Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

October 11, 2006

I.  Eulogies for Masumi Hayashi (Art)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the October 11, 2006 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 13, 2006 Meeting
IV. University Curriculum Committee (UCC)
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. Report by the Interim Provost
VII. Report by the President of the University
VIII. New Business

PRESENT: Barrow, Belovich, W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Doerder, Duffy, Elkins, Finer, Gao, Gelman, Gross, Hansman, B. Hoffman, Hollinger, Jeffres, S. Kaufman, Keshock, Lehfeldt, McCahon, McNamara, S. Murray, Rashidi, G. Ray, Rom, Sparks, Spicer, Steinberg, Welfel, Ziolek. Barlow, Droney, B. Green, Heinrich, Markovic, Mass, Nuru-Holm, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Tumeo.

ABSENT: Bathala, Beasley, Berlin Ray, Ekelman, V. George, Gorla, Hoke, Loovis, Lundstrom, Martins, K. Mason, Nelson, O’Neill, Reichert, H. Robertson, Visocky, Weyman.

C. Alexander, Bonder, Boyle, Dillard, Dolton, Hanniford, Humer, Margolius, McLoughlin, Mearns, Mills, L. Mooney, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sadlek, Scherer, Spiker, Thornton.

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Sutton.

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

Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that we will begin with a Eulogy for Masumi Hayashi.

I. Eulogies for Masumi Hayashi (Art)

Professor George Mauersberger delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Masumi Hayashi. His remarks follow.

“Masumi Hayashi, Professor of Photography in the Art Department, was murdered on August 17, 2006 at the age of 60. She came to Cleveland State University in 1982 and played a vital role in developing our Photography program. She received a B.A. in Art from Florida State University in 1975 and an M.F.A. in Art from Florida State in 1977. She commenced her teaching career at Cleveland State.

“Masumi Hayashi was born in the World War II Gila River internment camp for Japanese Americans in 1945 and raised in the Watts area of Los Angeles. Throughout her adolescence, she worked at her parents’ store, Village Park, on Compton Avenue. She attended UCLA briefly before marrying a naval officer during the Vietnam War. She is survived by her son, Dean Keesey of Oakland, California, and a daughter, Lisa Takata, of Carlsbad, California.

“Masumi was a passionately dedicated photographer who brought an international reputation as an exhibiting artist to the Art Department and to our university. She exhibited widely in the United States and abroad, including shows in Japan, Israel, Germany, and Great Britain. Her work is included in numerous important museum collections including the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the Los Angeles County Museum, the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, and the Cleveland Museum of Art. She has work in many private collections as well, including that of the late Hollywood producer, Aaron Spelling.

“In addition to developing the Photography curriculum, various Special Topics courses, and supervising the darkroom and photography lab, Masumi played an important role in the development of the CSU Art Gallery, both as an advocate and as director of the gallery in its early days. She was supportive in pushing the Art Department into the digital age and in introducing computer graphics courses into the curriculum.

“Masumi was slight of build and extraordinarily friendly but she was also very tough and determined. She had no problem going to India on a Fulbright Fellowship and lugging heavy photographic equipment in order to create the particular kind of images she was after. She was diabetic all of her life, but she never let it stop her from doing things that she felt were important to her professionally, or otherwise.

“In teaching, she showed similar qualities. She had a friendly presence, but demanded that the students aim high and would not accept or reward mediocrity. Her goal was to teach students to make fine art in the medium of photography, not simply to show them the technical aspects of using a camera.

“In her work and in her life, Masumi Hayashi was committed to social justice. Since she was born in an internment camp for Japanese-Americans during World War II, she was dedicated to educating people about prejudice. She did this with her art, going back to photograph the sites of the internment camps. She also photographed prisons, toxic waste dumps, and other not beautiful venues. Her work was recognized as significant in part because of the awful beauty that she found in places that most people would rather not look at. As mentioned at the Beck Center tribute, her work rarely contained images of people. But the images often seemed to be about people or the things that affect them.

