II. Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2007 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2006 Meeting
IV. Senate Nominating Committee
V. Academic Steering Committee
VI. Committee Elections
VII. University Curriculum Committee
VIII. Admissions and Standards Committee
IX. Report of the Interim Provost
X. New Business
PRESENT: Barrow, Belovich, Bowen, Cagan, Dean, Duffy, Ekelman, Elkins, Gelman, Gorla, Gross, Hansman, Hoke, Hollinger, Kaufman, Lehfeldt, Lundstrom, Martins, Mason, McNamara, Murray, O’Neill, Rashidi, Ray, Reichert, Rom, Spicer, Steinberg, Visocky-O’Grady, Weyman, Ziolek. Bonder, Dillard, Droney, Hanniford, Heinrich, Jeffres, Markovic, Mills, Saunders, Spiker.
ABSENT: Bathala, Beasley, Berlin Ray, Doerder, Finer, Gao, George, Hoffman, Humphrey, Keshock, Loovis, McCahon, Nelson, Robertson, Sparks, Welfel.
Barlow, Boyle, Bufford, Ghorashi, Green, Humer, Margolius, Mass, McLoughlin, Mearns, Mooney, Muscatello, Nuru-Holm, Reed, Rosentraub, Sadlek, Scherer, Schwartz, Thornton.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at approximately 3:15 P.M. He noted that we did not yet have a quorum but if there was no objection we could proceed with the Eulogies and hopefully the absent Senators would appear.
Senate President Gelman noted that at the end of the second Eulogy, he will ask everyone to observe a moment of silence. Senate President Gelman said that the first Eulogy is for Earl M. Curry, Jr. who was his colleague and his friend in the Law School. Professor David Goshien will deliver the Eulogy.
A. Eulogy for Earl M. Curry, Jr. (Law)
Professor David Goshien delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Earl M. Curry, Jr. His remarks follow.
“Earl Moss Curry, Jr. was born September 20, 1933 in Logan, West Virginia and grew up in Pineville, West Virginia. He earned a bachelor’s degree and a law degree from West Virginia University, a master’s degree in retailing from the University of Pittsburgh, and a master of laws degree from New York University Law School.
“Earl taught at what is now the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law of Cleveland State University for twenty-seven years, serving for several of them as an Associate Dean of the Law College. He taught widely across his various fields of interest including property law, estates and trusts, future interests and jurisprudence. He helped to pioneer the teaching of alternative dispute resolution here, building upon his expertise and experience as a labor arbitrator, an interest which he pursued avidly until only a few months ago.
“Shortly before his passing, Earl wrote, with advice and information from other family members, a short history of his family forbears. He traced his male ancestors to one John Curry or Currie who was born in 1736 in the State of Virginia. Earl’s paternal grandfather, LVS Curry married Laura Bell Farley whose Mother was a McCoy; it was her brother Randolph who led the McCoy Clan in the famous feud with the Hatfields. Earl recorded the fact that grandfather LVS Curry and four of his brothers married five Farley sisters; he then supposed that at the time there was ‘no one else to marry that you weren’t related to.’ As a result, Earl’s Dad had around forty double-first cousins. Earl’s Father, known as ‘Moss,’ owned a furniture store in Pineville, West Virginia and taught young Earl much about the importance of charity which Earl practiced throughout his life.
“Earl’s mother was Olivia Margaret Johnson Curry whose family Earl was able to trace from North Carolina origins to Kentucky, with a two-year hiatus for homesteading in Idaho before they moved back to West Virginia. His mother was a school teacher and principal who lost her then job because of being pregnant with Earl; always the professional, she kept a close eye on his education until he could leave home and get away to college.
“Earl Curry was an avid reader and had a keen interest in history, especially that of the English monarchy. His property course necessarily included much medieval British land law and he taught his students that no one could understand the intricacies of feudal reality law unless he or she ‘knew the names and dates of all of the kings and queens of England.’ In our many discussions of real property he proved that to me, an old former teacher of the subject, many times over.
“He had a quite, wry, almost British sense of humor and especially enjoyed telling any backwoods joke which had a twist to it so that the stump-jumper outwitted the sly city slicker – never more so than when the latter came from Harvard!
“He loved and he knew geography, on this continent and much of Europe. (Earl said that this knowledge was necessary to his understanding of history.) His cases as a well-known and much recognized labor arbitrator in this country took him to many small factory towns too small for an airport, so Earl learned all the closest airports and the best highway routes complete with shortcuts, historic inns worth traveling to stay in, and the best restaurants whether multiple-starred fine dining or just the best roadside barbecue joints. The amazing thing is that he was always at ease and at home in either one. His European travels served to show his wife Ginny and their girls, Sarah and Lucy, some of the finest cathedrals, hotels, and restaurants of that historic continent.
“Earl was always one to puncture pomposity if he thought he observed it in his students or his colleagues and he was known for his contrarian attitude where organized religions were concerned. He called a spade a dirty shovel and reveled in ‘taking down a peg’ those whom he considered too haughty for their station or this world. He was easy-going, well liked, and easily approached; Earl was a refined, informed, educated, invested, interesting academic and practical version of the old-fashioned salt-of-the-earth.
“He would, I hope, not mind too much if this Eulogy closed with two quotations from the Pirkei Avot, a tractate of the Mishna known in English as the ‘Sayings of our Fathers.’ Earl might not like the proximity of the source to an organized (even if early) religion but then he always liked a good quote and I would like to believe that both applied to Earl Moss Curry, Jr.
“Avot ch. 4 #1 Ben Zoma said, ‘Who is wise? He who learns from all men, as it is written’ (Psalm 119:99) ‘I have gained understanding from all my teachers.’
“Avot ch. 4 #15 Rabbi Elazar Ben Shammua used to say: ‘Let the honor of your student be as precious to you as your own; and the honor of your colleague as the respect due your teacher; and the respect towards your teacher as your reverence for G-d.’
“We shall miss Earl Curry, Jr.”
B. Eulogy for Walter C. Leedy, Jr. (Art)
Professor George Mauersberger delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Walter C. Leedy, Jr. His remarks follow.
“Walter Leedy was born in Dearborn, Michigan. He received a bachelor’s degree in 1965 and a master’s degree in 1968 in Architecture from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Later he completed his doctorate in Art History at the University of California, Santa Barbara and at the Courtauld Institute of Art at the University of London, England. He began teaching at Cleveland State in 1972 and served two terms as the Art Department chair. At 64, after an extended struggle with Leukemia that never stopped him from teaching, he died last fall.
