I. Approval of the Agenda for the May 2, 2007 Meeting
II. Report of the Faculty Senate President
IV. University Curriculum Committee
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. Annual Reports
VII. Report of the Provost
VIII. Report of the President of the University
IX. New Business
Barrow, Bathala, Beasley, Belovich, Cagan, Dean, Doerder, Duffy, Elkins. Gelman, V. George, Gross, Hansman, Hoffman, Hollinger, S. Kaufman, K. Mason, S. Murray, Rashidi, B. Ray, G. Ray, , Spicer, Steinberg, Welfel, Weyman.
Droney, Heinrich, Jeffres, Margolius, Markovic, E. Mills, Nuru-Holm,M. J. Saunders, Thornton.
ABSENT: Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, Ekelman, Finer, Gao, Gorla, Hoke, Humphrey, Keshock, Lehfeldt, Loovis, Lundstrom, Martins, McCahon, McNamara, Nelson, O’Neill, Reichert, Robertson, Rom, Sparks, Visocky-O’Grady, Ziolek.
Barlow, Bonder, Boyle, Bufford, Dillard, Ghorashi, B. Green, Hanniford, Humer, Mass, McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Mooney, Muscatello, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sadlek, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Spiker.
ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Gordon Pershey, Poznanski, A. Smith, Sutton.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:15 P.M.
Acceptance of the Agenda for May 2, 2007 was moved, seconded, and approved.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that there is food in the back of the room and everyone should feel free to partake.
On the matter of the quorum, he stated that there is some sense in the land that the lack of a quorum is okay as long as nobody calls for a quorum. It is his understanding that, as a presiding officer, it is his duty to insure that there is a quorum. If the Senate would care to instruct him otherwise, he would of course follow that direction. Otherwise, as soon as one person leaves, the meeting will be over.
Senate President Gelman stated that it was the intention to ask people to use the microphone when they spoke, but for one thing, we need the microphone up front and, second as everyone may have noticed, nobody would use the microphone at the last meeting. So, he would say that if anyone cannot hear somebody when they are speaking, just shout out louder. He doesn’t know of any other way to deal with that issue in this meeting room.
Senate President Gelman reported that there was a second Strategic Planning Retreat that occurred on Monday, April 30, 2006. Perhaps because of the time of the year when it was held, attendance was down. There were some Senators there. The issues discussed will be brought to Senate and to University officers in the fall. There will be a report. As an interim matter, he reported that the issues presented for discussion were really second order issues. One was metrics to measure progress under the plan. One was integrating the Strategic Plan with the Master Planning or construction planning. Finally, there was integrating the Strategic Plan with the budget planning. He was a little dense speaking for himself. He really didn’t see any problem. He thought the solution was to have the Strategic Planning Committee tell the master planners and the budget planners what they thought but we will get a report more nuanced than that.
Senate President Gelman noted that the next item involves our annual elections.
He noted that Senate Secretary, Barbara Hoffman will conduct the elections. He then turned the podium over to Senate Secretary Hoffman.
Senate Secretary Hoffman commented that she was just as likely as anybody else to get this completely confused. She started out by pointing out that the list everyone received of people who expressed a preference for nominations to particular committees is not a nomination in and of itself. It’s a list of potential nominees. Everyone should have a memo from Senate President Gelman that says, “Committee Elections at May 2 nd meeting,” and then on the second page it says, “Committee Preference 2007-2008.” These are potential nominees; they are not nominees until someone nominates them. She also noted that those names marked with one “*” are currently serving on that committee and are willing to continue serving. Those names marked with two “**” are currently serving on another committee. This does not mean that they can’t be nominated for the committee they are listed for. It simply means that if they are elected to serve on the committee that they are listed for on this sheet, that person will then have to make a decision whether to resign from the committee they are currently serving on and serve on the committee they would have been elected to today or remain on the committee that they are currently serving on in which case we would then move to the person with the next highest number of votes. She noted that this explanation is about as confusing as she can make it.