“She was commissioned to create artwork for an RTA bus shelter and was the face of a major Plain Dealer ad campaign several years ago. Just as she was committed

to social justice and to making art, she was also deeply committed to the city of Cleveland, as evidenced by where she chose to live and keep her studio. She was one of these people who moved into a tough part of town with the intention of making it better. She had a belief in the transformative power of art, to change people and to even change neighborhoods.

“Masumi was a fun person. She loved to laugh. Back in the days when the Bradley Building down on West 6 th was mostly artist studios and living spaces, my colleague Ken Nevadomi remembered that Masumi used to enjoy skateboarding up and down the hallways. She liked being around people and throwing dinner parties and was present at seemingly every art opening around town up until her death.

“It is always difficult to lose a valued colleague and a friend but in this case, it is especially difficult due to the tragic circumstances involved. The irony of someone who was so devoted to peaceful causes being taken from life so violently is hard to miss. It’s also very had to accept. Our memories of Masumi will always be a part of the fabric of the Art Department and of our identity. In terms of thinking about where we go from here as a department, we will be thinking about her.

“We will miss Masumi deeply in the Art Department, not only for her extraordinary talent, but also for her warmth, her humor, and her kindness.”

Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our colleague Professor Masumi Hayashi.

II. Approval of the Agenda for the October 11, 2006 Meeting

Before asking for approval of the Agenda for today’s meeting, Senate President Sheldon Gelman pointed out that there are no Minutes of the September 13, 2006 meeting for approval, Item III. Ms. Lunder was ill and Teresa LaGrange who was the acting Secretary at the last meeting felt that we should not rush it so Senate President Gelman apologized for the absence of the Minutes for approval.

With that modification, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. It was moved, seconded and the Agenda was approved.

III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 13, 2006 Meeting

See (II) above.

IV. University Curriculum Committee (UCC)

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.

V. Admissions and Standards Committee

Proposed Master’s Degree Program in Non-Profit Administration
(Report No. 5, 2006-2007)

Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the committee’s proposed adjustment of MELAB Score for English Language Proficiency. She noted that there are a variety of ways of establishing students’ English language proficiency and this proposal is to change the required scores on one of these tests, the MELAB or Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. A recent concordance study was done of the equivalent scores of the MELAB and varying versions of the TOEFL test. The proposal is that the current required MELAB score of 85 appears to be too high so the Admissions and Standards Committee is proposing changing to a required MELAB score of 77. She noted that there is a table on page two of the document. This is a little higher than the equivalent TOEFL score but listening comprehension is not included on the MELAB so that people felt it was important to establish 77 as the required score.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The Proposed Adjustment of the MELAB Score for English Language Proficiency was approved unanimously.

VI. Report by the Interim Provost

Interim Provost Mary Jane Saunders thanked everyone for inviting her to speak at Senate today. She expressed the hope that this would be the first of many dialogues between the Senate and the Provost’s Office this year. She said that communication is key to our continuing success in working together and she hoped that Senate would look at this as an opportunity to hear from the “horse’s mouth” and follow this up with any questions and any items members would like to continue to discuss.

Dr. Mary Jane Saunders noted that as President Michael Schwartz said at the Convocation Address and in earlier comments to the Senate, we are really concentrating on student success. By this it is meant giving our students the opportunity to succeed, the tools to succeed, and an engaged faculty and staff to enable their success. We know that this year recruitment and retention are top priorities for the institution. To be successful in this, we need full participation by the faculty.