“As one of his Art Department colleagues hired by him in 1987, when he was chair, said, ‘I was also lucky to call Walter a mentor and a friend.’ Walter was a terrific mentor, eager to make all new hires comfortable and productive. He was one of our most dedicated university citizens and loved to maneuver the corridors of the university. For the benefit of the department and CSU as a whole, a fearless gadfly, he was prepared to battle causes relating to objects such as buildings or rediscover community murals as well as ideas regarding curriculum and other academic matters. Many administrators and officials probably wished they had a gadfly swatter when they received his emails, letters and calls, but he persisted and did so to Cleveland and the University’s betterment. Walter was dedicated to the City. He bought a house decades ago in East Cleveland and with his architectural background and clean taste, rebuilt it into a gorgeous place with beautiful gardens that gave him great pleasure.
“Walter was a warm and helpful listener, connecting people with others of like interests, writing the strongest and best letters of recommendation, and always fair in his actions and decisions. He was extremely generous with his time. Anyone he knew who was buying a home could rest assured that Walter would be willing to inspect it and uncover its structural faults, foibles and virtues. He, with other faculty members and neighbors, was unfailingly helpful to our College’s Professors Carey and Langworthy when they faced difficult terminal illnesses offering food, conversation, and a variety of practical assistance. His family and friends were exceptionally important to him and he had a very good heart combined with an impertinent outlook on life. He got a kick out of human nature and he was a close observer.
“Walter’s true devotion to his students was remarkable. Many have gone on to positions, publications, and internships that may not have been if not for his attention to their work – insistence on quality, encouragement, and introductions. He shared his knowledge not only through his classes but through public lectures at all kinds of venues – his topic usually one aspect or another of Cleveland’s architectural history. His vast collection of Cleveland postcards became an aunty for many to enter this subject and he exhibited them at the Cleveland Art Museum, the University, and many other venues.
“Walter created an endowment for the Library when he knew he was dying and additionally saw to it that his books and other related materials would have useful homes and help others to continue their scholarly pursuits.
“Walter seemed most satisfied and happy with his life and accomplishments. His life well-lived provides some comfort for his loss. We will miss Walter deeply in the Art Department. Thoughts of his leadership and dedication to the City and our University should inspire us all.”
Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our colleagues Earl Curry and Walter Leedy.
Senate President Gelman noted that he had attended the memorial service for both of those who were eulogized today and both services were infused with art and photography and were beautiful and he came away with the idea that if you can’t be an artist as Walter Leedy was, you should marry an artist which Earl Curry did.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that he had a few announcements before the meeting begins. He noted that the Faculty Senate Secretary, Professor Barbara Hoffman, has been out ill. His understanding is that she will be returning to campus tomorrow but her doctor’s orders precluded her from returning today although she wanted to. The Senate Vice President, Leo Jeffres, is sitting in the back of the room and not the front and that is because he is now Dean Leo Jeffres, the Interim Dean of the Graduate College and no longer eligible to serve on Senate. Also, he mentioned that Professor Cheryl McCahon, who is a Senator and the Steering representative from the College of Education is out ill and will be for at least a month. Professor McCahon is also the chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee.
Senate President Gelman referred to item (III) of the Agenda which is approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2006 meeting. He noted that we were unable to get the Minutes to Barbara Hoffman before she began her medical leave and she wasn’t able to review them so he asked that approval of the December 6, 2006 Minutes be postponed until the next Senate meeting. Also, President Michael Schwartz is not at Senate today which means that item (X) Report of the President of the University will not be possible.
With those changes, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. Senator Andrew Gross moved and Senator Stephen Duffy seconded the motion and the Agenda as revised was approved
See (II) above.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that the Academic Steering Committee discussed a parliamentary question and he wanted to relay to Senate the outcome of that discussion. It was unclear to him how to proceed if a motion was made during the new business portion of the meeting. Clearly new matters can be discussed, inquiries made, etc. during the new business portion of the meeting. But it wasn’t clear whether a motion could be made especially since the Senate approves the Agenda as we just did at the beginning of the meeting. We had a case earlier this year in which a motion was made from the floor by Professor Candice Hoke involving absences in order to serve as an election worker. In that case, he had concluded that it would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to entertain a motion but he hadn’t told Professor Hoke that. So we proceeded in fairness to her as though it required only a majority and since the Senate was unanimous in adopting her measure, it didn’t look like the difference between a majority and two-thirds mattered. But the Steering Committee’s advice, which he is not obligated to accept but will, was that if somebody had new business and wanted to present a motion which was not on the Agenda, that Senator should move to amend the Agenda when the Agenda is presented and the Agenda can be amended by a majority vote. However, if the Agenda was not amended at the start of the meeting, it would require a two-thirds vote to entertain a motion during the new business portion of the meeting. He hopes no one asks him whether a decision to require a two-thirds vote could be overridden by a majority vote.
Senate President Gelman noted that a number of Senators and observers have commented that it is impossible to hear Senators speaking when there is no amplification so he asked that any Senator who wishes to speak proceed to the microphone at the back of the room unless a report is being presented in which case the Senator would come to the podium. Speakers will be recognized in order unless an inquiry is directed to a speaker in which case that speaker hopefully could move to the front of the line.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that after consulting with two of the members of the Nominating Committee who were here before the meeting, there is one nominee to replace Professor Leo Jeffres as Senate Vice President.
Professor Walter Rom, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, reported that Professor Steven Duffy from the College of Engineering was the only nominee and he has not received any additional nominations.
Senate President Gelman noted that under the Green Book, two nominees are required for each office. This rule has been rigorously not followed by the Senate over the past few years. Earlier this fall, the Academic Steering Committee referred this matter of the deviation between the written rule and our practice over the last four or five years to the University Faculty Affairs Committee and we are awaiting a report from the Faculty Affairs Committee. That committee had no knowledge that there would be a vacancy at this point. As written, the Senate rules allow for additional nominations only if they are made in advance of the meeting, but in light of the fact that there was no notice of the Nominating Committee’s report, he would entertain additional nominations from the floor.
Hearing no nominations from the floor, Senate President Gelman wondered if there could be a motion to approve Professor Stephen Duffy as the Senate Vice President by acclamation. It was moved and second and Professor Stephen Duffy was unanimously elected as the Senate Vice President.
Senate President Gelman stated that the next two items come directly from the Academic Steering Committee rather than from a standing committee of the Senate.
Senate President Gelman reported that the Ohio Faculty Council is a body which was created by the Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents. It consists of two members of each of the four-year institutions of higher education in Ohio. It meets generally once a month. The Ohio Faculty Council’s rules stipulate that each university will have two representatives, one of which will be the person who holds the position of Senate President and the other will be elected by, in our case, the Faculty Senate. The rules also call for an alternate, although most of the universities in fact do not have a designated alternate.
