Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
May 3, 2006

I.  Eulogies
II. Approval of the Agenda for the May 3, 2006 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 Meeting
IV. Elections
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. University President’s Report
VII.University Strategic Planning Committee
VIII. Annual Reports
IX. New Business
X. Farewell Remarks by Provost Chin Kuo

PRESENT: A. Benander, W. Bowen, J. Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Duffy, Ekelman, Falk, Gelman, Govea, B. Hoffman, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Martins, K. Mason, McCahon, Poznanski, Rom, M. K. Smith, Spicer, Steinberg, Visocky-O’Grady, Weyman, Ziolek.

Barlow, Boyle, Bufford, Dillard, Droney, Hanniford, Heinrich, Humer, Kuo, Margolius, Mearns, Mills, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, Pereces, Sadlek, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Thornton, Tumeo.

ABSENT: Atherton, Bauer, Berlin Ray, Dougherty, Forte, Gao, V. George, Gorla, Hansman, M. Kaufman, LaGrange, Lehfeldt, Loovis, McClain, J. Moore, N. Nelson, O’Neill, Sawicki, D. Shah, Slane, Sparks, J. Webb. C. Alexander, Lopresti, McLoughlin, L. Mooney, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Scherer, A. Shah, Spiker,

ALSO PRESENT: Fontes, Kahana, Meiksins, Sutton.

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

Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that we will begin with two Eulogies along with a moment of silence.

I. Eulogies

A. Eulogy for Jeanette E. Tuve (History)

Professor Donald Ramos delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Jeanette E. Tuve. His remarks follow.

“Jeanette Eckman Tuve died on March 26, 2006. She was one of the founding generation of this university and of the History Department, a mentor by example, and a friend to many of us. To her family, including her Son-in Law and our colleague Bob Wheeler, we extend our condolences.

“Jeanette Tuve was a remarkable woman who came a long way from her birth on the Putman family farm near Lancing, Michigan in 1914. She earned her Bachelor’s degree at the University of Michigan in 1935. It was while working in Ann Arbor that she met her first husband, Donald Eckman. In 1950, her husband was appointed to the faculty at Case Institute of Technology, now Case Western Reserve University and the family moved to East Cleveland. Following her husband’s accidental death in France, she began her academic career. She earned an MA in Russian History from Western Reserve in 1962 with a thesis on Angelo-Soviet Trade Relations 1921-28. In 1969, already on the faculty of Cleveland State University, she finished her dissertation, The Role of Foreign Trade and Foreign Capital in the Development of the USSR to 1927 and earned her Ph.D. at the age of 55.

“She was hired by the History Department of Fenn College but began her academic career in the newly formed Cleveland State University in 1965. She played a key role in helping shape the institutional structure of both the History Department and the College of Arts and Sciences, helping write the original bylaws for both. She retired nineteen years later, caught by the mandatory retirement age program of the State.

“She is remarkable for the many contributions she made.

“Jeanette was a part of the generation of people who helped found Cleveland State University and especially the History Department. In that role, Jeanette brought a wonderful sense of integrity; an unwillingness to participate in petty quarrels; a sincere concern for our students; and a true generosity of spirit.

“Jeanette was passionate about the things that mattered to her and they were many. She cared about her teaching and was given the Distinguished Teacher Award at CSU in 1975. Her oral history project involving extensive interviews of women for her Ethnetic Women of Cleveland oral history project in the 1980s presaged the department’s current oral history projects. Her high school teaching experience proved invaluable to the History Department in its early work with school teachers. Retirement may have been mandatory, but that merely meant that she had time to expand her teaching activities by reaching new audiences such as the Living Room Learning Program. The years after her retirement were filled with teaching, not simply about Russia and the Soviet Union as her natural inquisitiveness kept her repertoire expanding.

“She cared about research. Her publications showed the evolution of her interests. From articles on the history of the Russian economy and then on the Soviet economy and trade relations there followed an expanding list of articles on Soviet female physicians and then women in the Cleveland area. As with her teaching, retirement was a formality and her research continued and grew. Before she retired, Jeanette had published a book on Russian female doctors but after retirement, she published three books: the first dealt with Florence Ellinwood Allen, the first women appointed to a Federal Court; the second, a collection of biographies of Famous Catherines; and the most recent, a history of the Old Stone Church, published during the 175 th year anniversary of its founding. Retirement was not an end but liberation and a launching pad for new interests and (ad)ventures.

