I. Eulogies for Masumi Hayashi (Art)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the September 13, 2006 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 Meeting
IV. Approval of the Minutes of the May 3, 2006 Meeting
V. Senate Nominating Committee
VI. Committee Elections
VII. University Curriculum Committee
VIII. Academic Steering Committee
IX.University President’s Report
X. New Business
PRESENT: Barrow, Bathala, Beasley, Belovich, Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Doerder, Ekelman, Elkins, Finer, Gao, Gelman, Gross, B. Hoffman, Hoke, Hollinger, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Loovis, Lundstrom, Martins, K. Mason, McCahon, K. McNamara, S. Murray, N. Nelson, G. Ray, Reichert, H. Robertson, Rom, Sparks, Spicer, Steinberg, Welfel, Weyman.Barlow, Bonder, Boyle, Dillard, Dolton, Droney, B. Green, Heinrich, Humer, Margolius, Markovic, McLoughlin, Mills, Nuru-Holm, Sadlek, M. Schwartz, Spiker, Thornton.
ABSENT: Duffy, V. George, Gorla, Hansman, Keshock, Lehfeldt, K. O’Neill, Rashidi, Visocky-O’Grady, Ziolek. C. Alexander, Hanniford, Mearns, L. Mooney, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, M. Saunders, Scherer, Tumeo.ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins. Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.
Senate President Gelman noted that the first item on the Agenda is a Eulogy for Masumi Hayashi that will be given at next month’s meeting by Professor George Mauersberger. Arrangements for the Eulogy were not made until last week and the Eulogist requested time to prepare.
Acceptance of the Agenda for September 13, 2006 was moved, seconded, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
Senate President Gelman reported that the Minutes of the May 3, 2006 meeting were distributed very late. He asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to postpone this item until the next meeting. There being no motion to postpone approval of the Minutes of May 3, 2006, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to approve the Minutes. Acceptance of the Minutes of the May 3, 2006 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.
Senate President Gelman stated that Professor Jeffrey Dean would give the report of the Senate Nominating Committee.
Professor Jeffrey Dean reported that it probably is no secret that the Nominating Committee did not receive any self nominations or volunteer nominations. Also, it probably is no secret that the Nominating Committee was rather slow to spring into action and work on this situation.Professor Dean thanked everyone who did answer his calls and listened to his entreaties and he learned that all of us are very busy. He noted that after talking to a lot of people, the Nominating Committee pretty much came up with a slate that was distributed rather late through an email. He then presented the slate of candidates: Professor Sheldon Gelman for Senate President, Professor Leo Jeffres for Senate Vice President and Professor Barbara Hoffman for Senate Secretary. Professor Dean thanked those who were willing to serve in these offices. He noted that the positive side of course is that everybody agrees it is important to have officers and it is important to have faculty participation and for those who expressed some willingness to serve at a future date, he has noted those names and will pass them along.
Professor Dean then asked for a motion to approve the slate of candidates by acclamation. It was moved, seconded and the slate of candidates for Senate President for a two-year term (Sheldon Gelman, Law), Senate Vice President for a one-year term (Leo Jeffres, Communication) and Senate Secretary for a two-year term (Barbara Hoffman, Anthropology) was approved unanimously.
Senate President Gelman thanked the Nominating Committee and especially Professor Jeffrey Dean and everyone for re-electing him as the Senate President.
Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty.
University Faculty Affairs Committee
Board Committee on Honorary Degrees
Professor Albert F. Smith
Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Professor Ieda Rodrigues
Proposed Minor in Middle Eastern Studies (Report No. 1, 2006-2007)
Professor Peter Meiksins reported that last year at the end of the spring semester, the University Curriculum Committee heard a presentation on recommending approval of a Minor in Middle Eastern Studies. This is a cross disciplinary minor exclusively of courses in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences although there is no reason why there couldn’t be courses from other Colleges. There are some that are appropriate. The proposal met with no objection from the UCC. It seemed to be a very wise proposal that had been worked out very carefully. There was some external funding solicited and obtained to support the development of the program. The College has devoted resources to it as a matter of a strategic decision and the program is basically up and ready to go so the University Curriculum Committee recommends this program to Senate. He noted that the description of the proposed program along with its requirements was included in the packet of meeting materials for today’s meeting.
There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked members to vote on the proposal. The proposed Minor in Middle Eastern Studies was approved unanimously.
University Strategic Planning Committee Report (Report No. 2, 2006-2007)
Senate President Gelman stated that if members didn’t consult the amendment to the Senate Agenda which was circulated on Tuesday, they may be surprised to see him presenting the next item (University Strategic Planning Committee Report) instead of Professor Susan Hill. Senate President Gelman briefly explained the background. As everybody knows, the university strategic planning process has been underway for a number of years. There was a multi year consideration of a proposal for a process. The Senate eventually enacted legislation establishing the process. The University Strategic Planning Committee has been at work consistently with that legislation for at least one and a half years. Their report was delivered on time in early September. As we originally envisioned this, the chair of the University Strategic Planning Committee would conduct a discussion of the plan which is quite thorough and quite detailed. Upon consideration, the Academic Steering Committee, with the agreement of the University Strategic Planning Committee, decided on a different approach to this Senate presentation.
Senate President Gelman reported that the plan describes six goals and various strategies to implement those goals. As a means of carrying out the strategies, there are literally hundreds of tactics listed. As might be imagined, the goals are more general than the strategies and the strategies are more general than the tactics. The Steering Committee unanimously, and without hesitation, endorsed the goals and the strategies. There were no objections to any tactics by the Steering Committee. However, it occurred to the Steering Committee that in those hundreds of tactics, there would be many that were controversial in the sense that people would disagree about them and whereas we think there could be wide-spread, unanimous agreement about goals such as academic excellence, the particular strategies are a different matter. People, who accept the goal of academic excellence and accept the strategies by the committee, might have and certainly could have different views about the tactics. If the Senate wants to deliberate on each tactic, we don’t think the Strategic Planning process could move forward in the foreseeable future. The thought the Steering Committee had was that if you agreed you might think it as an inspiration and if you don’t agree you wouldn’t use that word, so it wasn’t necessary for Senate to approve the specific tactics. The strategic planning process goes forward with the committee examining progress toward the goals. The committee obviously will consult on the strategies that it has recommended to the Senate and the Provost but Steering couldn’t see anything that would slow or prevent or detract in any way from the process. The Steering Committee simply didn’t take a position on those tactics. So, that is the proposal that comes from the Academic Steering Committee.