Dr. Mary Jane Saunders started with discussion about Vision Unlimited, the new Strategic Plan. As everyone knows, the Senate approved this plan and the administration has also approved it. The Committee is going to be asked to post it on the web site, to identify champions for each of the strategies, and to have the departments and colleges look at their own planning process in light of this new university-wide strategic plan. She would like the departments to take those tactics and strategies and look at their own goals for their departments and work within that greater plan to push their departments forward. Provost Saunders stated that several other initiatives are going on on the university-wide platform. Everyone knows or should know that one of our most important recruiting tools is the web. It turns out that this is important not only for our international students but for our domestic students as well. We are not selling our best product on the web very well. That best product is really our faculty; however, the strengths of our faculty, their scholarship, and their teaching and research interests are not promoted well at the present time on the web. When she became Interim Provost, Dr. Saunders took that opportunity to try to learn more about the faculty across the university and she found that it was very difficult to get information about them on the website. It is very unevenly presented across departments and colleges and units. She said that we are far better than what appears on the web as a selling point about our institution. Dr. Saunders reported that she asked Dr. Vijay Konangi, Vice Provost, and Ms. Tommie Barclay of IS&T to work together on a plan to come up with a way to present CSU faculty on the web in a uniform, accessible and presentable manner. They put together a team with representatives from all of the colleges and it is being called The Faculty Web Profile Project. What they are looking for is a central repository about the faculty, a face page that is similar for each faculty member, links to pages behind that so that the faculty have great flexibility in what they are putting on the web; an ability for it to be edited either by the faculty member or by someone administrative in the department. This will be very important for us, not only in recruitment of graduate students who often look for particular professors in particular research areas, but really to promote our institution to the outside community and to our undergraduates as well. It is hoped that as everyone learns more about that project, they will be on board and line up for photos to be taken.

Interim Provost Saunders further commented that another issue in recruitment and retention is a strong and vibrant undergraduate population. One population at CSU that has a long tradition of serving well are adult students, who return to complete their degrees. It also turns out that this is a very large potential market for the university. It certainly is central to our mission and it is something that we already have several programs designed to serve. She has put together a team chaired by Professor Michael Wells to talk about everything from recruitment of these students to transcript evaluation, to marketing cohesively the umbrella programs that we have, with the intention of having each unit that offers these kinds of returning adult degree programs to look at it and make it user friendly and pedagogically sound. The degrees she was talking about are things like the Bachelor’s in Health Sciences, the Bachelor’s in Liberal Studies, the Bachelor’s in Urban Affairs, the new proposed Bachelor program in Leadership, Women’s Studies, Black Studies – these are the kinds of programs which serve our community well and that we should take advantage of and really highlight in a coordinated fashion.

Dr. Saunders reported that another program going on university-wide is called the Classroom and Technology Scheduling Project. Mr. Fred Kantz from the Provost’s Office is leading this and Professor Robert Mensforth from the Academic Space Committee has been a very active member. This is going to utilize a computer program called Classroom 26 which we actually have had access to. It is going to help with scheduling all of the classrooms since it is a very flexible program that allows us to link courses and set up cluster scheduling; all the classrooms on campus will be inventoried in this and used. Classrooms won’t be held by colleges; they will be available to faculty across the university and faculty can make requests for particular classrooms based on distance from their home base, technology, and any other kind of program that they need to link to. That program is well on its way thanks to IS&T and their team and it will be rolled out some time this fall. The first trial will be scheduled next summer. She stated that we are using the technology fee to help upgrade our classrooms. Twelve classrooms were updated before the start of fall due to the emergency of switching a lot of classrooms because of construction problems. There is a three-year plan to bring all of the classrooms up to acceptable technology standards. This year, we are setting aside about one-third of the technology fee money that goes to the academic side to get these classrooms upgraded for technology.

Interim Provost Saunders stated that the Center for Teaching and Learning was divided into two areas: there is now a Center for E-learning and a separate Center for Teaching Excellence. The director search is ongoing for the director of E-learning and it is hoped that this will allow us to integrate E-learning better into programs, use it for degree completion, offer more short-term programming on the web, stand alone programs and there soon will be an updated Web CT version 6. There will be faculty funding available to develop and offer on-line courses. The new Center for Teaching Excellence, which was historically called that in the past, will have new life concentrating on classroom instruction, non-lecture modes of learning, and looking at particular target audiences for its training of new faculty, part-time faculty, large class instructors, and developmental course instructors. There is a good program already set up for the fall.