Following formal procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected the following faculty
Board Committee on
Minority Affairs Committee
Copyright Review Committee
Budget and Finance Committee
Patent Review Committee
Board of Trustees
Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel
Dr. Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that he had two significant proposals from the UCC.
A. Proposed Master of Arts Program in Global Interactions (Report No. 31, 2006-2007)
The first item is a proposed new Master of Arts Program in Global Interactions which is being proposed by the department of Political Science in CLASS but involves courses from a number of programs and colleges. This is a full program proposal. A PDP (Program Development Proposal) was sent to Columbus last year and was approved and so this is the second go-around essentially for this proposal as the procedure specifies. If Senate approves it, it then goes to the Board of Trustees and then on to Columbus for final approval by the Board of Regents, and if they were to approve it, it would then become a new masters program. The UCC was generally in agreement that this was a very well put together proposal that is unusually clear and well-documented and clearly evidenced a lot of thought and preparation. Not all proposals that come to the UCC are this well prepared so UCC wanted to compliment the program’s directors for having put it together. UCC thought it was a real addition to the curriculum and clearly there is evidence that there would be interest in such a program and that there might actually be employment opportunities for students with this credential so UCC recommended it without hesitation.
Senate President Gelman noted that we have a motion from the University Curriculum Committee to approve the proposed Master of Arts Program in Global Interactions and asked members to vote. The University Curriculum Committee’s Proposed Master of Arts Program in Global Interactions was approved unanimously.
B. Proposed Communication Track in the Urban Studies and Public Affairs Doctoral Program (Report No. 32, 2006-2007)
Professor Meiksins noted that the second item is a proposed Communication Track in the Urban Studies and Public Affairs Doctoral Program. This is not a new major program. It is simply a track within the existing Urban Studies Ph.D. Program. It makes use of a number of courses in Communication as part of the program and it is obviously primarily of interest to students who have an interest in communication. It is intended to give students in that area an opportunity for a doctoral program or doctoral studies which they currently don’t have. The procedure for approving this is essentially much simpler than the one for approving a new doctoral program or a new masters program because it is an existing program and we are simply modifying that program. So if we (Senate) approve it, that is the end of the process; this doesn’t have to go beyond the Senate for approval. The UCC reviewed it and thought the curriculum was fine. The colleges involved seemed willing to cooperate in this way. CLASS and Urban have come to an agreement to put the program together in this manner and so UCC had no objections to it and recommend it.
Senate President Gelman noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a Communication Track in the Urban Studies and Public Affairs doctoral program and asked members to vote. The University Curriculum Committee’s proposed Communication Track in the Urban Studies and Public Affairs Doctoral Program was approved unanimously.
C. Proposed 4+1 Programs in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Civil or Environmental Engineering (Report No. 33, 2006-2007)
Professor Meiksins noted that the third item is a set of proposals from the College of Engineering each of which is a 4+1 program marrying the existing undergraduate program in the discipline to the existing master’s level program in the discipline. He noted that there are a number of proposals like this floating around the university; these are simply the first that have come formally to the University Curriculum Committee. The Strategic Plan, among many other things, encourages the development of such programs and so he suspects we are likely to see more of them. These programs attempt to create a seamless link between the bachelor’s level program and the master’s level program so that a talented student who intends to go on to master’s study in the discipline could continue on into the master’s program without going through the formal process of graduating and then applying as if they were new students. There is also an incentive built into programs like these to proceed along the lines described in the program because there is effectively a discount being offered to the student. The total number of hours that the student has to take to acquire the two degrees is smaller than the total number of hours the student would have to take if each program was taken individually and separately. Because this is a new approach at CSU and we have no other programs like this, the UCC took a long time coming to grips with this kind of proposal. Professor Meiksins reported that he met with representatives from the Graduate College some time ago to try to work out some ground rules for dealing with programs like this. The primary reason is that if students who would ordinarily have gone on to master’s study in our graduate program to pursue this, we would actually lose money that we would otherwise have earned because there are fewer total credit hours and the student is charged the undergraduate tuition rate and acquires undergraduate subsidy until they reach whatever the point they normally would reach to get the bachelor’s degree. In other words, if the total number of hours is 150, and the BA or BS in this case requires 128, they are charged 128 hours of undergraduate tuition even if they have already started taking graduate courses. So, one of the things the UCC agreed on is that programs such as this need to demonstrate that either this is going to attract to the university students who would not otherwise enter our master’s level programs so that we can say that we are recruiting students who would otherwise be lost to us or that we are recruiting better students than we might otherwise get and/or that these programs enhance the students’ education in such a way as to make them more employable, better candidates for doctoral study, or whatever the eventual destination is.