Senate President Gelman went on to say that this is an unusual procedural mechanism. Steering cannot refer this to a standing committee. Rather, as a committee of the Senate, Steering is recommending that the Senate ratify the goals and strategies and also adopt a statement which is in the amended Agenda. That is the statement that says in our opinion, the strategic planning process can go forward exactly as envisioned. What we do today would count as a ratification of a pre-existing legislation. The other two things described in the amendment – briefly, in the course of the Steering Committee’s discussion, the Strategic Planning Committee decided to add another tactic. Since we are not ratifying the tactics, the additional tactic will not be ratified but Steering thought that we should have the latest version of the report before we acted. Finally, Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that there is an explanation in the amendment of why this is not a discussion item. The members of Steering felt that if there was a great deal of discussion and disagreement about this, as there well might be, Steering and the Strategic Planning Committee could take that into account and come back with a proposal. But, if there was no disagreement or substantial disagreement either about the goals or the strategies or about the procedures that Steering is recommending to Senate today, the ratification could take place today.
Senate President Gelman noted that Professor Susan Kogler Hill is at Senate today to answer any questions about the goals or the strategies and he (Senate President Gelman) would be happy to answer questions about the recommendation of the Academic Steering Committee.
Professor Barbara Hoffman inquired as to what kind of presentation the Academic Steering Committee received from the Strategic Planning Committee in order to arrive at the new strategy that is being proposed today.
Senate President Gelman responded that Steering received the report that Senate received. He stated that the idea for ratification of the goals and the strategies came from the Academic Steering Committee, not the Strategic Planning Committee originally. There was no presentation of that sort. Steering discussed the procedures for ratification for at least an hour and that is quite a long time. It was approached strategically and reflected on that deeply. Professor Peter Meiksins, who is a member of Steering, then drafted something. Professor Susan Hill took that back to her committee and there was serious discussion in her committee. Steering waited to hear back from Susan Hill, which was this Monday, and which is why the amendment came out this Monday. Beyond that, Steering members, like all members of the Senate last year, received a preliminary version of the strategies and goals that was distributed at the last meeting and various members of Steering and the Senate last year were involved in the strategic planning process in a variety of ways. Senate officers participated in a day long retreat and there were many other opportunities for Senate members to be involved in the process. But, until the Steering meeting last Wednesday ( September 6, 2006), no one had considered the possibility of simply ratifying the goals and the strategies.
Professor Leo Jeffres asked, “If the goals and the strategies are approved today, what happens next? What would not happen if we delayed it?” Senate President Gelman responded that his understanding is that in order for the process to move forward, which means for the Strategic Planning Committee to take the next steps and begin progress toward the goals and in order to begin re-deliberating, the plan has to be ratified. It has to be ratified by the Senate and it has to be ratified by the administration. It has been presented to the Provost just as it has been presented to Senate. He said that he has not heard and Professor Susan Hill could not state whether the administration has ratified the plan. Once both the administration and the Senate ratify the plan, the Strategic Planning Committee will begin assessing progress. Until then, they are in suspended animation.
Professor Beth Ekelman mentioned that a lot of people are new on Faculty Senate this year and they received the meeting packets on Monday. Whether they had adequate time to really look at the planning document would be questionable. Senate President Gelman responded that he is only speaking for himself and not for Steering. He noted that he is sympathetic to that concern and in fact although the Strategic Planning Committee not only met its own deadline but met the deadline for circulating materials to Steering, given the length of the plan, he asked Sue Hill to consider postponing it. Again, that was before the idea of separating out the tactics occurred to him. His personal view is that the goals and the strategies are manageable now. But if people don’t feel that they have had adequate time, of course we don’t have to vote today.
Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that taken one by one, you can’t argue with any of these things; they are beautiful and she would want to do them all. Dr. Kaufman stated that she was concerned a little bit because it seems that some of them cannot happen simultaneously but it is not reflected in the report as to what the trade-offs are and what is more important and what is less important. For instance, it is hard to see how we would do Goal 1 and Goal 2 simultaneously judging by the metrics because one says we are going to see increased standards and increased scores and the other says increased headcount. She stated that they just don’t go together and she was not sure she understands how they would recommend implementing them.
Senate President Gelman replied that he can only answer from his own understanding. Some of the tactics are italicized and those are tactics that the committee thought were unusually important. The word that President Schwartz used to describe a series of recommendations is prioritize, although that is not a technically accurate description. Insofar as the plan doesn’t prioritize each and every tactic, or for that matter, goal, he assumed that this was a decision taken by the Strategic Planning Committee which would mean that the University administration and the Senate would not have the guidance of the Strategic Planning Committee on that point. He also assumed that if there are going to be tactics as detailed as these, it would have been logically, physically and mentally impossible to prioritize everything. Senate President Gelman agreed with Professor Sanda Kaufman. Everything cannot be done and even if the tactics or goals and strategies were an intention the way Professor Kaufman had described, the intention would simply be the limit of time. There are not enough faculty members at the University, he doesn’t believe, to staff every single advisory committee that the Strategic Planning Committee thinks would be desirable. He has to say that this is the feature of the plan and he assumed a considered decision on the committee not to prioritize.
Professor Elizabeth Welfel wondered if the Senate could hear from the committee. Senate President Gelman asked Professor Susan Hill, Chair of the University Strategic Planning Committee, if she would like to respond to questions.
Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that it is not the prioritization, it is a matter of what goals are conflicting.