Interim Provost Saunders reported that Academic Advising has been a big issue at this institution. In recent restructuring, Academic Advising has moved back to the academic side and is reporting directly to the Provost. What we need to do is to hear about what works and implement. We are talking about a variety of advising models including satellite offices in the classroom areas, offices in the dorms, integrating tutoring, peer advising, using graduate students as college and departmental advisors, and mandatory freshman advising. We need to have a good discussion of the roll of faculty in advising. The first thing that unites a student with an institution is a connection with a faculty member. We all have office hours every week and we need to use them effectively to reach out to our students; make sure they get the services and the help they need to succeed in your classes.

Interim Provost Saunders noted that as a follow-up, one thing the faculty can help us with is integrating students into departmental activities. It is well known that the closer the students are to the professors in the discipline they have chosen, the more likely they are to stay in school and stay engaged with the institution. Faculty are encouraged to oversee honors groups, conduct departmental seminars, organize departmental pizza parties and other out of classroom experiences. The Administration encourages the faculty to really look at engaging the students who have selected your discipline as their discipline. She reported that she heard today, as a good example of engaging a student, that Professor David Ball has co-authored a paper with one of our honors students which has been published in a chemistry journal. The student is a junior here and part of that first cohort of honors students. That is the kind of success we would like to point to.

Interim Provost Saunders reported that one of the on-going problems in retention is retention of academically strong students. Surprisingly, about one half of the students we lose between years one and two are in academic good standing. We need to be able to figure out who those students are, what they are basing their decision to leave CSU on, and hopefully turn that trend around and get them to stay at CSU. Students are looking for value and we’ve got to incorporate value in that first year and the second year to retain these gifted students. Professors Elizabeth Lehfeldt and Rodger Govea are going to take this on as one of their projects with the Task Force on Student Success. Any suggestions that anyone has about what we do to reach out to those accomplished students we want to retain here will be much appreciated by everyone.

Interim Provost Saunders noted that she mentioned earlier about the web as a primary source of information for all students. Again, this is somewhere where the faculty can help. Sit at night and go through your web site and see if you were an incoming student to this institution or a student shopping around for a college or university, do you sell yourself? Do you sell the programs you have worked so hard to develop? Do you sell your department? Do you sell your curriculum to those students? We need to look at that public face of the institution, the web, and do everything we can to make sure that it is reflecting accurately the hard work we do here and the wonderful programming that we have.

Finally, Interim Provost Saunders reported that CSU just heard that Dr. Gitanjali Kaul, Vice Provost for Planning, Assessment and Information Resource Management, submitted a Title III Grant for $2 million for five years – a model for engaged student learning and we also just heard that we received $2 million. This was a proposal to get learning communities as part of the Gen Ed initiative up and running, money for faculty development to put those learning communities together and to learn how to teach in that manner, money for technology for smart classrooms, money for advising, and a built-in endowment to continue this into the future. It is wonderful timing to receive that and we look forward to using both that money and the $500,000 per year we have in trio funding for at risk students that can really make a difference in retaining and graduating our students here.

Interim Provost Saunders stated that she looks forward to working with everyone this year. We are always open to hearing good news about students and programming and faculty and she has made it a point when she sits at the Presidential Staff table to every time have something good and something memorable to pass along about our achievements, the faculty and staff and students. We have a terrific organization and we just need to get the word out. She thanked everyone for letting her speak at Senate and said she was open to any questions.

Professor William Bowen noted that Interim Provost Saunders was open to good news and wondered if she was open to bad news as well (not that he had any to offer).

Interim Provost Saunders reported that our bad news is declining enrollment and that really will start to affect us dramatically. We took major budget cuts this year. Luckily this enrollment is flat but we really need to grow our enrollment and think about what we can all do to do that. This is going to be everybody’s responsibility. That is the bad news from the Provost’s Office. We’ve got to look that square in the face and figure out what we are doing wrong and turn it around.