“Her interest in the world was inspiring and again emerged from her inquisitive nature. She was driven to learn more. She must have been the Cleveland International Programs best host family. Jeanette loved traveling and did more than most of us, including riding the Trans-Siberian Railroad. She played a very active role in the national and the mid-western Slavic Studies Associations.

“For those of us who new her, her life and her achievements, Jeanette Eckman Tuve was a real model in so many ways. She was a model for the returning woman, who having raised a family of five children, returned to earn her advanced degrees. It is remarkable that she earned her Ph.D. at the age of 55. It is remarkable that she made the move from the security of high school teaching to the university in her fifties. It is remarkable that her research and publications continued well after retirement with her final book appearing when she was 81. Over the years, I and doubtlessly others have used her life experience as an example to students returning to the university. She mentored young faculty, especially female colleagues.

“Jeanette Eckman Tuve’s professional life was constructed around a focus on teaching in every setting imaginable. It was teaching and her inquisitiveness which brought her research and her love of the world and its peoples together.

“She was a lady who made a difference at Cleveland State University and especially in the History Department.”

  • Eulogy for Albert N. Cousins (Sociology)

Professor Mareyjoyce Green delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Albert N. Cousins. Her remarks follow.

“Albert Newton Cousins served Fenn College and Cleveland State University for 35 years. Today we remember a colleague who was a scholar dedicated to teaching and to community service. He was a true believer in both schools and as a native, a believer in this area. His education began locally: at East Tech High School he was a champion runner and was valedictorian of his graduating class. This was the period of the depression but he was able to attend Fenn College on a work study program. He then went to Ohio State University for his undergraduate degree. While there he met Rose, his future wife. They married in 1944.

“The day after his graduation from Ohio State, he was drafted for military service. Al served in the Army during World War II and Rose became a part of the brigade of United States women who also served by providing essential home front support. Rose worked as a bomb inspector.

“By taking advantage of the GI Bill after the war, Al was able to go to Harvard University where he earned his Ph.D. in Sociology. He began his academic work at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. This was a period in which it was difficult for Jews in that part of the country. Because of her looks, people assumed that Rose was also Jewish. This was unacceptable for them, and the Cousins returned to Cleveland.

“Dr. Cousins first got a job with Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. In 1952, he joined the faculty of his former school, Fenn College. He became highly regarded by students and colleagues and in 1966 was Faculty Man of The Year. He became full professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology. This was a period of transition and growth for then Ohio’s newest university, Cleveland State. The Sociology Department contributed significantly to its development, Sociology spun off the Department of Anthropology, the Department of Social Work, now the School of Social Work, and the College of Urban Affairs. Al had a way of saying that the Department of Sociology was being cannibalized inasmuch as almost always one or two of its faculty was ‘on loan’ or split contract to do administrative work and that practice continues today. After his retirement from Cleveland State in 1989, he continued his academic career serving as Adjunct Professor in the Department of Sociology at John Carroll University.

“Albert Cousins was committed to scholarship. He was active in professional societies and frequently presented papers and organized sessions for both the North Central and American Sociological Associations. He was declared a Fellow of the American Sociological Association. In 1972, he was a visiting Scholar at the London School of Economics. Best known among his many publications is Urban Man in Society which he authored with colleague Hans Nagpaul. Each addition became a text adopted in several colleges and universities. He was beloved by his students who came to appreciate his academic strictness. His students were always challenged to expand their potential.

“Al was dedicated to community services. His appreciation of his native area was indicated in his book, North Coast Metropolis, the History of Cleveland. He felt that an urban university should be a significant part of the community of its location. In 1968, he co-founded The United Area Citizens’ Association, now known as the United Area Citizens’ Council. He was a member of the Cleveland Metropolitan Services Commission. His civic contributions were recognized by the Ohio Senate, commending him ‘as a remarkable individual combining concern and commitment with selfless initiative to become a dynamic force in the greater Cleveland area. With perseverance and dedication, you have directed yourself toward the meaningful involvements in the field of education, civil rights and business, and gained the respect of an entire community.’