Professor Susan Hill replied that in this new process, the Strategic Planning Committee comes back to the Senate every fall. This is an ongoing and continuous process. The committee debated whether or not they should prioritize each and every one of these tactics and individually ranked and voted and did all kinds of things but decided that until the academic colleges and the administrative units on campus ultimately develop their own plans in line with this plan, that for some units certain things would be a high priority and other things would not be a high priority. We don’t see every single unit doing every single tactic. For example, in her Department of Communication, we might see certain tactics as ones that relate to their future but others would not and so a lot of different people would be working on them. What might look like conflicting goals, the committee talked about that for a long time and the idea of raising the standards but also increasing enrollments seems like they might be in conflict but if we really look at all the possible ways we can increase enrollment – through retention, through different kinds of marketing, different kinds of targeting marketing, focusing more on the adult student in different ways – there are ways that, yes, we believe as a committee that we can increase enrollment and also slowly raise our standards. We debated them but we did not see them in conflict. The trick of going forward is reaching high on all of these fronts. This is a long range plan and it is an ongoing process. So, when we come back to Senate, somebody else will be chair next year. Whoever comes back to Senate next year to report on the progress of the plan, if it is ratified, will give a report on how we have progressed on each goal, each strategy, the tactics, etc. At that time, it will be a plan that we will all be more familiar with and she would think we would be able to say, we need to change this or we need to go in a different direction and it will be a constant process. We are hoping that it is not going to be a plan that sits on the shelf and we forget what it is. The committee is mandated to bring it back to the Senate every fall.
Professor Barbara Hoffman asked, “If we ratify the goals and the strategies today, but not the tactics, what happens to these tactics and who does what with this plan after today?”
Professor Susan Hill responded that the Committee still has a lot of work to do as a committee. The committee just put together some suggested metrics. A full blown system of metrics has to be developed. Some plans that we viewed from other universities have champions in the university who are responsible for certain aspects of the plan. Last fall we had the units’ vision but we didn’t have the units’ strategic plans because there wasn’t an over-arching plan so the committee hoped that units would go about setting their plans. For example, the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences hopefully can develop a plan that falls within this plan and the School of Communication can develop a plan that falls within that plan so we are all going in the same direction. The committee still has a lot of work to do but figured before they did that, they needed an okay that we were going in the right direction and this plan could be ratified and could go forward. We used the terms strategies and tactics last fall at our first session. The idea of a strategy is doing the right things and so we see our strategies as doing the right things to accomplish our goals and we see the tactics as doing things right. We might find when we get in there that there are other tactics that are better. We might find that some of the tactics don’t work, but we really focused on these tactics; we really studied them. Where did these tactics come from? These tactics came from you; they came from the university – from all the units in the entire university. The committee worked on them and they had other units – students, alumni, community respond to them. Then the committee modified them. A Dean said to her (Dr. Hill), “I think my college can fit into this plan. I see our college in this plan.” Professor Hill responded to that Dean, “It came from your college; it came from all of the colleges. That’s why it doesn’t look like a strange plan.”
Senate President Gelman explained a little more of what the Academic Steering Committee thought. If the tactics are not ratified, the tactics are still in the document. Any faculty member, any committee, anybody in the administration could decide to take action based on the tactics. Steering feared that if we simply ratified the entire package the tactics would all apply. One of the tactics for example is, “use e-learning for all remedial education.” Maybe that is a good idea, maybe it isn’t. Obviously, it is something that has to be studied which is the starting point. If we ratified the tactics and somebody decided to act on that recommendation, when we come to the Curriculum Committee and say, “Well, of course, you are not bound but the Senate has, after all, endorsed this tactic,” since the Senate wouldn’t have studied the tactic, we thought that was not an appropriate starting point but nothing would prevent the chair of the Curriculum Committee from waking up one morning and saying, “We have got to make all remedial education e-learning” and the proposal would then stand or fall on its merits. The Strategic Plan would have inspired it but there would be no thought that there was any kind of predetermination or assumption.
Professor Barbara Hoffman commented that if she has understood correctly, it appears to her that what the Academic Steering Committee is asking Senate to do is to relinquish the Senate’s oversight over the specific actions that are actually going to move the University forward. She strongly advised that Senate not follow that strategy.
Professor Leo Jeffres commented, “Or is it that we are approving the broad plan and the process and expecting those tactics as suggestions for the appropriate bodies to consider and that those decisions do come back to the Senate at the appropriate time?”
Senate President Gelman confirmed that the tactics are suggestions.
Professor Leo Jeffres noted that we aren’t going to get into the details at this point. Relinquishing is not how he would look at it. He would look at it as more of suggestions since he doesn’t see a vote here of relinquishing but we are saying that we are not going to deal with the details at this point but we are going to approve the broad goals and objectives and expect the appropriate bodies to look at these tactics as possibilities but not the blueprint because we would be getting into the micro managing, if you will, of the appropriate committees that have to report back here anyway. He asked, “Is that another way of putting it?” He added that the word “relinquish” scares him a bit.
Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that the word “relinquish” scares her as well. She is wondering, without having had the opportunity to study the tactics in detail, whether it is the place that all of these tactics will result in action that would be under the oversight of one of our standing committees.
Professor Susan Hill stated that clearly some of them will not. Some of them are clearly tactics designed for the administration. Starting a $50 million capital campaign is not something the Senate actually decides to do. That is the prerogative of the administration of the University, so, there are things that fall within the administrative unit. This was a collaborative committee between administrators and faculty. We had five faculty elected by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee and five administrators appointed personally by the University President. The Committee worked for one and a half years collaboratively raising the issues that affected administrative action and faculty action. No faculty decision that needs a Senate vote or Senate study can go forward without following the process of governance of faculty. That is why the Committee did specifically add that one tactic in there so that it was stated in the report. The idea is that some of these are things that the administration can do anyway; there is a plan for us all to follow together. Those of you who have been here a while know that plans pop up. You know when there is a new plan and nobody knows where it came from. Well, you know where this one came from. Senate created the process, Senate elected half of the members and every year Senate will receive a report of how it’s going. It is a faculty administrative collaborative process. There are things that the faculty can do independently, there are things academic departments and colleges can do, there are things various administrative offices can do and it’s trying to give us a plan that we can keep shaping and moving and following as we go forward. Even when President Schwartz leaves, even when administrators leave, the plan should serve as a guide for us to go forward in a trusting manner with no surprises by administration creating a plan or faculty creating a plan. This plan we will continue to work on together. This has been an extraordinary committee and an extraordinary effort at collaboration. Professor Susan Hill thanked the Committee.