Professor Meiksins reported that the UCC also agreed on a number of procedural rules including the State’s requirement that students cannot become graduate students until they have earned a bachelor’s degree so we can’t admit them to the Graduate College when they are juniors. In addition, UCC agreed that students in these programs must take at least the same number of graduate level credit hours as they would have had if they simply entered the master’s program in the normal way. So if there is any reduction in the number of courses, the reduction is at the bachelor’s level and not the master’s level. The UCC also set limits on how many courses the discount can amount to. UCC settled on 12 hours which is actually even more than currently is allowed under the university regulations but all of these programs asked for more than that and UCC thought that was reasonable. The UCC actually codified these guidelines and the UCC approved them yesterday (May 1, 2007). He has sent the guidelines to the Graduate College. Eventually some document will be available for all programs that are developing something like this they can use to guide them in developing other programs along these lines.
Professor Meiksins commented that these programs are all very, very similar in that they allow students to be provisionally admitted effectively to the doctoral program. after having completed a certain number of years of undergraduate study. They are fairly high entry level with a fairly high GPA of 3.0 or higher in each case. They have to maintain a high GPA to stay in. If a student for one reason or another fails to complete the whole program, there is an escape clause so that students can still earn a bachelor’s degree even if they weren’t able to continue on to the master’s degree. They have covered most of the technical bases that they need to cover. In the case of Engineering, the UCC was reasonably persuaded that there are lots of students who are in our own undergraduate programs who might, and in fact, do go on to master’s level study but don’t necessarily enter into our graduate engineering programs and it was felt that this would be an incentive or a way of attracting a stronger and a larger population of students into the master’s programs that need infusion of these students. The UCC thought this was a reasonable proposal and reasonably worked out. Professor Meiksins noted that there are some typographical errors in various places in the proposal. There is some language cleaning-up that needs to be done. There were also a couple of technical questions that UCC had discovered about GPA, etc. that need to be clarified but they don’t materially affect the proposal which basically is pretty well worked out. The UCC recommended these proposals as a group because they are really all essentially the same.
Senator Andrew Gross inquired if Dr. Bahman Ghorashi was present at Senate today. Professor Meiksins responded that he did not see Dr. Ghorashi. Senator Gross asked Professor Meiksins if he could answer some semi-tech questions. Professor Meiksins said that he would try. Senator Gross asked if these programs are widely prevalent or rarely prevalent at other schools. Professor Meiksins deferred to Senate Vice President Stephen Duffy.
Senate Vice President Duffy responded that a number of schools in the region already have these programs underway, specifically in engineering. He added that this never did come out in any of the discussions in UCC – for Civil Engineering, our licensure model laws will change the next three or four years and students who sit for licensing will need a bachelor’s plus 30 and we geared this program up in our department to address that issue which is facing us the next three years. That is a little bit more added incentive for us to get this program up and running.
Senator David Elkins stated that he had two questions: “One, how many students do these program expect and the second question is, some of these programs have a minimum GPA of 3.25 and others have a 3.0 – can that be explained as well?” Professor Meiksins responded that this is one of the typographical errors he referred to earlier. He was not sure whether that was a deliberate choice reflecting the differences among the disciplines or whether they sort of copied imperfectly from one template to another and wound up with inconsistencies.