“Al was a family man. Rose was clearly the love of his life. They had two children of whom they were very proud, Julie and Daniel. His cousin said of Al, that he was not given to small talk. He was more interested in talking about books and politics. His daughter Julie said he was an excellent father, sometimes a little distant, a little quiet, not really gregarious but he valued scholarship. He loved British Culture, the theatre and classical music. His daughter also commented on his wry sense of humor in that he liked to tell stories. One of his favorite stories was about Heredity: Insanity is hereditary; you get it from your children. Dan said that his father loved being a professor and explaining society to people. He always made time for his children and did a good job of integrating his family life and professional life. When his father’s health began to fail, Dan encouraged his father to relocate to be nearer in Massachusetts but Al persisted in remaining for as long as possible in the home in which he and Rose had reared their family.

“Albert stayed as a professor as long as he could and that is who he was. There are now legends of students who will attest to that. And today, we remember Albert Newton Cousins who was an important part of the history of Cleveland State University and its predecessor Fenn College. He will be missed. As a Rabi at his funeral quoted, ‘The best returns to the earth as it was but the spirit returns to the God who gave it.’ We remember Albert Newton Cousins.”

Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our colleagues Professor Jeanette E. Tuve and Professor Albert N. Cousins.

II. Approval of the Agenda for the May 3, 2006 Meeting

Before asking for approval of the Agenda for today’s meeting, Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting were not ready for approval. The reason is that, as many of you know, both combined the Academic Steering Committee and the Senate have been meeting every week for the last four weeks, we have also had elections, appointments, committee reports and other things and the Senate Office just wasn’t able to prepare the Minutes for which he apologized.

Senate President Gelman then asked for a motion to approve the Agenda for today’s meeting. Professor William Bowen moved to approve the Agenda for May 3, 2006. The motion was seconded by Professor Crystal Weyman and approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 Meeting

As stated above, the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting were not ready for approval.

Senate President Gelman commented that before moving to the elections, he wanted to raise a point of procedure. It is one that he discussed with Professor Rodger Govea, the Senate Parliamentarian. There is a rule in the “Green Book” that says all actions of the Faculty Senate are to be by majority vote. There is another rule which deals with a corollary matter and that is the election of officers. It states that if there is no absolute majority in an election for one of the three Senate officers, the two highest vote getters will run in a run-off. On the other hand, it is his understanding that the consistent past practice of the Senate, when electing committees like the ones that are on the Agenda today, is that a plurality determines the outcome. If we went to majority vote, we would more likely then need to have a number of run-offs which would simply take time. Based on the advice he received from Professor Govea, it is his inclination to follow the past practice and stick with the plurality. We would have a run-off only if there was a tie for the lowest vote total. On the other hand, if somebody would care to make a point of order and suggest that we proceed by majority vote, he would certainly entertain that now. Senate President Gelman noted that seeing no point of order, we will conduct the elections as we have done in the past by a plurality vote which would probably save fifteen minutes. He noted that the Senate Secretary will record our nominations.

IV. Elections

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

Minority Affairs Committee
Two-year terms:

Professor Angelin Chang
Professor Meshack Owino
Professor Ieda Rodrigues

Budget and Finance Committee
Two-year terms:

Professor Leo Jeffres
Professor Alan Weinstein

Board of Trustees
One-year term:

Professor Joyce Mastboom

Board Committee on Honorary Degrees
Citations and Recognitions

Three-year term:

Professor Ravindra Kamath

Copyright Review Committee
Three-year term:

Professor Angelin Chang

Patent Review Committee
Three-year term:

Professor Edward Keshock

Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Three-year terms:

Professor Adrienne Gosselin
Professor Sylvester Murray
Professor David O’Malley
Professor Samuel Richmond

V. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed Graduate Readmission Policy (Report No. 17, 2005-2006)

Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee’s proposed Graduate Readmission Policy. Dr. Sutton noted that this has come to the Committee from the Graduate School. We currently have a proposal about academic dismissal of graduate students but we haven’t had a proposal about readmission after they have been dismissed. This proposes more stringent performance requirements on readmitted students. If the student receives in 400-800 level courses after readmission at least one grade of “F” or at least two or more grades of “B-“ or lower, the student will again be dismissed.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked the Senate to vote. The proposed Graduate Readmission Policy was approved unanimously.