Professor Joel Finer stated that some of these tactics don’t seem very controversial and some of these tactics could be controversial. He suggested that it would be helpful to the senators to identify the non-controversial ones and perhaps ratify or endorse those.
Senate President Gelman commented in response to Professor Barbara Hoffman’s statement that the Senate would be losing this opportunity to influence the direction of the University. Senate President Gelman said that the Senate could possibly influence the direction of the University through a debate about all of the tactics. That is certainly possible but, if you think about this in a hard cold division of powers in the University sense, that is not likely. Suppose we were opposed to a capital campaign. He stated that he is sure nobody is, but suppose we were and the Senate said we are striking the capital campaign tactic. What difference would that make to President Schwartz? We could not erase the suggestion from his mind. It is not within our power to decide that there shouldn’t be a capital campaign. That is something committed to the administration. So President Schwartz presumably will go forward. We could say, “Well, it wasn’t in the strategic plan but the answer would be, it doesn’t matter.” He went on to say that if there were areas university-wide that senators wanted to discuss, various focused ways to do so could be arranged; there could possibly be conversations with the Strategic Planning Committee in the future. He continued stating that he didn’t think Senate was giving up anything. We are giving up one conversation but that doesn’t preclude other conversations. It is just like putting something in the plan that would not bind the Senate committees. So we could put all remedial learning as e-learning in the plan but the Curriculum Committee and the Senate would still not be bound to do that. Putting something into the plan or taking it out of the plan doesn’t bind the university administration either.
Professor William Bowen stated that he doesn’t see any of these goals or strategies as being the least bit offensive. They all seem like they are ones of a university that is striving for excellence and would try to hold out there as something to achieve and he wished the Senate could just ratify the goals and strategies and get on with it. Senate President Gelman replied that this is the motion that is on the floor of Senate.
Professor Peter Meiksins commented that at least personally it was not his intention to indicate that by making that recommendation he would personally approve all of the goals and strategies. He was doing this, irrespectively of his personal feelings, because Steering doesn’t get to decide, the Senate does. The Steering Committee suggested that the plan be brought forward to Faculty Senate for discussion and to be advised of the goals and strategies, whether or not these goals and strategies are ratified. He stated that he is not a voting member of the Senate. There are goals and strategies not included in this plan that he would like to see in there and there are goals in the plan worded in a such way that he would not have chosen. Whether he would vote against it or for it actually is moot and would be an open question in his own mind but the idea was to have discussion of the goals and strategies which we have not yet had. Now maybe people would not need that but we have been discussing the procedure and not the actual goals and strategies which were the intent of the Steering Committee.
Senate President Gelman responded that the way it is structured, Steering has presented the plan for ratification.
Professor Heidi Robertson stated that it makes a lot of sense to do it this way – to approve the strategies and goals. We arrived at them through a university process and we are not really relinquishing control because we are expressly not putting the Faculty Senate’s stamp of approval on the tactics and thus allowing the various pieces of the university almost to choose what has been presented to us which seems like almost a menu of choices of tactics. Since none of them is binding, each unit could choose what works for that unit and what we are approving is what has already come up through the system. She stated that she is new in the Senate and she doesn’t know whether there has been a substantive discussion of the goals and tactics but she does know that each college discussed them on the way up and it has been presented to us by our own Steering Committee. She then moved that the Senate approve the goals and strategies.
Professor Jeffrey Dean asked if it is not true that in a year’s time when this report is presented again, that if Senate decided for some reason that we didn’t like strategy C under goal 3, the Senate at that time could vote to modify this document so it is not a permanent relinquishing of oversight of what goes on. Senate President Gelman indicated that Professor Dean was correct.
Professor Leo Jeffres commented that he sees an advantage here. There is actually going to be an accounting of the report. This place is not used to that. He has headed a couple of task forces over the years and their reports just were put on some shelf. The idea that someone is coming back to say what progress has been made to the full Senate and thus for public review will be an advantage on each of these as opposed to something that only gets into a small body where the representatives from the different parts of the university may or may not be disseminating it. Whoever is going to do that report is going to be doing a service. He hopes that this report is going to get a wide distribution.
Senate President Gelman replied that having read the planning report he can say that this was a major goal of those who designed the Strategic Planning Process.
At this point, Senate President Gelman stated that since he presented the proposal from the Academic Steering Committee, he can’t preside over the vote. Professor Teresa LaGrange will do so.
Professor Teresa LaGrange asked for those in favor of accepting the motion from the Academic Steering Committee to adopt the goals and strategies in the Strategic Planning Document to say aye. The Academic Steering Committee’s proposal to adopt the goals and strategies in the Strategic Planning Document was approved unanimously.
President Michael Schwartz began by thanking Professor Susan Hill and the Strategic Planning Committee members for an enormous planning effort which was very well carried out. It is a fine document and as good a plan as he has seen anywhere. It is likely to carry us forward in all kinds of ways. The way the plan is structured, it will be a pleasure for everyone.
President Schwartz welcomed everyone back. He said that he was sorry about Euclid Avenue. There is not much that we can do about that. President Schwartz noted that Fenn Tower and the new Recreation Center have been opened. He commented that if anyone has not had a chance to visit Fenn Tower, brief tours are available and he urged everyone to go over and see it. The restoration is just beautiful. For anyone who may have at one time worked in Fenn Tower, they really ought to see it now.