Senate Vice President Duffy could not speak to the number of students but said that various departments do have different requirements. All of these master’s degrees are housed within the departments over in Engineering so one department may have a 3.25 and another department may have a 3.0.
Professor Meiksins said that his guess is that the number of students affected is limited because this was approved late enough that they won’t really be able to recruit for this year so he thinks that they mean in terms of next year. They seem to be pretty optimistic that this would enhance their chances of attracting stronger students.
Senator Michael Spicer asked if these guidelines for five-year programs are going to be approved by Graduate Council. Professor Meiksins said that obviously it is up to Graduate Council how it wants to proceed but he has sent them to the Graduate Dean and indicated that they were approved by UCC. They are more or less an unmodified version of what we had talked about earlier so he assumed that at some point Graduate Council will also look at them and approve them and then we can jointly send them out.
Senator Spicer commented that it does seem to him that to assume a big loss of enrollments presumes that the students would in fact enroll in both programs in the absence of the allowance of credit which suggests to him that somehow they are immune to incentives. As an economist for some forty years, he is reluctant to accept that. Professor Meiksins stated that the UCC was suggesting that the justification typically offered for these programs will attract new students, so therefore, the burden of proof is on the program to demonstrate that this is in fact so.
Senator Joanne Belovich reported that they have already been talking with students about this program in Engineering and she would say that there are probably four to five students interested out of our graduating class in continuing on so there has been a lot of interest which is significant for a program like ours.
Professor Peter Meiksins reported that the UCC saw a preliminary version of another program coming. It is an Urban Public Administration program and he has heard about other programs in other colleges being discussed so his guess is that Senate may see quite a few of these over the next few years. There are fashions in curriculum as well apparel.
Senate President Gelman noted that Professor Meiksins had mentioned that there are some things that need to be cleaned up in the proposals and wondered if Professor Meiksins was asking Senate to approve the language as it is or will it be revised. Professor Meiksins responded that he is asking Senate to approve it as is but final copies of the programs should be sent to UCC so the committee can make sure that the language is correct. We don’t have to vote; it is just so that we can read it.
Senate President Gelman noted that the proposal is to approve the combined programs subject to fine-tuning the language which will be approved by the University Curriculum Committee. The proposals would not come back to the Senate. At this point, Senate President Gelman noted that if somebody wanted to consider these proposals separately it would be appropriate to make a motion otherwise they will be voted on together. He then stated that we have a proposal from the University Curriculum Committee for 4+1 Programs in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Civil or Environmental Engineering. He asked Senators to vote. The University Curriculum Committee’s proposed 4+1 Programs in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Civil or Environmental Engineering were approved unanimously.
At this point, Senate President Gelman extended his thanks to Professor Peter Meiksins for his service on the University Curriculum Committee. Everyone may have noticed that the bulk of the Agenda generally comes from Peter’s committee. It was noticed in Steering that last year there were ten or fifteen people expressing an interest in serving on the University Curriculum Committee but this year there was absolutely no one and that could be contributed to the work load that Peter has carried this year. Peter has proved irreplaceable so far and we cannot find another chair of the UCC. Senate President Gelman offered Peter his personal gratitude and the gratitude of all of Senate. At this point, everyone applauded Professor Peter Meiksins.
Senate President Gelman noted that if it weren’t for the Gen Ed Task Force, Peter’s proposals would not have met a negative vote – not that he could remember.