VII. Report by the President of the University

President Michael Schwartz said that he wanted to talk to Senate a little bit today about an item in the newspaper last Friday and then about an item on the editorial page today. Some years ago, three maybe, we started talking with other universities in this area about something called a shared services agreement. The idea was to see if we couldn’t pool our resources and do our accounting, purchasing, payroll, etc. in common to see if we couldn’t save some money. Those conversations were with the University of Akron and Kent State primarily, because Youngstown State had decided on a different platform so they weren’t really part of these discussions. As you all know, we were on PeopleSoft and the University of Akron was too although they were operating on an IBM system and Kent State was about to pick a system; they didn’t have one so they had the opportunity to come into the shared services with us if they chose. As it turned out, Kent State opted for a different system from PeopleSoft and the conversations about shared services didn’t go terribly well. It would have required, and still would, some State funding to make it all happen. In any case, more recently, the conversations were revised between CSU, the University of Akron and Loraine Community College in a very different environment from the one in which these conversations had been going on two, three years ago. It became fairly clear to us that if we were to go forward, Cleveland State would not be the winner in this. In fact, Cleveland State’s position rising out of the ashes of PeopleSoft I, then became very advanced in comparison to the other institutions with whom we were talking. Therefore, although we offered ourselves literally as the vendor to the other institutions to provide the service, for whatever reason that opportunity was rejected in favor of some third party vendor down the road doing this for all of us. Frankly, that would have cost us a fortune. Part of the problem with all of that was because the culture of inter-institutional relationships in Ohio has not exactly been a culture of real collaboration but fundamentally the culture of competition. The Regents’ general view has always been a kind of a free marketer point of view. President Schwartz said that his point of view has always been very much the opposite which is to say that public institutions have much more to gain from collaboration that we do from that kind of competition. That kind of competition is profoundly wasteful of the public’s money. We can do a much better job for our students if we could offer them broader academic opportunities rather than narrower ones and our capacity to compete for research dollars is always going to be better if we can combine departments rather than separate them. The good news comes and can come from deep levels of collaboration.

Dr. Schwartz reported that the Trustees here agree. Some of our Trustees initiated conversations with Trustees at the other institutions to talk in fact about deep collaboration in one form or another. The shared services business was initially on the table as part of this too. President Schwartz said that in the business of collaboration, everybody has to walk away a winner. When a project turns out to be clearly to our detriment financially, we are not going to do that, but most projects don’t have to be that way. For example, President Schwartz said that he believes that the construction of virtual departments in the region or around the State is quite possible these days. It is something that we had better start thinking about. The proposal that we are making is to get together in this region, Trustees and Presidents, with the help of the members of the General Assembly and to look for every conceivable way that we can to find productive collaborations in which everybody walks away a winner and nobody is hurt. But mostly, when we talk about everybody as a winner, that means the students ultimately, undergraduate and graduate.

President Schwartz noted that last Friday, our Trustees passed a resolution calling for this kind of inter-institutional collaboration in Northeast Ohio and it was very well received at the Plain Dealer and we are waiting to hear how well it may or may not have been received by our sister institutions. He said that he thinks we will have these conversations, if for no other reason, than the General Assembly will demand it. It is also the case, as far as he can tell, that there is a real will in the General Assembly to help to make this kind of conversation among the institutions a reality. President Schwartz said that he wanted everyone to know that this is an on-going conversation that had been held. There are active discussions still underway. He said that he will keep everyone posted as this goes along. One of the reasons our Board of Trustees passed the resolution that it did was it’s really easy to hold a meeting every couple of months and talk about these things, but something had to nudge it forward and we thought the best way to nudge this forward was to bring it into the light of day and let other people have a view of this idea and see where it goes. So, no promises to see how things happen but he promised one thing, it will stir the pot.