A. Proposal to Change the term of service for elected representatives to the Ohio Faculty Council and to elect an alternate representative
(Report No. 16, 2006-2007)
Senate President Gelman stated that the first motion from the Academic Steering Committee is partly technical. Our terms run from September 1 through August 31 but he noticed on the Ohio Faculty Council web site that the terms are supposed to run from October 1 through September 30. There has been absolutely no consequence from the fact that our terms are not the same but it was felt that it would be a good idea to align our written rules with the Ohio Faculty Council’s. The Steering Committee is also proposing that we elect an alternate faculty representative – that we create that position and so that comes as a motion from the Academic Steering Committee. The motion was seconded.
There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked members to vote. The proposal to change the term of service for elected representatives to the Ohio Faculty Council from September 1 through August 31 to run from October 1 through September 30 was unanimously approved.
B. Proposal to Establish two-year terms of office for faculty representatives on the Strategic Planning Committee, the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, and the Capital Planning Advisory Committee (Report No. 17, 2006-2007)
Senate President Gelman noted that this second proposal from the Academic Steering Committee requires a little bit of explanation. Those members who were on Senate in 2003 or 2004 will remember that a body called the Strategic Planning Committee which was an ad hoc committee appointed by the President recommended the creation of a University Strategic Planning Committee, roughly the body we have now. That report was presented to Senate in 2003 and it was not approved at that time; rather the matter was sent to the University Faculty Affairs Committee. In 2004, the Faculty Affairs Committee presented a report and attached to the report were the recommendations of the original ad hoc committee. That report called for a Strategic Planning Committee, the kind that we have and, in fact, that report was adopted and created the process which is now in place. The difficulty is that the Faculty Affairs Committee report in 2004 did not establish terms of office for members of the Strategic Planning Committee. The ad hoc committee report had said three-year terms but the Faculty Affairs Committee report which was adopted said nothing. What’s more, the adhoc committee report in 2003 recommended the creation of a Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, which would include faculty members and administrators and also a Capital Planning Advisory Committee which would include faculty members and administrators and these committees were to be created and operate as part of the strategic planning process. The Faculty Affairs Committee did not agree and it did not recommend that these committees be part of the strategic planning process and it said nothing about their terms of office. Unfortunately, no one then had said anything that counted about their terms of office. The ad hoc committee report proposed three-year terms but the ad hoc committee report wasn’t adopted. The Faculty Affairs Committee report simply assumed that these committees existed as they did because they were functioning albeit not as part of the strategic planning process. The long and the short of it is that nobody in the university has any idea what the term of office is on the Capital Planning Advisory Committee. Somehow or other there seems to be a two-year term on the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee and that two-year term may have been decreed by Ms. Violet Lunder but he is still not sure where it came from. The University Strategic Planning Committee voted that members of that committee should serve two-year terms which would be non-renewable but it seems a little odd for a committee to create its own terms of office. This was discussed at the last Steering Committee meeting and, at the suggestion of President Michael Schwartz, Steering is now proposing that there be two-year terms of office on each of these committees – that is the University Strategic Planning Committee, the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, and the Capital Planning Advisory Committee and furthermore that there be a two consecutive term limit so that after two terms somebody would be ineligible to stand for election although if they sat out a term they could then again run. This parallels the rules that apply to the Senate committees in many instances. There is currently a member of the Capital Planning Advisory Committee who is in his third year. It’s our intention that that person be allowed to finish his term. It is also the intention of the Steering Committee that all other members of these three committees serve two-year renewable terms as he just described.
Senate President Gelman reported that technically, since these committees are joint creations of the faculty governance process and the President, our adoption of this proposal would require the approval of the President and the Provost. Since the President made this suggestion, it would not be expected that we would have any particular problems obtaining his approval.
Professor Stephen Duffy inquired if the terms are staggered or will the committees turn over in mass every two years. Senate President Gelman replied that the University Strategic Planning Committee terms are staggered and there is no intention to change that. The PBAC and CPAC terms are staggered as well.
There being no further discussion, Senate President Gelman called for a second to the motion of the Steering Committee and the motion was seconded. He then asked members to vote. The proposal to establish two-year terms of office for faculty representatives to the University Strategic Planning Committee, the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, and the Capital Planning Advisory Committee with representatives ineligible to serve more than two consecutive terms was approved unanimously.
Senate President Gelman reported that Professor Rodger Govea was the elected faculty representative to the Ohio Faculty Council. As many of you know, he is on leave and in Asia. Senate President Gelman had an email exchange with Rodger Govea and Rodger cannot serve this semester on the Ohio Faculty Council but he indicated that he would serve as a permanent representative again only if we were desperate.
Senate President Gelman noted that the first election is to fill the unexpired term that Rodger Govea was serving. This term, thanks to the measure Senate just adopted a minute ago, expires September 30, 2008. Steering also proposed that Senate elect a representative for the two-year term that begins October 1, 2007. If that is not done now, it will have to be done in two months. Steering felt that we might as well do it now. It did cross the Steering Committee’s minds that we might elect the same person to both the unexpired portion of Rodger’s term and to the full term.
Professor Kevin O’Neill nominated Professor Brian Ray (Law) to both the unexpired term that expires on September 30, 2007 and the full term that begins on October 1, 2007 and expires on September 30, 2009. There being no further nominations, the Senate elected Professor Brian Ray to the unexpired term and the full term by acclamation.
Senate President Gelman asked for nominations for the alternate position on the Ohio Faculty Council. Hearing no nominations, Senate President Gelman nominated Professor Rodger Govea for the new alternate position. There being no further nominations, the Senate elected Professor Rodger Govea as the alternate representative to the Ohio Faculty Council by acclamation.
Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that he has a number of items of business for the Senate’s consideration.
A. Proposed new Doctoral Program in Adult Development and Aging jointly with the University of Akron (Report No. 18, 2006-2007)
The proposed new Doctoral Program in Adult Development and Aging which is being offered by the Psychology Department here will be joint with the University of Akron’s Psychology Department. This is an existing Psychology Ph.D. Program at Akron and the Psychology Department at Cleveland State University is being invited by Akron to work together on it. It would give both institutions degree granting authority in this area. Because it is an existing program, it doesn’t require the full PDP second reading process that normally would apply to a new program. There is material in the meeting packet describing the program, its requirements, and the various justifications for it. The UCC discussed this proposal at considerable length. The committee met on two separate occasions with members of the Psychology Department, with the Graduate Dean, at the time, Mark Tumeo, and with the Interim Dean of the College on various occasions. After quite a lot of discussion, the UCC is recommending it to Senate. In the memorandum of conveyance to Senate, UCC made a number of suggestions with respect to the program that emerged from their discussion which reflected concerns and issues that came up in that discussion but which the committee felt weren’t sufficient to prevent it from being brought forward.