President Schwartz reported on enrollment. We are virtually dead even with one year ago. The composition is a little different. The average high school GPA of entering freshmen rose to about 2.96. It had been 2.84. The average SAT score grew by about .08 of a point from 19.01 to 19.081. We took slightly fewer new freshmen this year than we did last year. In the process of implementing the first important phase of the new admissions standards, about 150 students were rejected. New transfer students, however, grew by about 18 percent. We have stayed flat with one year ago. He stated that in his opinion, that is the good news. Graduate enrollment has held their own or better.
President Michael Schwartz reported that last week, Cleveland State University led a team to Columbus to present a proposal for a Wright Center of Innovation Grant from the state of Ohio. The Grant amount is $23 million which is for a state-wide collaboration in sensor technology. The partners in this include corporations from Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati as well as Case Western Reserve University, Akron, Ohio State University, UC. They are all in this collaboration along with NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton and the Ohio Aerospace Institute here in Cleveland. Bringing that kind of group together was an enormous undertaking. It is a very complicated matter to write a proposal in sensor technology that would achieve the aims of this broad group. It was achieved largely through very great efforts of Vice Provost Mark Tumeo and Dean Charles Alexander of the College of Engineering. The grant writer known to many of you is Miss Lisa Camp who was more than a little helpful. This is a competition. We survived to the final three. We are competing with 200 finalists and we don’t know how many of these centers the State will fund. We should know the outcome of this competition in November. President Schwartz said that he would feel better about this if it weren’t after the election but that is when the selection is going to be made. But, win or lose, we can be proud of the great effort to become competitive in this effort.
President Schwartz noted that there was a hearing last week in Columbus and the National Academy of Science appointed a board that is the hearing board for this grant and they heard the three finalists’ proposals. At the hearing for our proposal, the walls in the fairly large room where all the chairs are were taken and the walls were lined with people who were standing in order to observe the questioning that was going on. Most of those people were the corporate partners. The corporate partners jumped in to answer questions and showed great support for this CSU proposal. The people who presented the proposal – Vice Provost Mark Tumeo, Dr. Norman Tien from Case Western Reserve University who was the technical expert on this proposal, and Mr. Don Mater from the Ohio Aerospace Institute, this was a moment of great pride for Cleveland State University. Five years ago, CSU was seen as an underdog. That isn’t true any longer. In terms of the National Science Foundation rankings of universities, rankings by research expenditures, CSU is past Kent State and it is on the way up in those rankings. That is all the more remarkable considering how few doctoral programs we have. There is a great deal to be proud of at this institution. This effort, win or lose, is an important milestone for us. It says in effect, Cleveland State can play with the big kids. What it really says is that Cleveland State is one of the big kids. This is very important for us.
President Schwartz reported that the administration has spent a great deal of time the last year working on plans for enrollment strategies and tactics along with two consulting companies. From all of that effort, a document called the “Road Map” has been developed for enrollment growth and retention and that is our main concern. The focus of the retention effort is student success in an environment of high expectations and high standards. In that regard, he has asked Professor Elizabeth Lehfeldt to take on the task of being the Special Assistant to the President for Student Success. He has asked her to do that on a part-time basis beginning this term and she has agreed. She and the President will be creating an All-University Presidential Commission on University Success with representation from each college unit and from a cadre of assistant and associate deans as well as from student leadership. She will, from time to time, keep everyone apprised of the progress of that commission and other similar efforts. If we look at the Strategic Plan, it calls for us to do exactly that. President Schwartz noted that he has also asked Professor Rodger Govea to share the duties of that position with Professor Lehfeldt on a part-time basis upon his return from sabbatical leave and he has tentatively agreed to do that as well. Both of these professors are broadly respected and they are understood to have students and student success at the forefront of their personal agendas so he knows that everyone will wish them well in this very important initiative. He intends to be their closest partner so when they speak on the matter of student success, they are going to speak with the President’s voice. It is important for that to be understood.
In a similar regard, President Schwartz has initiated some organizational changes in other ways. Enrollment Services now reports to Vice President Droney as does the Career Services Center. Vice President Droney, Vice President Spiker and Mr. Steve Minter, who is an executive in residence, have been leading the enrollment planning effort and that effort will continue throughout the year. He is going to recommend to the Board of Trustees that Vice President Droney’s title be changed to Vice President for Information and General Administration. At the same time, Advising has been moved from Student Affairs to Academic Affairs and it will be overseen by the Provost and the Deans in an effort to bring the advising activity much closer to the departments and especially to the students and their needs. He is currently assessing oversight of remedial work in English and Mathematics to see where that can best be located. His preference is that those functions be put into the departments. The Interim Provost, Mary Jane Saunders and the President will discuss this at some length. A dozen classrooms have been improved with technology and, in spite of campus construction, every effort is being made to be attendant to the instructional needs of the faculty and the students. President Schwartz noted that some days are easier than others.
Finally, President Michael Schwartz commented that if everyone can get a copy of a magazine called “Washington Monthly Magazine” that magazine has gotten into the college and university rankings business and they have been highly critical of “US News and World Report” rankings. So they are trying to build a system for ranking that takes out inputs – endowments, rich kids, and they have been using things like student mobility which is to say how many of your students who have Pell Grants in fact graduate? What have you done for the neediest kids? Public service, how many of your students go into the Peace Corps and how many go into the Military? It is a very interesting criterion. You will find none of them in “US News and World Report.” We don’t fare bad in this but we have a long way to go to climb even in their rankings in our graduation rate. We have taken steps to make that better.
A. Recreation Center Fees (Report No. 3, 2006-2007)
Professor Andrew Gross thanked Senate for the opportunity to discuss the Recreation Center fees and related arrangements. He noted that he has been at CSU since 1968 when workouts for faculty, staff and students consisted of finding your way among the Quonsets huts and then in the 1970s we built the Woodling Gym and what is now the Busbey Natatorium that functioned well. It has basketball courts, an indoor track, squash courts, etc. There was also a shared locker room in the sub basement for faculty and physical education majors. A while ago, Alice Khol instituted an ID swiping policy and he questioned her on that on the Faculty Senate floor and now he wishes publicly to apologize because the swiping has not created long lines.
