005-2006)

Professor Peter Meiksins presented the proposed Merger of the Speech and Hearing Department with the Health Sciences Department. He noted that Senate President Sheldon Gelman had referred to this proposal earlier today where materials were circulated which probably should not have been. The two programs involved have indicated their favorable view of this merger. Both the program being merged and the seated program seem happy with this arrangement. The College of Science met and discussed it and approved it. The University Curriculum Committee met with representatives of the various programs and believes that there seems to be no reason why these programs should not be merged. There are no curricular consequences of the merger. It is simply an administrative arrangement which is a fairly common arrangement on many campuses we are told. Given that, the UCC recommends approval of the proposed merger.

Professor Rodger Govea stated that he noted in the memorandum from Associate Dean Anderson, that there was a vote in the Department of Speech and Hearing 7 to 0 in favor of the merger. He understands that there are three faculty members in that department. How did they exactly produce a super majority of that size? Professor Peter Meiksins commented that he could not speak to that. Professor Stephen Slane, chair of Speech and Hearing, reported that in Speech and Hearing, professional staff holding clinical appointment vote by Bylaw. There are four professional staff and three faculty and it was a unanimous vote.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Gelman asked Senators to vote. The proposed merger of the Speech and Hearing Department with the Health Sciences Department was approved unanimously.

Senate President Gelman reported that the next item, the Proposed Extension of the Existing Bridge Program in Business, comes to the Senate from both the University Curriculum Committee and the Admissions and Standards Committee. He understands that the chair of the University Curriculum Committee will preside over the discussion.

VII. University Curriculum Committee
Admissions and Standards Committee

Proposed Extension of Existing Bridge Program in Business
(Report No. 15, 2005-2006)

Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented a proposal from the College of Business to extend an existing Bridge Program in Business. He stated that this is a program that exists in some of the Business College’s programs but not in all. It is designed to serve students who come to the University from other institutions, largely international students who have earned degrees where their degree programs are three-year degrees. This is a fairly common thing especially in countries that were once part of the British Commonwealth and we receive quite a few students from countries like India and Pakistan where this is not an unusual arrangement. It was learned at the meeting discussing the proposal that it is likely that this will become even more common because of the creation of the European Union. The three-year degree may become more broadly used in other European countries, not just in England. The difficulty is that we now are in a position where a student applying here from Oxford is treated as if he/she has another year to go because he/she has only taken a three-year degree. This is an attempt to do something meaningful and helpful to the student with that additional year rather than simply making them take intro to Sociology or something pointless. Professor Meiksins stated that first of all, there is a perfectly good model for this in place so this is simply being extended to other programs and it made sense to the UCC. The UCC referred the proposal to the Admissions and Standards Committee as well since it is really about admissions more than anything else. There were no objections in the Admissions and Standards Committee either. Both the University Curriculum Committee and the Admissions and Standards Committee recommend this modification.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked Senators to vote on the proposal. The proposed Extension of the Existing Bridge Program in Business was approved unanimously.

Senate President Gelman commented that we have a proposal from the Admissions and Standards Committee. Since this proposal originates with a proposal he made in the Law School, he asked Senate Vice President Teresa LaGrange to preside over the vote on this matter.

VIII. Admissions and Standards Committee

Proposed Early Admissions to Law School of Honors Students
(Report No. 16, 2005-2006)

Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair, Admissions and Standards Committee, noted that this proposal will be helpful in recruitment. Students who are admitted into our Honors Program will be able to apply for early admission to the Law School under certain conditions which are outlined in the document about being admitted with honors, about taking the LSAT and the other requirements. There are also proposals that these potential Law School students will be able to interact with faculty while they are undergraduates here in the Honors Program which seemed to the Admissions and Standards Committee to be a good idea. The students wouldn’t be fully admitted until they actually complete their degrees. It turns out that the ABA does not allow fast-tracking where the students their senior year could start taking required courses. This is not going to help the students in terms of getting through faster but it is a way to facilitate their enrollment in the Honors Program and in the Law School.

Senate Vice President Teresa LaGrange noted that the Admissions and Standards Committee has recommended approval of the proposal and then asked Senators to vote. The proposed Early Admissions to the Law School of Honors Students was approved unanimously.

IX. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz reported that yesterday, he attended a Board meeting of an organization called the Fenn Academy which he thinks is a really remarkable organization that was put together by Associate Dean Bahman Ghorashi in the College of Engineering. What he has been able to achieve is really very good and maybe a model for the rest of us. Professor Ghorashi came to the meeting of the Deans this morning to explain the Fenn Academy to them. The Fenn Academy is an organization of public high schools, corporations, and CSU’s College of Engineering that takes a pre-engineering curriculum and advising of all kinds of other opportunities directly from here into the high schools, with financial backing from some of the companies that will be hiring our graduates, as a matter of fact. They have begun to raise a sizeable sum of money for this program. Right now, this is designed to get high school kids right into the pipeline to CSU’s College of Engineering while they are still in the ninth through the twelfth grade. The high schools are in Mentor, Euclid, Aurora, Stow, Kent, Cuyahoga Falls and Lakewood which was the very first of these schools to be involved. The schools are also giving them office space so that they can put up a sign that says the Fenn College of Engineering at Cleveland State University and it is in their advising offices. The members of the College of Engineering are working with faculties and working on the curriculum with them with the ultimate aim that students will be able to take some courses while they are still in high school, PSEOP style. This is a really interesting model for our connection to those institutions that are very important to us. President Schwartz has urged the College Deans to take a look at the model to see if there is a way that they can adapt it to their own needs. But, the companies that are involved, and another one getting ready to sign up as of this morning having learned about this, are very enthusiastic and because they anticipate an engineer shortage, they want to get in that early pipeline financially and to help some of these students along at the earliest possible moment. So, congratulations to those folks in the College of Engineering who have worked very diligently at this and they are doing something very positive about improving their own enrollment.