B. Proposed Honors Recognition for Transfer Students
(Report No. 18, 2005-2006)

Professor Sutton next presented the Committee’s proposed Honors Recognition for Transfer Students. She noted that we currently have this problem that our high achieving transfer students at Cleveland State need 60 hours at Cleveland State with high grades to be able to graduate with honors such as Cum Laude but it turns out that we have a number of many talented students around with 57 hours or 58 hours and they are not eligible. It seems that these are the very students that we want to attract to Cleveland State and to honor their achievement. The Committee is bringing to Senate a two-part proposal. The first part of the proposal is that there are no minimum hours apart from the original 30 hours that we have had for graduating from Cleveland State. We propose that we calculate the grade point average at Cleveland State for the hours the students get here and also calculate their grade point average before they came to us. Whichever is the lower has to meet the minimum bar, or for example 3.30 for Cum Laude. It turns out that this is what we were doing until two years ago. It was changed two years ago and there have been all kinds of cases that people know about and the University Petitions Committee feels that their hands are tied and they can’t do anything about it. Various faculty members, department chairs and associate deans have been telling us about these students who have sort of been caught. So, the Committee is proposing going back to the procedure we had two-years ago.

Professor Sutton noted that the first part of the proposal is that we return to the policy we had prior to Spring 2004 and go back to the language that was removed from the old catalogue.

“Students who have earned cumulative grade point averages, calculated to two decimal places unrounded, between 3.30 and 4.00, graduate with the following honors:

“3.30-3.59 Cum Laude
3.60-3.790 Magna Cum Laude
3.80-4.00 Summa Cum Laude

“If a student has transferred to Cleveland State University, graduation honors will be based on the average for Cleveland State University work or the average for all college work, whichever is lower. In determining the grade average for graduation honors, the Cleveland State University method of computing grade point averages will be used.”

As of Fall 2004, the University Policy for Graduation Honors reads:

“Undergraduate students who have earned at least 60 credit hours (excluding alternative credit) in residence at Cleveland State University and who have earned a cumulative grade point average between 3.30 and 4.00 (calculated to two decimal places unrounded) are eligible to graduate with the following honors:

“3.30-3.59 Cum Laude
3.60-3.79 Magna Cum Laude
3.80-4.00 Summa Cum Laude.”

Senate President Gelman asked Senators to vote on the first part of the proposal. The first part of the proposal, retuning to the policy prior to Spring 2004, was approved unanimously.

Professor Sutton reported that the second part of the proposal is that the Committee would like to implement this change retroactively. Students have been caught in this for the last two years. Mr. Ed Mills said that he has tracked down about 40 students who were caught in this time period. They will receive a corrected transcript that will be retroactive.

Senate President Gelman called for the vote. The second part of the proposed Honors Recognition for transfer Students, proposing retroactive recognition for transfer students, was approved unanimously.

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

Professor Sutton noted that the third proposal from the Admissions and Standards Committee is a proposed revised Grade Dispute Policy. She reported that she was at Senate not very long ago with a revised Grade Dispute Policy and there were all kinds of concerns about it. Some have had conflicting concerns of regulations. One of the things that appeared to be clear is that we needed to separate out the grounds of grade disputes from the procedures. She noted that on page 2 of the proposal, which is in italics, the Committee tried to detail the procedures as simply as they could. No changes were made in the procedures. The Committee just tried to list them as clearly as possible. In the first paragraph, the previous language was kept. The original concern with grade disputes was that we had a narrow recording error. We didn’t have any exceptional circumstances. At Cleveland State we tend to have exceptional circumstances and all kinds of things. Remember this exceptional circumstance language “extraordinary”, is actually the term that is being used, and that this extraordinary is in the eyes of the faculty. If the faculty member deems the circumstance to be extraordinary and grade disputes are faculty, the faculty member has to agree for a grade dispute to go through the process for grades to be changed. The Committee has tried a) to make the procedures more clear and b) to add to the recording area, which has been too narrow, and broaden it out in a limited way to accommodate the “extraordinary” circumstances.