Secondly, Professor Andrew Gross praised Vice President for Finance, Mr. Jack Boyle for instituting a parking fee for outsiders in the evening who went to the theater. He had suggested a fee of about $7 or $8 and Jack Boyle insisted on $10 and he is right. He sees people coming to our facility at the East 17 th Street Garage. So Jack was right and he was wrong and he apologizes.
The last point in a preface remark is that Dr. Gross likes to put his money where his mouth is. The only thing important to him (Professor Andrew Gross) is the free swim at noon in the Natatorium and that has been so ordained with Wally Morton the aquatics director and others and in gratitude for that he has just written a check to CSU designated for the aquatics program.
Professor Gross congratulated Dr. Michael Schwartz and all others for the vision for construction of the Recreation Center. He said that instituting fees at the Recreation Center may be a wise idea and is a good idea but the way it was done and the way it was communicated may not have been done in the very best way. He believes that a fee of $315 is being held out for the faculty and the staff for the whole year and he heard that in addition, there will be a $90 fee for a locker. That is over $400. Dr. Gross stated that if you wish to encourage fitness among faculty and staff, that is a pretty sudden increase and he would say it is a change in working conditions. But, he is not here to argue the AAUP filing or not filing of a grievance; that’s outside the bounds of this Senate so he is not going to go there. But the way it was communicated and the way it was arranged, etc., when the $24 locker fee in the sub basement he referred to earlier wasn’t even collected, it seems to him a pretty high jump in the fee structure. The result of matters ultimately will depend on a single word that his communist friend still uses; it is called electricity. You raise the price, how many people will respond? It remains to be seen. He noted that Professor Sheldon Gelman was kind enough to take hearing and sounding from fellow Ohio Faculty Council representatives and he tells Dr. Gross that other schools have about the $300 fee for athletics over the year. Youngstown State is somewhat lower. He also checked on municipal recreation centers and yesterday he was in Middleburg Heights. He lives on the East side but he was on the West side. He had a passport to cross the Cuyahoga and he can report that Middleburg Heights has an adult fee of about $135 and that includes pretty much an inside water park and swimming pool and community center, etc. In his own city of Cleveland Heights at its new recreation center, it basically offers skating, swimming, outdoors in the summer, and an indoor track and other facilities for somewhere between $200 and $300 for adults. For seniors, it is under $100 per year so it is a great bargain. So, he is a pretty happy warrior but he is here at Senate once again as he was as an Assistant Professor untenured fighting for others and he believes that the fight is worth doing and he would like to hear from Mr. Boyle in regard to how shall we proceed with this and how heavy the enrollment has been.
Professor Emerita Barbara Green, a representative of the Retired Faculty Association, asked if Mr. Jack Boyle or somebody else would please inform the retired and emeriti faculty of their opportunity to join this program. They were not included in the first notices about their eligibility for membership in the athletic facilities and lockers, etc. Mr. Jack Boyle responded that the retired faculty and emeriti are included.
Mr. Jack Boyle addressed Professor Andrew Gross’ comments. Because we have had an official grievance filed by the AAUP on the very topic that Professor Gross raised, he felt that it would be inappropriate for him to discuss the specifics because that was exactly what the request was in the grievance that was filed. He has had extensive conversations with Professor Gross who has several emails that he may wish to share with other members. There is a process under the union contract that will respond.
Senate President Gelman reiterated that Mr. Jack Boyle explained that there is a union grievance which substantially overlaps the substance of Professor Gross’ remarks and that prevents Vice President Boyle from responding now. He has explained that he has had email exchanges with Professor Gross. Professor Gross is free to share the contents of those emails.
Professor Andrew Gross asked Vice Jack President Boyle, as a point of information, “What is the number of full-time faculty and staff who enrolled at the Recreation Center providing the university with the appropriate check taking for the membership?” Vice President Boyle responded that he can’t divide into faculty and staff but our goal was to get 165 members the first year which would be fifteen percent of the full-time faculty and staff. We have 121 as of today ( September 13, 2006).
B. Proposed Amendment to the Missed Class Policy
(Report No. 4, 2006-2007)
Professor Candice Hoke said that she was not exactly sure what procedure to follow about introducing or asking for suspension of the rules sent out to faculty and also distributed for taking up a policy. She believes that Professor Gelman had advised her that a 2/3’s vote was needed to even consider something of substance.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that Professor Candice Hoke had informed him at about 11:45 P.M. Monday night by email that she had a proposal she wanted to present to Senate and off the top of his head he first said that any Senator can have the floor during the New Business portion of the meeting. The next day he looked into the official Senate copy of “Robert’s Rules of Order” and at that point it had appeared to him that any change or addition to the Agenda required a 2/3’s vote. He had talked to two people who have considerable experience either as a presiding officer here or as a parliamentarian and they did not agree on the 2/3’s vote requirement. The details of the disagreement do not matter. Senate President Gelman said his advice to Professor Hoke that it had to be raised at this point was wrong. He noted that Professor Hoke could have moved to amend the Agenda. Had she done that, the Senate certainly could have heard it based on a majority vote. So, while he is going to ask the University Faculty Affairs Committee to look into this problem of the rules for the future, he would rule that a new item can be added to the Agenda by Professor Hoke if a majority agreed to add it to the Agenda. Professor Hoke has a substantive motion that she would like the Senate to approve which would change university policy and which would have to be forwarded to the university administration as any other measure that passes the Senate would.