President Schwartz commented that there is another set of discussions going on as well. Yesterday in Columbus, the Presidents of the four-year institutions, their Board Chairs for the most part and members of the Ohio Board of Regents met to discuss the idea of something called The Compact with the General Assembly. This compact would have to do with some guarantees of funding for higher education under the circumstance that higher education set certain goals for itself over a period of perhaps six years that were in concert with the kinds of goals for Ohio that members of the General Assembly might want to work with us to specify. The Interim Chancellor, Dr. Gary Walters, led this conversation. President Schwartz thought it was very interesting and very fruitful although no really specific plans were put on the table but he was sure that they will be in the very near future. He stated that he will keep Senate posted on this contract 2012 and we will see how that goes. The real issue is that we have a budget coming up and we have a statutory tax expenditure limitation in place. We don’t know what that is going to mean for us yet but, nevertheless, we would like to get some understanding if not guarantee from the General Assembly that probably higher education will be reasonably well taken care of.

President Schwartz said that everyone should know that the conversations that are being held by both parties have to do with changing the funding so that the funding goes to the student rather than to the institutions. This is essentially a move toward a voucher program in higher education. On the one hand, this is not something to worry about because the way the formula works, the money follows the student anyway. So if a student chooses to major in physics at CSU or physics at Bowling Green, the same State dollars follow that student. Students aren’t supposed to be penalized for making institutional choices. The funding is supposed to be about the same. At least that is the idea behind the formula. The formula has never been fully funded so who knows what the reality is but that was the general idea. Vouchers are not too different from that except that they would probably remove from the institutions any buffering in hard times so if you suffered an enrollment decline in some given year, that money is gone and there is no safety net which we currently do have. When the Interim Provost said earlier today that enrollment is everybody’s business, if the State shifts to this model, which is essentially a higher education voucher model, then we will have to be thinking very carefully about how we communicate the real value of this institution over and against the others because we will have to become very successful at enrollment growth here very soon. But that is true under the current system so there is no way out.

Professor Sylvester Murray noted that President Schwartz had indicated on the first project that collaboration was important and it sounds as if he were talking about collaboration among universities in business to save money. He noted that the President had indicated that the Trustees and the Presidents will get together. His question was, are the chief academic officers a part of this team so that it will appear to be collaboration to enhance education in addition to collaboration to save money?

President Schwartz stated that Professor Murray had asked a very good question. That is what he has been arguing about in these conversations. Some of it is to save money but not all of it. His concern is that a little less than saving the money, how do we do the best job we can for our students? That’s the first thing. For example, if we were to say take our Computer and Electrical Engineering department and put it in a collaborative relationship with the same department at the University of Akron and merge into that somehow the Computer Science program at Kent State and maybe even entice CASE into it, we would have in Northeast Ohio a Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science program larger than the effort at MIT. But, separately, we don’t have anything that even remotely resembles that. Now if we could do that as a virtual program and our students have access to courses all over the region or State or whatever we could do, wouldn’t they be better off than they are now? The answer is, sure. How many of those can we do? How many really important research projects are out there for which we can compete better if our colleagues at these other institutions in the same or very similar disciplines could all collaborate on a single proposal rather than fighting each other for the same federal buck. It is not necessarily savings. There would have to be some kind of investment in some of these programs so if we are going to save any money to invest, let it be on the business side of things. But the investment has to show real academic advantage for the students at all of these institutions otherwise it looks good but it doesn’t do much.

Professor Michael Spicer questioned another proposal President Schwartz talked about and that was should students be able to take these vouchers to private institutions? President Schwartz replied, “Yes.” Professor Spicer continued stating that this would have quite profound implications for CSU. President Schwartz stated that this is the same idea you see being proposed for the slot machine money. That money could be taken by the for-profits, public institutions, and private institutions. It is essentially voucher money.

VIII. New Business

Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked if there was any new business. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 P.M.


Barbara Hoffman
Faculty Senate Secretary




[Top of Page]