Professor Michael Spicer stated that raising the extraordinary circumstances doesn’t seem to alleviate his concerns. That is what the admissions process is supposed to be about – taking care of extraordinary cases. Dr. Sutton replied that as she understands the procedure, what happens in a grade dispute is that it is separate from a petition and the grade dispute has its own procedure. She noted that what Professor Spicer is suggesting is that if the grade dispute wasn’t resolved, it would turn into another kind of petition. Dr. Sutton stated that she understands Professor Spicer’s point, but that is not what they would be doing.

Professor Jeffrey Dean said that he thought the idea was that the procedure should apply to both the first and the second sentence in the first paragraph of the proposed revised grade dispute language. He suggested placing a period after “should contact the course instructor” and adding, “In either case” the following procedures must be followed.

Professor Sutton replied that Professor Dean had made this suggestion before but she couldn’t read her writing so when she did the editorial comments, she did not make the proposed changes in the document. She stated that she is more than willing to make Professor Dean’s suggested changes. Dr. Sutton noted that what Professor Dean is proposing is that in the first paragraph, the last sentence should be revised to read, “In order to initiate a grade dispute, the student should contact the course instructor. In either circumstance, the following procedures must be followed.”

Professor Spicer asked Professor Sutton to clarify for him what the current policy is for grade disputes. Professor Sutton stated that if a student wants to change a grade, he/she is supposed to start with the instructor. If the instructor agrees, the instructor must have the grade change request co-signed by the Dean. If it is not resolved, it is supposed to go to the Department Chair for consideration and discussion and if it is not resolved at that level, then it goes to the Grade Dispute Committee in the College. Different things are done in different Colleges. Then it finally ends up in the University Admissions and Standards Committee for a due process review. We don’t look at the merits of the case; we just look to see whether due process has been followed. Dr. Sutton added that this is what the Admissions and Standards Committee tried to do in the language. It is sort of implicit in the current description but it is not as implicit as it could have been.

Professor Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady noted that in the old catalogue there are separate categories for Change of Grade and Grade Dispute. She wondered if it would be helpful to use those headings because if it is combined into one, it would be somewhat difficult for people to follow. Professor Sutton responded that the Admissions and Standards Committee had a discussion about that and there was a concern that the students might not read down to the second paragraph and that might create some problems. We have had two headings and the Committee proposes one heading but she doesn’t know which is better.

Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that she supports two headings. She noted that she raised this issue the last time this proposal came before Senate. We are collapsing two categories here and they need to be separated out. She said that she also raised the issue of the language in the fourth paragraph. She referred to the last sentence that says, “The College grade dispute committee has final authority in deciding if there is substantial justification for the claim.” She also referred to the previous sentence, “The student’s petition must provide the basis for the claim.” There is nothing in that paragraph that says anything about further consultation with the instructor or review of documentation by the instructor. However, in the Committee’s Rationale in paragraph four on page 3, the last sentence states, “consider the relevant documents and testimony.” She suggested that the Committee might want to make it specific in the Catalogue copy that the documents and testimony being alluded to in the Rationale are part of what the case must be based upon and what must be consulted by the College Grade Dispute Committee.

Professor Sutton asked Professor Hoffman if she had some suggested language for that. Professor Hoffman commented that she could see how a student might read this and say, “All I have to do is get this committee my petition.” That is the basis for the claim and that is all the student has to look at. Professor Hoffman suggested adding the following wording to paragraph four on page 2 under Grade Dispute: “The college grade dispute committee will consider the relevant documents and testimony of both student and instructor. That committee has final authority in deciding if there is substantial justification for the claim.” Dr. Sutton noted that what Professor Hoffman is proposing is a change to expand the language and clarify. Professor Hoffman said that Dr. Sutton was correct.

Professor Sutton noted that we now have two suggested changes to the proposal.

One change is in the first paragraph on page 2 and the second change is in the fourth paragraph on page 2.

Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that we have a proposal from the Admissions and Standards Committee to revise the Grade Dispute Policy. The two changes indicated by the chair of the Committee are now part of the proposal. He then asked members to vote. The Proposed revised Undergraduate Grade Dispute Policy as revised was approved unanimously.