Professor William Bowen wondered about the strength of the faculty and asked if there is a strong enough faculty. He said that he was unaware if Psychology faculty has a strength in clinical and in experimental and asked if this is an area where there is plenty of faculty strength. Professor Meiksins responded that those are questions that the UCC asked as well because they had the same perception that Professor Bowen has. The UCC conveyed that point and inquiry to the Psychology Department and they assured the UCC that they had made several hires in this area recently including someone who has externally funded research in the area and so they believed that this was an area of strength and one in which they intended to grow stronger in the future. He noted that Professor David Grilly of the Psychology Department is present to respond to questions.
Professor David Grilly stated that they have, first of all, a number of faculty who have worked in various areas that comprise the area of adult development and many of them are core faculty like Professor Benjamin Wallace who is one of the older ones. He stated that they have some in between and they have some new people like Professors Kathy Judge and Conor McLennan who have done work in the whole age group. We have Professor Boaz Kahana who has been doing research in this field for over thirty years, having something like 69 publications in the area. We can document that the faculty are not only capable but are actually engaging in research that encompasses this entire area. So, not only have we hired new people, but we had people on board before we even started this program. One of our first priorities next year in hiring is to hire an experimental psychologist, adult aging neuro-psychologyst or something along those lines. The fact is that we do have a number of faculty that encompass this area. They have written many, many articles and books and so we are pretty substantial in terms of the credentials for covering the course work and handling the students that we expect to come in.
Professor Rosemary Sutton asked where this document goes after Senate given that it is quite a different path then other new programs. Professor Meiksins responded that it goes next to the Board of Trustees. He said that he was not certain whether it subsequently needs to go to Columbus or, since it is an existing program, it stops at the Board. Someone will have to find that out.
Professor Sutton said that she asked that question because the document apparently is responsive to UCC’s concerns and she is used to seeing documents that are a package of themselves and this document isn’t. It is good that UCC responded and she applauds the UCC for that, but we may not like having two separate pieces – one which is the original proposal and one of which is a response to the proposal and it seems to her that it would be nice if these two could be integrated in some way before it goes out of our hands here at Cleveland State. Professor Meiksins replied that there is a perfect excuse for that merger to occur because the document has to be transmitted to the Board in electronic form. He would certainly have no objection, assuming that there were no substantive alterations to the proposal, to a redrafting of it to incorporate the various pieces into a single coherent whole if that is what Professor Sutton was requesting. He believes that the Graduate Dean’s Office actually has custody of the electronic copy of the proposal.
Professor Alan Reichert asked if the program is a lock-step program where the students start all at one time and where you bring in a cohort and you stay in that group. Professor David Grilly responded that you start with two students from each institution. They go through that first year, and then the next year two more come in, and the next year two more are added, and the next year two more are added, etc. so at the end of four years you have a total of eight. Then, two of those first four that started come out. The first year, for example, you have four new students. It is not like you have a course for four students. All of the courses are already on the books and are being taught to various students in Psychology and so doctoral students will be among those students. In the second year, the first that were admitted and the next four that were admitted would take a course together so it is not like four starting would go through a particular sequence except that you combine cohorts if you will or four-somes and they then will take courses.
Professor Reichert noted that Professor Grilly had said that the students would take existing courses. Professor Grilly commented that most of them are on the books and they are staffed and taught. For example, Statistics, is a course that is required of several of our master’s programs, social psychology, but some of the courses will have to be [indecipherable]. Again, these courses will not be limited to the students in the program. We have, for example, a Counseling Psychology program in the College of Education. We would like to take some of these types of courses and there may be others as well that students might want to take so even though we might have to develop a new course, it wouldn’t just be for a couple of students.
Professor Reichert asked if they will be doctoral or masters students. Professor Grilly replied that they start the first two years where they have to pass certain criteria before they get into the doctoral status. Professor Reichert commented then that the first two years are in the master’s. So they start as an undergraduate, get an undergraduate degree… Professor Grilly said that they start as an undergraduate when they come in and their first two years have basically a master’s program with the expectation that they will pass a comprehensive exam and then they can move on to the next level.
Professor Reichert asked if there is graduate assistance. Professor Grilly replied that they will serve as graduate students. In some cases, there is the expectation that they will be teaching once they get into the doctoral level and that they will be teaching courses in their particular field at the undergraduate level. They will also be serving as graduate assistants.
Professor Kimberly Mason noted that in reading this proposal it states that the University of Akron has already had a struggling percentage of students having an interest in the program and she is wondering what would this collaboration be as far as number wise and increasing the interest in this program or is there any research data that shows out there that students are wanting this type of program and the changes that everyone is indicating to say that this would be a productive partnership for Cleveland State University. Professor Grilly responded that our colleague, Colleen McMahon, was a member of our two-person team who originally started to investigate various options for the department and so she probably could address that.
Professor Colleen McCahon noted that there are several parts to Professor Mason’s question. First, regarding the lack of student interest, they had a more narrow focus and they found that it was harder to market their program. So the draw was for another partner to broaden the Development in Aging and also that would bring in a bigger pool of students living in the Cleveland area. That is generally what their drive was. They also added some attrition through retirement and deaths and things we all experience. That is why you lose some students who don’t finish their dissertations. That’s why they were moving at that attrition and trying to problem solve. The appeal for Cleveland State was not only the metropolitan area and our reputation as Cleveland State and the strength of our Psychology Department, but also our relationship with the Cleveland Clinic and other medical partners with training centers and service centers who work with older adults and they are natural partners for research and the training of the community.
Professor Kimberly Mason commented that she is in the Counseling Department and she knows with them developing the APA Counseling Psychology program and having the doctoral students come in to hear only two coming in our program where we needed a bigger number to justify our faculty it seems a little uneven and unequal. But some of the concerns that we have in the Counseling Department are even having those partnerships with community organizations and having students have opportunities to go into those internships and having licensed professionals that would be able to supervise them. That has been an issue for us in the Adult Developing and Aging curriculum with a lot of our counseling students wanting to go into that population but are very limited because of that. How do you see overcoming that with your doctoral students needing internship hours for them but not having them properly supervise professionals inside of those adult agencies that they have access to.
Professor Colleen McCahon stated that the beauty of this program is that it is a research program. It is not an applied program to the extent that folks can graduate and go out to licensure. Professor Mason commented that they then would not be able to go out to do any licensure at all. Professor McCahon agreed that they would not be able to do that. This program is modeled after Division 20 which is development and aging. It is a research division, it is a research program. One of the issues that came up at Akron where they lost some students, even though it said applied to aging, it didn’t actually say political or counseling, but people still thought, “I can do a licensure; I can serve the licensure exam.” In fact, that was inaccurate but it won’t be inaccurate for our program. We will not need licensure in colleges to supervise; we will need research and that is easier to come by than licensure.