President Michael Schwartz reported that he spent several days last week in Washington, DC attending the American Association of State Colleges and Universities semi-annual gathering of state representatives and he is the representative from Ohio. The topics were very interesting and very close to home. We are not the only state that is facing a TEL in one form or another and everybody is very concerned about those things passing. There was an excellent forum on the TEL in the Levin College two days ago and that was very high on the discussion list. Another had to do with Pell Grants and the fact that they are not getting any better. These are the grants that go to the students who have the greatest need. They have been frozen and their value is declining and tuitions have been increasing all across the country. Happily there are some more of them but they are no bigger and, therefore, they are not quite as helpful as they can be. There are also certain restrictions on how long the Pell Grant can be used. Some institutions are able to use them for a semester more than others and the ones that are being disadvantaged in this regard are the ones who have the poorest graduation rates and that is us. That is why this is such an important issue for us and that is why we have been taking the steps that we have been taking. Our graduation rate affects the ability to get more aid to students who really need it. President Schwartz said that this is a real spurt as far as he is concerned. Graduation rates are under 30% to say the least and the Federal Government has more than a little interest in this and they are using the whip. We still don’t have a Higher Education Reauthorization Act so nothing is moving and there is a stalemate in Washington over a number of issues but the associations are butting their heads up against Congressman McKeon’s leadership in the House. President Schwartz went on to say that this is what he wanted to tell everyone about and that is that we are facing some difficult times in the Congress. We are seeing cutbacks in grant agencies as well and the deficit gets larger by the day, by the hour, and especially NIH money is not as plentiful as it has been in the past. He suspects that others will be feeling the same pinch.

President Schwartz noted that the Music Department at this University has produced a CD that runs about 40 minutes of the CSU Orchestra and Chamber. He doesn’t know how much they are trying to get out of this but they are well worth owning. It is just a joy and he congratulated Professor Eric Ziolek and his colleagues for the wonderful work that they do. Professor Eric Ziolek stated that the credit goes to our new orchestra conductor who is really building the program. President Schwartz commented that it is pretty classy. Professor Ziolek stated that we will put it on the stage with anybody in the town. President Schwartz noted that we are going to get a bunch of those and use them as gifts from the University to visitors.

President Schwartz stated that everyone should know that we have a new basketball coach and we have great trust in him.

Finally, having heard the fine Eulogy for Professor Brody, President Schwartz commented that Professor Brody had suffered the same malady that he (President Schwartz) has and very early in the game had contacted President Schwartz when he was more than a little solicitous about the circumstances and took pretty good emotional care of your President for a while when he needed a little help. He is going to miss Professor Brody too.

Professor Barbara Hoffman noted that in the March 8, 2006 Senate meeting, President Schwartz had discussed the issue of academic space and equipment and offered assurance that replacement spaces would be found for the rooms in the Main Classroom that are being renovated and that equipment would also be made available. She wondered if that assurance extends to those of us who are being displaced from other areas of Main Classroom far away from equipment centers. To date, we have heard nothing about any provisions being made to assure that our instructional equipment will be made available to us.

President Michael Schwartz commented that it seems to him that IMS is doing everything it can to keep its facility in the Main Classroom so that it can get equipment to where it is needed and service it as rapidly as possible.

Provost Chin Kuo reported that IMS is the unit responsible for all of the equipment. There are two things going on right now. One is in conjunction with all of the renovation and we want to make sure that all space is equipped with equipment equal to or better than what we have now. The second effort is to have a central station to control some of the rooms that we used to send staff to. We have very few staff to be able to dispatch to different locations. So, when one place has problems, this person has to run back and forth and sometimes just can’t take care of everything. The new system we are trying to put in place is that you will be able to keep up or you will be able to fix some of the minor problems so that we don’t have to send people running back and forth. During the summer, we normally go through all of the classrooms and, one by one, make sure that everything has been taken care of. Last fall, we were pretty much sure that most of the classrooms are equipped with all of the basic needs. Provost Kuo inquired of Professor Barbara Hoffman if she knew of any particular room that needs to be taken care of. Professor Hoffman replied that she did not know of any rooms that needed to be taken care of.

President Schwartz noted that he has a copy of a draft of a revision of general education programs that Professors Peter Meiksins and Gregory Lupton have been working on for a year and a half now and this is now going to the curriculum committees of each of the colleges. He stated that he has read it and it is very good. He feels that we are on our way to a first class revision of the program. We will be proud of it and the students will be glad for it. Professor Meiksins stated that he knows that information on this has not gotten out as well as it should have. He reported that an electronic memo was sent to everyone through the campus mail system which, again, not everyone reads so not everyone knows what is going on. A pre-proposal has been drafted and has been sent to all college curriculum committees that have undergraduate programs. He and Professor Lupton have now met with four of the six but still have to meet with Business and Education. They are trying to get feedback from the curriculum committees in each college as well as from the University Curriculum Committee just about changes that might be needed, etc. The idea then is to redraft it and present it as a formal proposal to the faculty as a whole in the Fall. There will be public meetings and the opportunities for everybody to get their ideas out and then it will be revised again in light of those comments and a proposal will then be sent to Faculty Senate for its consideration. So, there are several steps here before anything actually happens. If you are wondering why you don’t have a copy, it is because the only people who really do have it at this point are curriculum committees and a few strategic individuals.

X. New Business

Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked if there was any new business. There being no further business, it was moved, seconded and the motion was approved and the meeting adjourned at 3:55 P.M.

Teresa LaGrange
Faculty Senate Secretary Pro Tem

/vel

 

 

[Top of Page]