VI. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz began by thanking Provost Chin Kuo for five years of very distinguished service to this University. He has brought to that position a great deal of knowledge and sophistication, not to mention a very quiet dignity about the way he has conducted that office for which we are all most grateful. He then thanked Provost Chin Kuo for all of his help.

President Schwartz noted that his anniversary is coming up in about ten days. He came to CSU to stay for six months and lost track of time. He said, “We’ve done a lot together as you all know, but there is an awful lot left to do – a good deal of it in student services, a good deal of it in enrollment management, a good deal of it in facilities upgrades, and a good deal of it with regard to recruitment and the budget and so the remainder of the summer and through the next academic year, times are going to be pretty hectic for us. We have lots of problems to solve.

President Schwartz reported that we just got word today that we are going to receive the Governor’s E Award for excellence in exporting for the College of Business Administration’s portfolio of programs and services in global business. This is a relatively new package of things put together in the College of Business. It really has resonated in Columbus and it is something that we can all be proud of and our colleagues in the College of Business should feel very good about what they have achieved.

For those of you who are into this sort of thing, golf was on the agenda. The men’s golf team has won the Horizon League championship and will move on to the NCAA Tournament and we all ought to feel good about that. Over this coming weekend, if the women on the softball team win two out of three, they win the Horizon League championship. So, if you get a chance over the weekend, come out and see them. President Schwartz said that he would not want to see that ball coming at him that fast by any means. Those are some notes of good news. There is really a lot more going on here. We have been the recipients of some very sizeable gifts recently and some of them are in the form of planned gifts in people’s wills and other cash gifts, etc. The President noted that the status of this university has been improving because of everyone’s very good and very hard work and people are feeling more and more confident all of the time in what is happening at Cleveland State. It’s really an investment on their part and he is glad to be able to see all of that happen.

Similarly, about a week or so ago, President Schwartz was in Washington peddling a few projects to members of the Congress. To some members of the House and to both Senators, we brought them some projects that we think the Federal government should be investing in – one in the College of Engineering, one in the College of Science and one in the College of Urban Affairs. These are very good projects. President Schwartz reported that they were all well received. It is not known if we will get all of the money but we were received in a way that was very different from what it was four years ago when legislators wondered who we were so our efforts in the district are starting to be known and to pay pretty dividends.

Finally, President Michael Schwartz noted that when Provost Chin Kuo leaves here it will be shortly after commencement when he will be taking some vacation before he goes on leave. The pool of candidates to fill that position right now is not very deep. He doesn’t anticipate our having a Provost selected by June 30, 2006 and, as a consequence of that, he wanted to say this here first. He has decided that an interim Provost will be needed for some time and he has prevailed upon Dr. Mary Jane Saunders, the Dean of the College of Science, and asked her if she would fill that position for a period of time. She has agreed and he is very grateful and knows that she will do the job. Dr. Saunders and Dr. Bette Bonder will then also try to continue to bring the College of Science forward which has been making great progress this past year.

President Schwartz then wished everyone a nice summer.

Senate President Gelman noted that items VII and VIII on the Agenda are committee reports. He noted that the reports listed under item VIII are required by the Greenbook. While there could be discussion of these if there is any interest, they are generally presented to Senate. He reported that two standing committees have not reported and we will ask them to report in the fall.

Senate President Gelman noted that Item VII is the University Strategic Planning Committee which is a special case. He asked if the chair of the committee, Professor Susan Hill, wanted to present or simply answer questions on the report.

Professor Susan Hill responded that she was prepared to answer questions and not present so if anyone has questions, she will come up to the podium and answer them. There were no questions.

At this point, Senate President Gelman asked if anybody had any comments on the University Strategic Planning Committee report, item VII or any of the annual reports listed under item VIII.

VII. University Strategic Planning Committee

Progress Report (Report No. 19, 2005-2006)

VIII. Annual Reports

A. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 20, 2005-2006)
B. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 21-2005-2006)
C. University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 22, 2005-2006)
D. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 23, 2005-2006)
E. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 24, 2005-2006)
F. Library Committee (Report No. 25, 2005-2006)
G. Committee on Academic Space (Report No. 26, 2005-2006)
H. Computational Services committee (Report No. 27, 2005-2006)
I. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee
(Report No. 28, 2005-2006)
J.
University Petitions Committee (Report No. 29, 2005-2006)
K.
Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 30, 2005-2006)

The University Strategic Planning Committee progress report and the annual reports of the Senate standing committees were received without any discussion.