Proposed Adjustment to Provisional Credit Limit (Report No. 34, 2006-2007)
Professor Rosemary Sutton, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that her proposal is relatively straight forward. The Committee proposes to raise the maximum number of hours that provisionally admitted students can be enrolled. These students will be admitted in Fall 2008. The proposal is to increase the maximum number of hours from 11 to 12 credit hours in order to allow provisional students access to full financial aid. However, while the proposal is relatively simple, the background of this proposal was not. The good news is, if you are suffering, this is the last time everyone will have to listen to her explanations about any of these proposals. Professor Sutton continued stating that we formally were an open admissions university and we have been ratcheting up our admissions standards. We have three kinds of criteria that we now look at which are the core curriculum done in high school, the GPA in high school and the SAT scores. For 2006 and 2007, students that meet all of these three criteria are automatically admitted. When students meet two out of the three, they are automatically admitted but they are called provisional. You can also be a provisional student if you don’t quite make the two out of the three. They go to the Admissions Review Committee that reviews these students’ files to see if some students are likely to succeed even though they don’t meet the criteria. In Fall of 2008, however, these criteria will be implemented in a different way. If a student meets three criteria, he/she is automatically admitted. However, if the student doesn’t meet all three criteria, but meets two out of the three, the student will get an individual review by the Admissions Review Committee. There is no automatic provisional admission if a student makes the two out of three criteria – that’s gone. The other part of raising the standards was that we should limit the number of credit hours these provisionally admitted students can take. The assumption was if they are provisionally admitted, and are strong academically, we shouldn’t have students taking 19 hours – they should be limited to some number of hours. We have tried to estimate how many students this would apply to and what the consequences might be but as it turns out, this is a case where the data is really complicated because we have shifting criteria. It depends on how you break down the numbers of what you get. The estimate we have at the moment is based on our current profile of students. They might have as many as 400 students who would meet the criteria in 2008 to go through this provisional review and perhaps we will admit 50% of them. That really is an estimate because the profile of our entering freshmen is changing because our standards are changing.
Professor Sutton noted that the other concern about this proposal, if you go back to the original documents, it was meant to be 11 hours and not 12 hours. If we had students taking 12 hours at full-time, that impacts our graduation rate because now they are included in the data for the university for graduation rates and there is a concern to us about graduation rates. So one of the analyses that has been done for us was to look at current provisionally admitted students to see what their retention data are and it turns out they look as good as regularly admitted students. Now remember that today’s currently admitted provisional students are not the same as they are going to be in 2008. The proposal is that we raise the maximum number of credit hours students can take from 11 to 12. We don’t think this is a significant raise but it is a significant amount of financial aid they can get. The estimates from current data that Mr. Ed Mills provided is that it is more than $16,000 which is significant in students’ lives. The proposal is that we raise these credit hours in order to provide for our students’ eligibility for more financial aid.
Senate President Gelman stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed adjustment to the Provisional Credit Limit policy and asked for members to vote. The proposed adjustment to the Provisional Credit Limit policy was approved unanimously.
Senate President Gelman thanked Professor Rosemary Sutton for her service on the Admissions and Standards Committee. As everyone probably noticed, Admissions and Standards, second only to the Curriculum Committee, is the main source of Senate business. It fell to Rosemary’s lot this year to inherit some pretty controversial matters. Some of the controversy was seen here and some of it unfolded in Steering. That makes him admire Rosemary’s service all the more that she bore up so well. He remarked that the satisfaction could be heard in her voice when she said it was her last report. He gave his gratitude to Rosemary for her service. At this point everyone applauded Professor Rosemary Sutton.
Senate President Gelman reported that the next item on the Agenda is the Annual Reports of the Senate standing committees. With the exception of A) Budget and Finance Committee, these are all written reports. The chairs of most or all of these committees are present at Senate today and can answer questions. He noted that he did ask the Budget and Finance Committee, in fact the Steering Committee requested that the Budget and Finance Committee deliver an oral report. There are three reasons for it: first, the budget; second, two years ago there was an oral report by the Budget and Finance Committee which the Senators found very informative. Some of the themes of that oral report were carried forward in last year’s written report and Steering thought it was time to address them again and finally, there is President Schwartz’s message to the community about the budget which does the impossible, make the budget even more important than it seems. He said that he is grateful to Professor Alan Weinstein, a member of the Budget Committee, for attending Senate today to deliver the Committee report.
A. Budget and Finance Committee (Report No. 35, 2006-2007)
Professor Alan Weinstein commented that not being able to follow instructions, he also has a written report which is being distributed.