Professor Alan Reichert asked to follow up since that was his question whether it was a clinical focus or a research focus. So, it is envisioned that these students stay for four years from start to finish or at the end of the fourth year do they finish course work and are now in dissertation? Professor Grilly responded that the students should be finished with their dissertation at the end of four years. Of course that’s a rosy picture. We all know that things happen in research. That is our goal though that the students will be working on their dissertation in the fourth year and hopefully finish. These students are on assistantships so they are all full-time students.
Professor Jeffrey Dean asked about credit hours and assistantships. He said that he believed it is the case that graduate assistantships usually do nine hours of tuition credits and yet the proposed program is asking or expecting them to take thirteen and sixteen credits per semester. He asked how that will fit together. Is there an agreement for the Graduate College to pay thirteen and sixteen credits per semester? Professor Grilly responded that it is the same cost. It is the same if you are taking thirteen credits or sixteen credits. Professor Peter Meiksins noted that this is not true for graduate; if undergraduate, yes. An unidentified Senator said that it is per credit hour for graduate.
Professor William Bowen noted that there is another limit. At least he has run across it in his doctoral program.
Professor David Elkins asked, “Whenever you are completing a dissertation you enroll in the dissertation credit hours so how is that to be distributed among the two academic institutions?” Professor Meiksins responded that his understanding, at least as it was explained to the UCC, is that the CSU students register for that course here if they are seeking the degree through the CSU program. He asked if that was correct. Professor Grilly noted that Professor Meiksins’ question was about the allocation of dissertation of credit hours of a CSU student and would CSU get credit for those? Whichever institution enters in it, that’s where the credit goes. If it is eight hours of dissertation or twelve or whatever and if the student entered with us that is what we have.
Professor Kathleen McNamara reported that one of the members of the proposal committee had comments offered on an earlier question. Professor Richard Rakos stated, in terms of the students in the assistantships, the master’s students are all enrolled for about 15 – 16 hours. Professor McNamara stated that for further clarification, it may be decided within the department how those hours are allocated and so most of them are compensated full-time.
Professor Meiksins stated that as he recalls, the Graduate Dean did commit some additional student support monies at least to the initial years of this program and that was something the UCC asked about. Beyond the first two or three years, that commitment is not there but originally that will depend upon how successful the program is.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that he had talked with Peter Meiksins during the discussion and he thinks that Peter would propose that if the documents are changed, it would be subject to the approval of the chair of the University Curriculum Committee and if he had a problem, he would refer the proposal back to Senate or to the UCC or realistically work it out without Senate hearing about it. With that change, we have a proposed new doctoral program in Adult Development and Aging jointly with the University of Akron. He asked Senators to vote on the proposal. The proposed new Doctoral Program in Adult Development and Aging jointly with the University of Akron was approved unanimously.
Senate President Gelman noted, as it must be obvious to everyone, we can’t get the rear microphone to work. If anybody knows anything about microphones and would like to look at it, he would be very grateful. Failing that, he would say that members of Senate and the audience should not be shy about asking speakers to speak louder. He has not had a problem hearing and he has been at the far side of the room for most of this discussion. If there is a problem, we could simply have all speakers come up to the podium where there is amplification equipment.
B. Proposed 2 + 2 Program between Lakeland Community College and CSU, College of Science, Bachelor of Science in Health Sciences (Report No. 19, 2006-2007)
Professor Meiksins noted that this is a proposal to create a 2 + 2 agreement between Lakeland Community College and the Health Sciences Bachelor’s of Sciences program. This is essentially identical to the program that Senate approved earlier between Health Sciences and Cuyahoga Community College. It simply creates a smooth transition for a student who completes one of the health science related programs at Lakeland and allows them to transfer here. Professor Beth Ekelman and her colleagues did a lot of work identifying courses that are offered at the community colleges that we might apply to our undergraduate degree programs. This program simply mimics the earlier one. The University Curriculum Committee felt this was not problematic in any way and thought it was a great idea. The UCC commended Beth Ekelman for the hard work she put into this proposal and recommends it to Senate.
Senate President Gelman stated that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a 2 + 2 program between Lakeland Community College and CSU’s Health Sciences BS and asked Senators to vote. The proposed program was approved unanimously.
C. Recommendation on 4-credit hour, one-meeting-a-week classes
(Report No. 20, 2006-2007)
Professor Meiksins noted that this item first came to the Academic Steering Committee’s attention as a result of the report of the Task Force that was working last year on three versus four credit hour courses. The Task Force ultimately issued a report which contained effectively three recommendations – two of those recommendations concerned the General Education Requirement and those portions of the report and its recommendations are being dealt with in connection with the General Education Reform proposal and will be brought to Senate more or less at the same time since it makes sense to have those be discussed in tandem. Professor Meiksins noted that there was one item, however, which wasn’t specific to General Education courses and the UCC undertook to review it and to make a recommendation with respect to it. That recommendation concerned the use of four credit, one session a week classes. There are a number of courses which meet for a four-hour block once a week. The Task Force’s recommendation reflected the perception that these courses are pedagogically problematic; that students’ ability to pay attention to lecturing for four hours is limited and that it is probably the case that many of these four hour courses don’t provide as much material to the student as do courses which meet twice or more times per week. The UCC took the Task Force recommendation, and, before reviewing it, inquired of the various departments and programs across campus whether they use this format and if so, what their reaction to a proposal to get rid of it would be. The UCC received a large number of responses from programs which use the format all of which strongly opposed the recommendation on various grounds: that it would require them to not simply change their course formats but to radically overhaul their curriculum because it would not be possible to offer their program as they currently do unless they were able to use this format; that courses that are offered on Saturdays in this format be eliminated; that evening programs in which students need to be or wish to be full-time are built on this format. The perception was that splitting four credit hour courses into twice a week sections also is problematic because it would mean offering courses at 6:00 P.M. and at 8:00 P.M. and historical experience at CSU is that attendance in 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. classes is far lower than it is in 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. classes and so the fear was that students would simply take fewer hours with enrollment consequences delaying completion. The list went on and on. On the more positive side, a number of people argued that they were in fact able to use this format creatively acknowledging that four hours of lecture was not a good thing but that they were able to create modular classes essentially in which portions of the time were devoted to lectures and other portions to on-line activities or hands-on activities and that this actually turned out well, in their opinion. The College of Education made this point emphatically. The College of Education also surveyed their own students, many of whom expressed extreme displeasure at the idea that these courses would go away. Although students do not like change, nevertheless, it was a serious piece of information that had to be taken into consideration. All that said, the UCC felt that it really could not recommend the Task Force proposal that these courses be abolished. Instead, the UCC adopted and is proposing a set of recommendations that essentially take the form of the three points listed at the end of the memo included in the meeting packets.