IX. New Business

Senate President Gelman asked if there was any new business. There was no new business.

Senate President Gelman then noted that the last agenda item is farewell remarks by Provost Chin Kuo. He said that he wanted to quote from President Schwartz’s email to the University community on February 3, 2006 in which he said, “The Provost had served the University with honor, dignity and dedication.” Senate President Gelman stated that based on his experience with the Provost before and after becoming Senate President, his is the second President’s observation on honor, dignity and dedication which seemed to him to capture the man. The February 3 rd email by President Schwartz also said that he was sure the University community members would want to join him (President Schwartz) in finding ways to express that gratitude to the Provost. Senate President Gelman said that on the Senate side, we have decided to provide food and invite everyone to a reception for Provost Kuo after the meeting. The refreshments have been provided by President Schwartz and the Senate budget added some desserts.

X. Farewell Remarks by Provost Chin Kuo

Provost Chin Kuo’s remarks follow.

“Good afternoon. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you since I seldom have a chance to address the Faculty Senate except sending ‘Message from the Provost’ through campus mass email.

“After I announced my plan to step down from the Provost position, emails, phone calls and good wishes continue to come. I am very much honored and grateful for many kind words. Many faculty and staff commented on my high level of integrity and cited many of my accomplishments. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no single accomplishment which belongs to me or to any one person for that matter. It is always the collective effort of the members of this University community. I just happened to be a member of the team, like you, to serve the University.

“However, there are a few things for which I am definitely very proud to take credit and distinguish myself. Yes, I always try to maintain the highest level of integrity. This means honesty, fairness, and mutual trust. In my book, there is no such thing as double standards or flip-flap on issues. There are no under table dealings or special favoritism. You may think I am too naïve to practice and believe in these things in this society which is full of people who are power hungry or self-centered and many multi-faced people who think one way, talk the other way, act another way and never show their true colors. Just to let you know, integrity is part of how I was raised and what we teach our next generation in a place called ‘university’.

“There is another management style which I practice all the time. I always mean what I say and keep my promise. I don’t have to remember what I had said before. Fact is fact all the time. I simply tell you what the fact is without making up new stories. When it comes to conflict resolution, I listen to both sides of the story and verify the facts before I make a ruling. I don’t jump into conclusions right away based on a partial story.

“I place a high priority on academic program quality and academic support. Quality of academic programs and quality of faculty lead to good reputation of a university and in turn attract serious students to come to study here and the brightest faculty to work here. During my tenure as the Provost, I have proposed the idea of phasing out undergraduate open admission and raising admission standards. From the standpoint of the University’s Chief Academic Officer, this bold move is the legacy which I wish to leave behind. It is a significant milestone for CSU. I believe that improving the quality of incoming students will reduce the need for remedial programs and improve our retention and graduation rate. In fact, it is time to implement Phase II by raising the ACT score of 16 and the 2.3 high school GPA for admissions. The current bars are set too low, in my opinion.

“In the area of research, I have proposed in my academic ‘Vision 2009’ to move CSU up one notch for our Carnegie research ranking. I have set up new research institutes and centers, created additional faculty positions, allocated more funds for faculty start-up. As a result, we have increased our research volume and provided more opportunities for collaborative interdisciplinary research.

“We have implemented the Honors Program which attracts talented and highly motivated students. We have completed the review of faculty’s promotion and tenure standards to ensure that we are in line or exceed our peers’ standards. We have completed a plan to internationalize our curriculum. We have a record high number of Fulbright Scholars. To make sure that we have quality control on our academic programs and be held accountable, we have strengthened academic program reviews and the process of learning outcomes assessments. We are near the end of General Education review. All of these academic quality related initiatives are to elevate CSU’s visibility, ranking and reputation. It will take a while to change public perception of us and realize its positive impact on our enrollment. Our major challenge is to get rid of the image that CSU is a back-up school. To do so, we have to show the public and the students how good and how unique our academic programs are.