Professor Weinstein noted that Senate President Gelman had asked the Committee to address two questions from the Senate Academic Steering Committee: the ratio between academic and non-academic spending and also President Schwartz’s Budget Message ( April 4, 2007).
Professor Weinstein reported that previous committee reports have noted that there were faculty concerns about the ratio between academic and non-academic spending and that he’s focused on a pledge that apparently was made by the university to fund the Instruction and Department Research back to 50% of the total budget level that had prevailed in the mid-1990’s. He was afraid to report that that pledge has not been fulfilled past the fiscal year 2006 budget. Spending for instruction and department research did rise minimally this year from 46.65% in FY 2005 to 46.73% in FY 2006, an obviously minimal increase of 0.08%. Unfortunately, progress is also equally minimal over a longer time-frame. In FY 2001, spending for Instruction and Department Research was 45.69% so; therefore, the academic to non-academic spending ratio has increased by only 1.05% over the past five years. If this rate of progress fails to accelerate, then it would be 2015 before the University will reach the 50% level.
Turning to the second question regarding President Schwartz’s budget message, Professor Weinstein stated that the concerns that were raised by President Schwartz have been before the Committee for the entire year. The University does an excellent job of providing the Committee with extremely detailed data, both about existing enrollment and projections for enrollment for the existing semester and for the next year and these have consistently confirmed that enrollment trends are troubling for the University as a whole, although they do vary significantly among individual Colleges.
Turning to President Schwartz’s discussion of the effect of the State Budget on the University Budget, Professor Weinstein stated that as everyone may be aware from today’s Plain Dealer, yesterday’s vote in the House of 97-0 approving the State Budget included a proposed 3% year one, and 0% year two maximum permissible tuition increase rather than the 0% year one and then 3% in year two that had been proposed by Governor Strickland. Given the 97-0 vote in the House, when you think that bodes well for passage by the Senate and 3%-0% being the final State Budget, the positive aspect of that with the University budget is that it would allow the University to receive increased tuition over current levels for both years of the biennium since the 3% increase is in the first year as opposed to being in the second year. What we don’t know, of course, is the fact that having the 3% increase in the first year could also potentially produce a lower enrollment and thus less revenue than would have occurred had the 0% option been available in year one.
Finally, Professor Weinstein stated that the University had also reported to the Committee that favorable conditions in financial markets have produced significant increased returns in the University’s investment portfolio and that rising energy costs will be offset to some degree in the future as newer, more energy efficient structures replace older structures, in particular the University Center building that we are in right now. Professor Weinstein noted that Mr. Brian Cook, Associate Vice President for Business Affairs and Finance and Controller, is at Senate today to respond to specific questions about the budget. There were no questions.
B. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 36, 2006-2007)
C. Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 37, 2006-2007)
D. University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 38, 2006-2007)
E. Student Life Committee (Report No. 39, 2006-2007)
F. Committee on Athletics (Report No. 40, 2006-2007)
G. Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 41, 2006-2007)
H. Library Committee (Report No. 42, 2006-2007)
I. Computational Services Committee (Report No. 43, 2006-2007)
J. University Safety and Health Advisory Committee (Report No. 44, 2006-2007)
K. University Petitions Committee (Report No. 45, 2006-2007)
L. Instructional Media Services Committee (Report No. 46, 2006-2007)
Senate President Gelman asked if there were any questions about the written committee reports. He noticed that at least one of the reports from the University Safety and Health Advisory Committee has suggested various steps and the Senate officers will see what can be done about that. There weren’t formal proposals for Senate but there were suggestions for action outside of the Committee.
Professor Peter Meiksins indicated that he had a question about the Instructional Media Services Committee report which notes a number of things that are needs but does not indicate in what way those needs are likely to be met. For example, a new place in Main Classroom for IMS equipment to distribute from and whether a line for upgrades in the maintenance line on IMS equipment are likely to be made available in the future. For those of us who do classroom teaching, this is a serious issue. It has been brought to the attention of the University repeatedly. He wondered if anything is actually going to happen in the committee’s estimation.