One is that programs that use this kind of course need to work more carefully and more extensively with the Center for Teaching Excellence and other bodies on campus who might be able to advise them on ways of using a format creatively. Professor William Beasley, who is involved in that activity, has already expressed an interest and willingness in doing that. There are various options here including using on-line components to correspond to at least one or more of the hours in the course so there may be ways to use the four hour format that don’t involve sitting in rooms for four hours. A second recommendation is that the Colleges, as they develop and review new programs, need to ask questions about the use of four hour courses. When programs propose new courses in this format or if new programs are proposed that use this format, there should be questions about the wisdom of the format, about how it will be used, whether there are alternatives, because clearly it’s not desirable to have lots of these kinds of courses. It’s difficult to do a good job with them. Finally, the UCC undertakes to review any new or significantly revised programs that come before it that make use of this type of course. The UCC doesn’t see individual courses but we do see new programs and so it is the UCC’s feeling that we should look carefully when a program with this kind of format comes forward. The UCC will advise to use this format carefully and conservatively. Professor Meiksins stated that he was not sure that this is an action item but this is simply the outcome. He supposed that the Senate could, if it wanted to, overrule the UCC since the UCC only recommends. If the Senate wishes to endorse the original Task Force recommendation, that is all right, but the UCC’s recommendation is that we not do that.
Professor Alan Reichert asked if the proposal only applied to regular term, fall and spring semesters, or did it apply to summer classes as well? Professor Meiksins responded that the UCC wasn’t looking at summer classes in particular. The recommendations seem to have to do with the regular semesters. He honestly doesn’t know what the situation in summer is.
Professor Reichert stated that he is in the Business School and in a six-week term in the summer, a four hour class meets eight hours a week so we meet twice a week from 6:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. for five and one-half weeks. It is a very common format in the summer in the College of Business where there is a large attendance in the summer.
Professor Meiksins said that what some programs do with four hour courses that meet in the evenings in the summer is to put them in a ten week session or the eight week session to stretch them out over a longer period to get the number of meeting hours down to three because then you can do twice a week for three hours.
Professor Kathleen McNamara pointed out that adult students who have full-time jobs come here in the evening to further their education and their needs should be a priority.
Professor Michael Spicer added that we don’t have a monopoly in this area and we face competition from a number of different programs. It seems rather senseless to straightjacket us by forcing everybody into the same sort of a two or three times a week format.
Professor Sanda Kaufman added that she didn’t see the need for uniformity because we do different things in the different colleges and so we may have different needs that call for different types of classes. Uniformity is not required unless it is a scheduling matter.
Professor Meiksins noted that the UCC was in general agreement. What the Committee did feel is that it also should not be a routine decision to simply adopt this format and to say, okay, what we are doing is we are going to talk longer which is how some faculty approach these courses and that was the origin of the complaint. He agreed with Professor Kaufman that it presents opportunities for more creative use of the time.
Professor Sylvester Murray suggested that since this item was placed on the Senate Agenda as a recommendation, Senate ought to take action to accept the recommendation. Professor Meiksins said that he is not sure what the parliamentary status of this is.
Senate President Gelman said that when we put this item on the Agenda we might have been clearer about what we were thinking. One thing the Steering Committee was thinking was that if the credit hour committee wanted to present its views at this point and perhaps even offer a substitute motion, they could and that is why Steering made it an Agenda item. Steering also thought that the Senate should be informed about what had happened. If the chair of the University Curriculum Committee wants to make a motion that the Senate endorse this recommendation, he could. If he doesn’t, at this point it would be appropriate for anyone to make a motion directed to this subject, but he didn’t know what Professor Meiksins’ intention was.
Professor Meiksins responded that he hadn’t really thought about that. The UCC did talk with Professor Barbara Modney who is the chair of the Task Force and the UCC notified her that this was the nature of our discussion. She was invited to come to Senate today to speak either in favor or against or to make whatever comments she had and she demurred. She essentially said, “whatever.” It might actually be reasonable to endorse the motion or to vote it down simply so that we have closure. At this point, Professor Meiksins moved on behalf of the University Curriculum Committee that Senate endorse this recommendation. The motion was seconded.
Professor Jeffrey Dean asked if the recommendation referred to the comments or the responses or does it refer to the original recommendation. Professor Meiksins responded that what is being recommended is that Senate not adopt the Task Force recommendation but instead to encourage the three points outlined at the end of the document.
Senate President Gelman stated that to be absolutely clear, Senate is voting on whether or not to endorse the memorandum included in the Agenda meeting packet with the subject, “Recommendation on 4 credit-hour, one-meeting-a-week classes,” and although the memo describes a recommendation from another body, it ends with three suggestions and those are the suggestions that we are voting on. Senate President Gelman then asked Senators to vote on the recommendations. The Senate unanimously endorsed the University Curriculum Committee’s recommendations.
Senate President Gelman commented that as veterans of the Senate from last year will know, Peter Meiksins had an almost unbroken record of presenting proposal after proposal with no discussion at all. Today, we had a record discussion when everyone agreed with Peter. Maybe in the past everyone disagreed with Peter. Professor Meiksins replied that no one ever talks to him.
Proposed Change in Undergraduate Nursing Admission Requirement
(Report No. 21, 2006-2007)
Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that this is a relatively simple proposal. Nursing wishes to add an interview to its selection process. As many of you may know, competition for the nursing program is high in the undergraduate program and there were some concerns that nurses need to have good technical skills but they also need to have some competency in communication. If anyone has had to talk to a nurse recently on an official basis, you might understand how important that is. Therefore, Nursing wishes to add a group interview process. They are not trying to make fine distinctions among people applying into nursing but rather to really make sure that people have at least minimum competency skills. She noted that there is a rationale for that in the meeting packet. It has an outline of the kinds of questions that would be asked and at the end of the package is the language that would be changed in the catalogue.
Professor Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady asked to define the language. She referred to “Demeanor and behavior” and the other things that students will be evaluated on. These are students going into an undergraduate program so potentially high school students are applying or are they already… Professor Noreen Frisch, chair of the Department of Nursing, replied that actually these are people who have already met prerequisites to nursing and they are usually at least at the sophomore level. Professor Visocky-O’Grady noted then that the students would be about twenty or so. Professor Frisch said that these students would probably be about twenty-two. The age of our average student is about thirty.
Professor Visocky-O’Grady stated that the reason she inquired about the age is because the first question under “Demeanor and behavior” is, “Is the candidate’s demeanor and dress appropriate for the situation?” She just wondered what that means because she always sees nurses in scrubs. Professor Frisch said that the students are being asked to come to the interview dressed for professional activity. Professor Visocky-O’Grady noted then that it would be for a job interview. She then asked if that language could be clarified.
Senate President Gelman stated that although we have a detailed account of what the College of Education proposes to do, what we are being asked to approve is the addition of an interview.