“The Chronicle of Higher Education reported a recent survey by Lipman Hearne Inc. to assess whether a series of factors had influenced high-achieving high school seniors’ decisions in choosing a college. Ranked number one, 86% said, ‘academically rigorous environment’ had played a role. Ranked number two, 74% said ‘prestigious reputation’ had been a factor. Sure, we can offer more scholarships. But, many top students would receive scholarships offered from other universities as well. Which college would they choose? ‘Reputation’ will remain an important factor in their decision. The Wall Street Journal reported last week on how universities throughout the nation are trying to woo students to accept admission by flying them to campus visits and dining them. This is a new game that recruiters play. It is unthinkable that Higher Education has come down to these kinds of practices in order to increase the yield for recruitment. Keep in mind, the increase in the number of applications and admits does not guarantee enrollment. Many of them applied to more schools electronically nowadays and many universities waive application fees.

“You would be surprised to learn this. A CSU staff member told me confidentially a while ago that his daughter felt ashamed among her high school friends when her father urged her to apply to CSU to take advantage of the tuition discount. This story reflects what I said a while ago about reputation and back up school. Keep in mind, there is no short cut or quick return on investment in building program reputation. We are not a company or a corporation. We cannot measure academic program quality or university reputation like short-term quarterly earnings, as reported by CEOs to their Boards and stockholders.

“When I was the Department Head at Penn State, we turned away many qualified students. I had to deal with some disappointed alumni since their children could not get in. If a university has a good program reputation, students will knock on its door. In that scenario, there is no need to recruit so hard and perhaps some of the marketing funds can be reallocated to bump up faculty salaries or enhance program excellence. I know you are going to tell me that we are no Penn State or Ohio State. In my opinion, there is no reason not to aim high. I am tired of hearing these types of comments: ‘Case is the power house in Northeast Ohio’ or ‘We are not as good or as big as Kent or Akron.’ Keep in mind, big is not necessarily good. In my opinion, we have outstanding faculty who care so much about our students and many of them are highly accomplished. Why are we not as good as them? Think about it. What is missing here? The challenge ahead of us is to identify our program strengths and niches and capitalize on them. Demonstrate that our programs are far superior to others. In the real estate business, it is location, location and location. In the academic world, it is quality, quality and quality.

“One more thing, I think you all would agree. Good resource management and open communication are essential to building mutual respect and trust. I believe that I have made some contributions to these. My budget is quite open and many decisions on resource allocation not only are based on data but also take into consideration the University’s best interests. When I took this position five yeas ago, I promised the Deans and the Directors that I would advocate letting colleges retain their salary savings and keep their carry forward. I am pleased to report that these goals have been reached.

“I have imposed myself with high standards to provide ‘same day service’ to emails as well as requests for approval. If you don’t hear from me the same day, the chance is that the paper is sitting in another’s office. Most importantly, I have also tried to give straight forward answers and not dodge the bullets like a politician by saying yes to everybody in order to gain popularity.

“As you can see, I have devoted most of my time to my job and I end up spending less time to taking care of myself and less quality time being with my family. Family and health are the values which I believe in. They should be higher priority to me at this stage of my career and my life. I look forward to spending more time with my grandchildren and doing more traveling. I want to share with you that I appreciate very much the support from my wife during my 15 years in administration. You know what she said to me the other day, she said, ‘I finally have my husband back’. But she also worries that I will bug her at home too much since I will no longer have people to boss around at work.

“ America is a land of opportunity. As an immigrant, I was given the opportunity to receive my graduate degrees in this country and rose from an Assistant Professor all the way to the Provost in a university. This is as far as I can go. I have realized my glass ceiling. It is time to go back to being a Professor. In fact, College Professor is ranked the second best profession according to a recent survey by the Money Magazine. How about that? To my faculty friends, stay where you are!”

Before asking for a motion to adjourn the meeting, Senate President Sheldon Gelman again invited everyone to a reception following the meeting in honor of Provost Kuo. He also wished everyone a good summer.

Senate President Gelman then asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion was made, seconded and approved and the meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.

 

Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady
Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

 

[Top of Page]