Senate President Gelman noted that the chair of the Instructional Media Services Committee is at Senate today, but since Professor Meiksins is only a committee chair and not a member of Senate, Senator Barbara Hoffman, chair of the Instructional Media Services Committee, need not answer Professor Meiksins’ question if she doesn’t want to.
Senator Hoffman stated that she cannot answer Professor Meiksins’ questions but she will solicit the assistance of Mr. Bruce Jeppesen, Assistant Director of Library Systems and Instructional Media Services, who is at Senate today to try to address the questions to whatever extent he is able. Mr. Jeppesen reported that with regard to the relocation of the Media Center over in Main Classroom, they don’t have a final place to go. They have talked to the Architect’s Office as they go down the road being evicted from their space. They have not found a suitable home at this point but it is hoped that they will be able to find some place in Main Classroom again, closer to the elevators preferably so that equipment can be rolled in and out more easily. With regard to the maintenance budget, he stated that they don’t have a resolution on that necessarily. They did the best they could with what they have to maintain the equipment particularly in Main Classroom. The other buildings seem to take care of themselves to some extent. IMS assists them but they have budgets to replace and repair equipment. As part of the process of updating the classroom technology, which is also in the report, he has indicated to Mr. Fred Kantz, Director of Fiscal Operations, that the Provost can look at classroom scheduling, and classroom technology will have to be part of that process to have an ongoing source of funding to maintain the spaces and to maintain the equipment and put better and more consistent equipment in the classrooms. He doesn’t know whether this issue has been resolved yet but it’s certainly being discussed right now – on how we go forward once we do add equipment to these classrooms, what do we do next and how do we continue to maintain them. He has been having conversations with Fred Kantz on that. He doesn’t know what the upshot is going to be at this point, but that is under discussion.
Senate President Gelman asked if there were other questions for any of the committee chairs. There were no further questions.
The Annual Reports of the Senate standing committees were received.
Provost Mary Jane Saunders commented that the last time she stood up at Senate she had said that she had no remarks, but she will take a few minutes today primarily to thank everyone for the end of a terrific year here at Cleveland State. We made some major academic strides and accomplishments. She mentioned a few just so everyone could see the enormity of the kind of year that we had here. Provost Saunders noted that President Michael Schwartz couldn’t be here today but he wanted her also to convey his congratulations and thanks for a wonderful year.
Provost Saunders stated that at this year’s graduation, we will really have our first graduating Honors class and when you think about how that has transformed this institution, it’s really fantastic. Getting the General Education Task Force approval is just a wonderful accomplishment and dedication to what we believe is essential in our college degree and we will be looking forward to implementing that through the coming year. Getting the Wright Center and really having the wherewithal to compete at the state level for a Research Center funded by the Third Frontier grant really was an extraordinary accomplishment. Just a few years ago, there was no way that we would have been considered competitive for that and here we brought in $23 million and an understanding that we could organize up to thirty outside partners to work together on a research program and that is really fantastic. The Strategic Plan – a whole bunch of people worked really hard on the Plan and we are really solidly into implementation of that and using that to direct where we go in the future with the University.
Provost Saunders said that we started the year talking about student success. President Schwartz and she both came to Senate and talked about that this is our mandate, our concentration for the year. We are seeing improvements in every level of the dedication of faculty to the students and of the students to the institution and that has stood us in good stead as a mantra for the year. Next year we are going to have some more on both the enrollment process and the energy put into that and then also on the retention process with the Faculty Committee on Retention and the faculty advisors to the President on student retention. All of that is going to stand us in good stead and allow us to really take our rightful place as an outstanding university.
As reported by Senate President Gelman, President Schwartz was unable to be at Senate today, therefore, there was no Report from the President of the University.
Senate President Gelman asked if there was any new business. There being no new business, he asked for a motion to adjourn. It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]