Professor Candice Hoke stated that she had distributed a motion for a proposed amendment to the Missed Class Policy. She apologized for the short notice. Normally, such a proposal for a policy change, even for a very short-term policy change, would have gone to the appropriate Senate Committee first and the administration and there would have been time for everyone to reflect on and modify the proposal. But, there was no time in this situation. She would argue to Senate that there is a high public educational purpose behind this particular proposal. We do have a policy in existence in this University called the Missed Class Policy that was worked on over a period of years. Unfortunately, when students look at this policy and have been approached about being poll workers for Cuyahoga County in particular in the coming election, they expressed great concern that they will receive penalties from classes, that it’s a matter of long negotiation, that there is no security that they will be allowed to participate, and they need and want the clarification up front now. Also, the Board of Elections needs the clarification before they invest the money in training the people, needs to know that students can participate and will be released from classes, and that there will not be some assignment that students are fearful of later on. So the proposal is reflecting on the situation that we find ourselves in as internationally notorious for a poor election performance. Recognizing that, this University actually encompasses between it and its furthest east-most parking lots the Board of Elections so we have incredible proximity. This University has invested itself in many ways to try to support quality elections but this is a time when we need to step up. She would ask for suspension of the rules to consider this motion in principle. Again, it is not for a permanent policy change – it is only for this election for this particular period of time from the evening before the election through Election Day, November 6 and 7, 2006.
Senate President Gelman noted that Professor Hoke’s motion has already been seconded. We can now discuss the motion which is to add this item to the Agenda. If it is added to the Agenda, we can discuss it on merits, and barring some other motion, proceed to adopt it or reject it. Senate President Gelman asked if there was any discussion to add this item to the Agenda. Hearing no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked for all those Senators who were in favor of adding the item to the Agenda to say aye. The motion was approved.
Senate President Gelman stated that Senate now has before it the proposal for excused absences for poll workers. He noted that a motion is needed to adopt this proposal. It was then moved and seconded that Senate adopt the proposed amendment to the Missed Class Policy.
Professor Sylvester Murray noted that Senate President Gelman had indicated that the interest is for two days, November 6 and 7, 2006 but he had said earlier that the poll workers have to be trained also. He then asked if the workers would be trained on November 6 and 7. Professor Candice Hoke responded that poll workers can go to weekend training. They will be scheduled so profusely that training should not present any problem.
Professor William Beasley commented that he was a little fuzzy about the statement that this is the only Senate meeting where this proposal could be considered. He noted that he is entirely in favor of having our students work in this process. That part is terrific. If he read this proposal correctly, the training needs to be completed by the 20 th of October 2006. Faculty will need to be notified by the 20 th of October that students were fulfilling this. He said that he didn’t understand why the Admissions and Standards Committee couldn’t take this up at their next meeting, bring it to Steering and then bring it before the Senate in time for the Senate to follow regular procedure with respect to the motion.
Professor Hoke responded that this is because the lead time for scheduling individuals for training and deciding who is going to fill the poll worker positions is going to be occurring during the next three weeks. The CSU Center for Election Integrity is the monitor for election performance and will conduct a review of the pilot project and file a report with the appropriate committees. Our suggestion is that a number of poll workers who have either proven or suspected to be less than quality performers will not be called back but if those people cannot be replaced with others, they will be called back. Poll workers in this county have been hired and have been engaged at the polling places on the warm body principle and that is, by law, we have to have two separate parties represented at the polling place, four people minimally in each precinct and that means they have to simply get a warm body. Even if they are asleep, that works so we have three weeks. College and university students, faculty and staff are considered some of the absolute best people because we are in learning mode, we are analytic by nature in the training and we are the force for repopulating the polling places and so it is a timing issue.
Senate President Gelman reported that Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, telephoned him before this meeting and asked him to say that the Admissions and Standards Committee is meeting on September 22, 2006. Of course there is no guarantee that the Admissions and Standards Committee would complete action on this proposal at that meeting. But, if they did, it would be timely and go to Steering on September 27, 2006 and would be on the Agenda for the October 11, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting. That is the quickest that it could happen.
Professor Candice Hoke said that unfortunately that is too late. Part of the trouble that was well documented this summer in the Election Review Panel’s investigation is that the lead time to be able to qualify people and to train them is significant so unfortunately, we don’t have that time.
Professor Joel Finer commented on the language of the proposal. He inquired if Professor Hoke meant that students are excused from assignments, quizzes and other work due and that means that the due date should be later. Professor Hoke replied that if you are excused from work and if students are supposed to show up in class with work that day, they are excused from that but it is in light of the kind of policy that we already have which is that the faculty and the student talk about what work is going to be due and when it’s due. It is not mandated in this proposal. It’s just that the student still has to complete all of the work. The October 20 th deadline is so that there would be enough lead time for the student to have learned that he/she is going to qualify. An interesting little development is that there will be tests now for poll workers after their training and so when they find out whether they have passed, they can then negotiate with the faculty member well in advance.
Professor Joel Finer noted that on November 6, it literally says excused from assignments or doing the papers.
Professor Kenneth Sparks reported that he had originally worked on the Missed Class Policy and it was from this body that really said that the strong language is required and excuses had to be changed and softened from the original policy. Students were not excused from the assignments where they didn’t have to do them. Other language had to be used. Maybe this might be a little bit better if the language were a little softer where the students are not excused from laboratories or assignments but given every possible way that they can make things up. But, the students are not excused from assignments because that was one of the big issues of Faculty Senate when the Missed Class Policy was originally put together.
Professor Diane Steinberg stated that this isn’t the issue of the mechanics. Those can be worked out but rather she wanted to lend her support to the proposal. It is a great way of involving the students. Looking over the goals and strategies that were just passed by Senate, it seems to her that this policy fits very well under Goal 5: Valued Community Resource, Strategy A: Maintain and Expand Collaboration and Partnership Activities and Strategy B: Meet Community’s Educational and Economic Development Needs. It has been said that elections in this area are poorly conducted. It’s not a great sounding point.
Professor David Elkins was interested in point 3 in the proposal where it indicates “The CSU Center for Election Integrity will conduct a review of the pilot project”. He said that he would like to see the methods the Center would use to conduct this pilot project and if it could establish prior to this what it believes to be a success. For instance, how do we know if this pilot project has been a success and therefore constitute a change in the formal procedures?