Professor William Bowen indicated that he was concerned about the precedent this sets. If anybody wants to do an interview in the admission process, why does it have to come to Faculty Senate? Senate President Gelman stated that if he understands correctly, the current admission requirements do not include an interview and the Admissions and Standards Committee of the Senate are charged with reviewing proposed changes to the admission requirement. All Senate is doing is approving the addition of an interview to the admission requirement.
Professor Beth Ekelman agreed with Professor Bill Bowen. She said that her department used to do interviews but they don’t do them anymore and she did not recall that they had to go through any approval process for that. If we want to change GPAs or GREs scores required for admission, does that have to go through this whole process with Faculty Senate? Senate President Gelman stated that he doesn’t have the precise language of the Green Book in mind but the Admissions and Standards Committee and the Senate are charged with approving admission requirements. The College of Education very graciously thought the addition of an interview was a substantial change which required committee and Senate action. He can’t say he thinks that they are wrong.
Professor Sylvester Murray wondered if the interview is going to be absolutely required for admission, it might be that the student who has made an application and lives in Lexington, Virginia technically will have that additional cost to come up here to be interviewed to be told whether he/she is going to be admitted to the class. He would not want that student to have that additional cost for admission. Does the student who lives in Korea have to come here to be interviewed in order to be admitted? This is costly.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that one of the earlier questions by Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady suggested some concern about what an admission requirement might entail. He admits that it is not the most momentous change but there is a change.
Professor McNamara stated that it is important to address the bigger question of whether or not these things need to come to Senate. We do interviews and have for years. We have interviewed people on the telephone from Israel. Professor Murray said that with this requirement you have to look at their address. Professor McNamara noted that what they are saying is that we are not approving the details of the proposal. We are simply approving the decision to require an interview and not the particular makeup or the criteria, she assumed, although it is included in the proposal. We are not accepting the proposal; we are simply accepting the change in requirements to include an interview. Professor Murray said that he would like them not to require an in-person interview.
Professor McNamara noted that the proposal did not say in person. The proposal is saying an interview.
Senate President Gelman suggested that if it would help, the Admissions and Standards Committee could be asked to look into the question of the level of detail in the admission requirements.
Professor Rosemary Sutton stated that we are sort of looking at two things. On the one hand, this proposal did not need to come to the Admissions and Standards Committee so Nursing could have gone ahead on their own and, on the other hand, there is some criticism about the proposal that people don’t want and want to vote against. It doesn’t seem that we could be doing both of these things simultaneously. Either it comes to Senate and we vote on it or they (Nursing) do their own thing. Dr. Sutton felt that at the moment we just have on the table this narrow proposal in which Nursing wants to add an interview. Members of the Admissions and Standards Committee had asked a number of questions about the nature of the interview trying to make sure that it was fair. The Committee has talked to Maria Codinach, director of Affirmative Action, about this and how to go about it and people thought it was important and that was one of the reasons we thought the nature of the interview might be important and that the detail about it be included. But, we shouldn’t be messing with this at all which is Professor Bill Bowen’s point. Professor Bowen stated that if the demonstration of an initiative establishes precedent, and if we approve this now, then it means that every time anybody wants to add an interview, Senate has to start approving it or we have to go back and say sometimes we have to decide under what conditions it does need to be approved. He agreed that both cannot be done at the same time. Resolve the more general issue first and then bring this proposal back to the Senate if it is resolved in a way that would require the Senate’s vote.
Professor Sutton asked Dr. Noreen Frisch, director of Nursing, if it would give Nursing any trouble or problems with the next class if the proposal was delayed. Dr. Frisch replied that a class is being admitted to begin in Spring and so they would have to defer until the next class. Nursing was told that this proposal had to be brought to the Admissions and Standards Committee and to Senate in order to implement the interview so Nursing is waiting to hear what needs to be done.
Professor Jeffrey Dean said that if the Senate wants to set University standards for every program that would be one thing but it is always open to each program to ask for additional material or to set score levels and that sort of thing. This would be his suggestion on how to handle it. In this case, it would be an interview that would be an additional piece that not every program needs, but this program has decided to do this. Professor Sutton wondered if Professor Dean was saying that this is equivalent to changing the minimum scores. Nursing thought it was qualitatively different to add an interview to the process. Continuing, Dr. Sutton stated that for the sake of Nursing, what she would like Senate to do is to vote on the narrow issue but, then if we decide we don’t need to do that again, we come back and talk about the broader issue. Nursing has some real concerns that they are admitting students who have really good technical skills but who don’t have minimum competencies in communication. Dr. Noreen Frisch stated that the reason Nursing wants to do this is that the Nursing programs are so competitive, they are turning away about four students for every one student that they take and they need to be sure that the people they take have a basic level of competency and verbal and behavioral communication. There are some things that they can teach students when they are admitted but there are some things that are basic competencies so that is why Nursing wants to do the interview.
Professor Michael Spicer commented that following Professor Bowen’s suggestion, he would suggest that the Nursing program has the right if it wishes to require interviews unless this body specifically forbids it.
Senate President Gelman noted that we have a motion from the Admissions and Standards Committee but it is open to anyone to offer a substitute motion. It would not be a good idea just to leave it in limbo, and, without a substitute motion being made and adopted, we would have to proceed to vote on the motion that has come from the committee. If we turn it down, it would be a very good idea to stay here longer and figure out what happened because Nursing wouldn’t know whether we meant they can go ahead without our approval or whether we were saying they can’t have interviews and we don’t want to leave a part of the admission process in that kind of limbo.
Professor Bill Bowen stated that following his colleague Dr. Spicer, he would then make a motion to the effect that Nursing is perfectly within their right to include an interview in the selection process in the Undergraduate Nursing Admission requirement. This policy will allow all academic programs to employ admission interviews unless specifically prohibited. So he would move that Senate not forbid programs from giving interviews as part of the process of admitting students.
Senate President Gelman stated that the motion is that Senate refer this back to committee and that Senate also declares that this policy will allow all academic programs to employ interviews in their admission process without Senate approval. Professor Bowen stated that Senate President Gelman was correct. The Motion was seconded by Professor Andrew Gross.
Senate President Gelman stated that Senate now has to vote on whether to substitute Professor Bowen’s motion for the motion which came from the Admissions and Standards Committee. If Senate votes favorably, then we won’t vote on the motion from the Admissions and Standards Committee but we will vote on Professor Bowen’s motion. Senate President Gelman then asked how many Senators favor substituting Professor Bowen’s motion for the motion offered by the Admissions and Standards Committee. Senate President Gelman announced that Professor Bowen’s motion has now been substituted for the Committee’s. He then asked if there was any further discussion of Professor Bowen’s motion. There being no further discussion, Senate President Gelman asked Senators to vote on the substitute motion. Professor Bowen’s substitute motion was adopted with one negative vote.