Professor Candice Hoke responded that what she would propose that isn’t in the language and is not clarified here is that the Committees that would be wanting to receive the report could help to identify the metrics and the aspects that they want particularly studied, whether they want faculty to be surveyed, whether they want interviews, whether they want just reports from students – all of this would be negotiated later. It would not be, “our judgment” as a Center as to whether this is a success or not. It would be the committees’ judgment. We would just be bringing forward the data that the particular committees requested. That would be our commitment to Senate so that Senate could see this as an ongoing educational activity and assess whether we want to make any long-term changes. It would be premature for us to suggest what those metrics would be right now.
In response to an earlier question, Professor Hoke noted that as far as the excused assignments, keep in mind that 1 and 2 would apply and any CSU student who desires to exercise this option would have to arrange to make up the work that is due and the last sentence of number 2 says, “At all times the responsibility for making up coursework rests with the student.” She suggested inserting after the word coursework, “on due dates mutually agreeable rests with the student.”
Professor Hoke suggested that the language be amended to say, “that to encompass and respond to the concerns” because that would mean that if the student and the faculty member have agreed that the work has to come in before, it has to come in before the particular election date. If it comes in later, it is still later but it is a matter of agreement in negotiation which is in the spirit of the existing Missed Class Policy.
Senate President Gelman asked Professor Hoke to restate the suggested amendment and then asked whether the seconder will accept it.
Professor Hoke stated that the last sentence of number 2 with her amendment would read, “At all times the responsibility for making up coursework according to the schedule mutually agreed between the student and the faculty member rests with the student.” Professor Hoke went on to say that this does not mean that the student will be released in the sense of being excused, but keep in mind that there are faculty who decide that work is going to be due in the classroom on such and such a day and, if that day is on election day and that student cannot show up and present that work at that time, the idea is that it needs the flexibility with the faculty member to decide. She asked, “Must the work come in earlier or is it admissible later?”
Senate President Gelman asked the seconder if he would accept Professor Hoke’s change. Professor Jeff Dean stated that it seems that the confusion is the connection of the excuse from class attendance and the excuse from the assignment. So, rather than the proposal that was just made, he suggested that it would be better to separate things at that initial point in 1 and say: “(a) to excuse from class attendance during the period…, and b) to allow such students to make up any assignments, quizzes, or other work otherwise due during this period, as specified under point 2 (below).” Professor Candice Hoke accepted Professor Dean’s suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Professor William Beasley said that he was concerned about adopting a whole separate policy here. He asked, “Do we have the power to designate this as a university authorized activity?” because the policy on Missed Classes specifically says that it recognizes participation in university authorized activities and apparently some of the confusion on the part of the students stems from whether or not a poll worker is a university authorized activity that would allow them to legitimately miss class and make up the work.
Professor Hoke responded that this was certainly true. Part of the other problem though is that greater clarity is needed here and this policy probably does need greater clarity as far as procedures that students need to follow. Right now, if Senate does enact the kind of policy with the amendments that we have outlined, then the university has the ability to immediately say publicly, “This is the commitment of CSU. We have passed this policy from the Faculty Senate.” She went on to say that President Schwartz gets to talk about what his commitment is in the university administration and things can move like clockwork. Without that, it is a series of steps in individual negotiations that are going to be more cumbersome and time consuming and the impediments will be there. So, she understands the concerns absolutely. She just has to say to Senate that we are in an imperative situation and it needs to be addressed.
Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that she liked this proposal but she is wondering, how do we know that the students went? Is there a provision that we would know that they did this? Professor Hoke responded that part of the policy that she did not read into the record states, “Official documentation will be forthcoming from the Board of Elections.”
Professor Cheryl McCahon asked if she should assume, when looking at the form that is used, that the administrator would have the right, if the student was not in good standing, to not give that permission? Professor Hoke replied, “No.” This would be across the board. She did not include anything else. If Professor McCahon would like to make a friendly amendment because she is concerned about that, she (Professor Hoke) would certainly consider it. Professor McCahon stated that she was thinking of some of the people who just mentioned that the students just want the day off and they do have to make up things but the issue becomes the students in good standing are probably the ones that would want to do this. There would also be students who try to take advantage of it. Dr. McCahon added that the proposal is a great idea but she worries especially in the clinical courses when there are only a certain number of clinical days and she would be willing to have faculty say, “Yes, they can be excused if they are in good standing.”
Professor Candice Hoke said that she understands what Professor Cheryl McCahon is suggesting and if Professor McCahon would like to make a friendly amendment to add that in, that is certainly fine. The only point that she would mention is that many other kinds of activities that are encompassed and contemplated by the Missed Class Policy seem to be ones that are ongoing or commitments, whereas this is a one shot deal, absolutely one shot and they will have to know by October 20 th if they are scheduled or not. The students who failed their poll worker test will not be authorized and scheduled which is another reason why this is so important because it is expected that there will be many people who will fail the test.
An unidentified Senator asked for clarification. We are not asking here that this be made a university authorized activity. We are simply saying that in this particular instance, doing this work on this day, is something that would be treated in the same way that a university authorized activity would be treated relative to absences and make-up work, etc. So, she believes that this issue is being raised as to whether or not the university is going to put this on the list of approved or authorized activities but she doesn’t have that impression. It seems to her that what Professor Hoke is saying is to allow this to happen and use the same procedure for it that we use for university authorized activities.
Professor Candice Hoke asked if President Michael Schwartz could explain.
President Michael Schwartz indicated that he was not quite sure if he heard it clearly, but if she (unidentified Senator) is asking if this is a university authorized activity, it doesn’t need to be. All we need to say is that this is a process that we will apply to the Missed Class Policy just as we would students missing classes because of athletic competition or something else. However, having said that, from a personal point of view, he can think of nothing better than to say that this is a university authorized activity but he doesn’t want to force that.
Senate President Gelman stated that we now have a proposal that has been amended several times, a proposal dealing with student absences from class when students work as poll workers during the upcoming election that is a pilot program, and asked Senators if they were ready to vote on the amended proposal to amend the Missed Class Policy. The proposed amended amendment to the Missed Class Policy incorporating Poll Worker Absences was unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary Pro Tem
[Top of Page]