Dr. Mary Jane Saunders said that she was just so pleased today about some of the actions of Senate like adding a Ph.D. program. This is really the kind of thing that is going to move the institution ahead academically and she thanked everyone for their support. Just to put it in a little bit of reference, we have six Ph.D. programs at Cleveland State University. The University of Akron has four Ph.D. programs in the Psychology Department so that’s the kind of differential we have across the State in numbers of programs so she is pleased that this department has been so research active and so productive and is hopefully going to get their Ph.D.
Dr. Saunders also mentioned the kind of activity that Professor Beth Ekelman is doing here with 2 + 2 affiliation agreements. Dr. Saunders and President Schwartz have been talking to everyone about our need to continue recruitment activities and retention activities, and these are the kinds of creative approaches which are going to help us move students from the community colleges into a four-year baccalaureate degree and she encouraged everyone to look at that kind of model for many of our programs.
Dr. Saunders commented that she came here from Florida and Florida has a State-wide articulation agreement where it’s just across the board. If you graduate with a certain kind of AA degree, you are admitted to the universities which tend to be ones that you would think would have a lot of lower division, like Florida State and the University of Florida, but they tend to be upper division and graduate. So as we add these affiliation agreements, it’s great.
Dr. Saunders indicated that she had a couple of updates. Learning communities are getting off the ground. We had about 45 faculty exhibit interest in either being a part of the learning community or already teaming with other people to do that. She said that she just came from a meeting of the Conference of the American Association of State Colleges and University Provosts, and learning communities are one of the things that are appointed nation-wide as a key element in retention of students especially at-risk students and everyone knows that we have so many of those. She is so pleased that the faculty stepped up to this. We are hoping to roll out anywhere between six and eight of these which will give us about 150 to 200 students of a very different freshmen class experience and hopefully really involve the faculty in a new kind of pedagogy too so that is just wonderful news. We are going to have to get those clusters organized by March 1 st – that’s the first day of the orientations when students are going to come on board and so we really want to have those ready to offer to them so that they can decide which ones appeal to them.
Dr. Saunders reported that she has some terrific news from the Honors and University Scholars about our applicants to Cleveland State this year. She read a few numbers that Dr. Barbara Margolius gave her a couple of weeks ago but these might be changing right about now. We have 30 applicants to our Honors Program that have a 30 ACT or 1300 on the basic SAT or in the top ten percent of their high school class. That’s three times the number of students that we’ve had in that kind of cohort apply and those are referred to nationally as academic superstars so we are really seeing a tremendous growth in the applicants for the Honors Program. Nine of them are valedictorians and two more are salutatorians and one third are in the top ten students of their graduating class so that Honors Program really is going to change some of the complexion of our undergraduate program and then the University Scholars Program brings along the next tier of students. The expectation was 50 students with that next level of ACT and class ranking and standardized testing and we have already had 250 apply at this point that meet the relatively high criteria for the University Scholars designation. This is really good news. We also have a lot of early applicants; everyone may have read in the newspaper that we are up 45 percent in applications against last year at this time and the Admissions Office is doing everything it can to turn those applications right around into admissions. The turn around time for transfer students has gone from six weeks evaluation of transfer to 48 hours and that’s the kind of thing that really makes a difference for students making a decision. Our goal now is to take those admitted students and turn them into enrolled students. Because we know so much more about these students so much earlier in the process, Provost Saunders is going to ask everyone to work with them. She has already talked to the Deans and the Deans are getting lists of admitted students to the Colleges. We need the right people to start calling these folks, keeping in contact, and getting them to commit to come to Cleveland State. With Mike Droney’s team making all these numbers and names of students and phone numbers available to the Colleges, we are really hopeful that the faculty will pitch in too and make this something that helps us get a much larger entering freshman class than we’ve had the past few years. And, of course, she talks money all of the time and that translates into dollars that we can use to support our academic endeavors across the board.
Dr. Saunders noted that one thing the Strategic Planning Committee really emphasized was undergraduate engagement with faculty and with the academic endeavor. With that in mind, some money has been put aside centrally in the Provost’s Office to help support undergraduate research this coming summer. Everyone should know about this from their Deans. It is going to be done at the College level because the Colleges are all so different in their expectations and abilities and their view of what undergraduate research projects are. One thing that she would like everyone to be thinking about is doing this in teams – that extra learning about working in a team is valuable too. So a pot of money has been set aside. We should get the word out to everybody and a pretty early response has been asked from the Deans so that everyone can get the nuts and bolts of the program going of how students apply. She would like everyone to remember that many, many of our students are economically disadvantaged and one thing we want to embed in these programs are stipends for the students. We don’t want this just to be available to students who can afford to take time off in the summer and don’t have to work. So as we think about these kinds of programs, we should think about what kind of stipend the student should be getting and what kind of commitment time they are giving. We are open for creative innovative ideas.
Dr. Saunders reported that one thing coming up really quickly on our agenda is the movement of developmental math and English into the academic side. This is important to all of us. This is really a large portion of our entering students and again, at the conference, she was very lucky to go to a session exactly on this topic. It’s really important that those developmental courses be tied to the expectations to work well in the freshmen level, 100 level, math and English courses. It can’t just be divorced from them and the outcomes from those classes have to predict success in the next level of class. We are going to be looking for some people really to take some ownership of this; we’re going to embed them in the Math and English departments, but it is a university-wide problem and university-wide hands need to be put on this to make it work. We are going to look for some champions to work with that and take that on as something that they can do that’s meaningful for the institution and for our students.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked if there was any new business.
Professor Andrew Gross noted that the hour is late and he will make his comments short. His remarks concern the Recreation Center and Woodling Gym. Everyone may recall that last fall he asked Vice President Jack Boyle to talk about this issue and he (Jack Boyle) refused because the AAUP filed a grievance. The AAUP has now withdrawn the grievance for the only reason that they have been informed. Be that as it may, the next step is to quote from President Schwartz’s New Years briefings. He emphasized medical check-ups and he emphasized fitness and health care as well. The best way to do that is to stay fit and exercise. What he is working on with Ms. Clare Rahm and Sheila Patterson and others is to try and make the Woodling Gym available for limited hours for a limited fee because the fact is that this administration has moved us from zero, which was the previous cost of using Woodling Gym, to about $400 if you want a locker and a towel as most of us do at the new Recreation Center. So being a critic, he was put on the Recreation Center Advisory Committee. But, his goal is to have limited access at Woodling Gym for limited fees to all faculty and staff. He is asking this administration and specifically Ms. Clare Rahm and Ms. Sheila Patterson and possibly Ms. Alice Khol and Mr. Jack Boyle both, to allow us to use Woodling Gym between 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. for a limited fee and, to put his money where his mouth is, he has already dedicated $125 to that cause. He would like the administration to act on this request and specifically, if everyone feels strongly, to make their voice known.
There being no further business, Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked for a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary