Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

FEBRUARY 6, 2008

I. Eulogies
II. Approval of the Agenda for the February 6, 2008 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 2007 Meeting
IV. Report of the Faculty Senate President
V. University Curriculum Committee
University Faculty Affairs Committee
VII. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
VIII. Report of the President of the University
IX. New Business

PRESENT: W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Doerder, Elkins, Gelman, Goodell, Gross, Hollinger, Inniss, Larson, Lundstrom, McCahon, Mensforth, S. Murray, Rashidi, B. Ray, Reichert, E. Rogers, Rom, Sawicki, Spicer, Steinberg, Tebeau, Vonderwell, Zhou, Ziolek.

Droney, S. Emerick, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, M. J. Saunders.

ABSENT:  C. Alexander, Barrow, Bathala, Bayachou, Beasley, Belovich, Berlin Ray, Duffy, Gorla, S. Kaufman, Lehfeldt, McNamara, O’Neill, H. Robertson, Shukla, Silberger, Sparks, Visocky, Welfel, Weyman, Xu.

Anagnostos, Bonder, Boyle, L. Frazier, Ghorashi, B. Green, Hanniford, Heinrich, E. Hill, Humer, Jeffres, Margolius, Markovic, J. McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Mooney, Heather Nguyen, Huong Nguyen, L. E. Reed, Sadlek, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Sutton, Thornton.

ALSO PRESENT:  C. Bowen, M. Smith.

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at approximately 3:05 P.M.  He noted that we don’t quite have a quorum at this point, but he asked to begin with the two Eulogies for today. 

I.          Eulogies


A. Eulogy for Ronald M. Haybron (Physics)

Professor Paul Hambourger delivered the Eulogy for the late Ronald M. Haybron.  His remarks follow.

            “Ronald M. Haybron, Associate Professor emeritus of Physics, passed away on April 25, 2007.  He had retired from Cleveland State in 2004 after more than 35 years’ distinguished service.  Dr. Haybron was a dynamic, sensitive and versatile person who made major contributions to the university’s mission via classroom teaching, course development, prolific science writing for the general public, and administrative assignments.

            “Ron was born in 1934 in Zanesville, OH under difficult family circumstances at the depth of the Great Depression.  But he competed for, and won, a full college scholarship and went on to earn bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees at Case Institute of Technology.  His doctoral advisor was Leslie Foldy, who was a student of J. Robert Oppenheimer.  After earning his Ph.D., Ron did research at Michigan State University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, then joined CSU in 1968 to teach physics and do nuclear physics research in collaboration with several other new hires.

            “The words nuclear physics and Oppenheimer bring to mind deadly weapons and radiation.  But scientific study of the atomic nucleus is an important and logical part of the search for understanding of the natural world.  Indeed the sun’s energy source is a nuclear phenomenon, as is the origin of the atoms we are made of.

            “For various reasons, nuclear research at CSU did not reach the expected activity level, so Ron looked for and found many other roles he could play in higher education.  He studied in detail the history and development of scientific thought and the practice of science from the 6th century B.C. to the present.  This led to a two-semester General Education course on the history of science, which Ron taught regularly for more than 20 years under a Physics/History cross-listing.  He also brought his appreciation of science to our undergraduates by frequently teaching a General Education course in astronomy.

            “Ron collaborated with the Great Lakes Science Center on educational activities and developed science courses for K-12 teachers in collaboration with Miron Kaufman, Professor of Physics, and Frank Johns, Professor of Teacher Education. He also had plans for a History of Science textbook that were thwarted by his untimely death.

            “Perhaps Ron’s greatest educational achievement was his writing of articles on science for the general public.  For approximately ten years he wrote a weekly science column for The Plain Dealer which combined clear descriptions of science and scientists’ methods with homespun anecdotes and other ice-breaking commentary.  My colleague Jearl Walker, Professor of Physics and a recognized authority on the ‘popularization’ of science, believes Ron’s column had a major influence on public appreciation of science in Greater Cleveland.  Ron also wrote articles for CSU publications such as The Whiskey Island Quarterly.

            “Another high point of Ron’s public outreach work was an assignment with NASA in the early 1980s.  He traveled extensively, informing students about space exploration and space research opportunities.

            “At various times, Ron held important part-time administrative posts.  These included a lengthy term as University Ombudsperson, an assistant deanship in the old College of Arts & Sciences and special projects work for the provost.  Ron was well suited for these jobs.  He was very tactful and could put people at ease with his friendly, informal manner.  Yet he had a strong sense of ethics and personal responsibility.  Ron knew the laws that regulate the operations of the university, and he had little tolerance for evasion of duty.

            “The entire Physics faculty enjoyed Ron’s company.  He was a great storyteller; his folksy stories, delivered with more than a trace of Southern Ohio drawl, usually contained serious lessons.  He often spoke of his family – wife Alice (who passed away in 2001) and children Daniel and David – and of life at their long-time vacation home on North Carolina’s Outer Banks.  Alice was a gifted and productive artist whose paintings decorated Ron’s CSU office.  Daniel is a philosophy professor and David a surgeon.

            “Ron had a very active life away from CSU.  He wrote several novels and numerous short stories, had many close friends, and was an avid small-craft sailor. Dan and David maintain a really nice website,, where you can read Ron’s manuscripts and see a sampling of Alice’s art works.

            “We will miss Ron Haybron for a long, long time.”


B. Eulogy for William I. Shorrock (History)

Professor Donald Ramos delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor William I. Shorrock.  His remarks follow.

“Let me begin by extending my condolences to Marge Shorrock and their children, Kimberly and David and their spouses and their grandchildren – Bill has six grandchildren, and to the entire Shorrock family.

“William Shorrock came to Cleveland State in 1969 as an Assistant Professor of History.  CSU in 1969 seems likes a different world, an almost different reality.  It was a time when Quonset huts dotted the new campus.  Bill’s classroom and his office, which he shared with Tim Runyan, were both in those temporary Quonset huts.  Bill died at the end of November 2007.  Bill’s career thus spanned most of the life of this institution, from its fledgling early steps to its emergence as a mature university, from a campus with temporary Quonset huts to one filled with new buildings. 

“Most people new Bill as the Vice Provost, a post he held for 18 years.  But, Bill had a life, a full, productive and vibrant life before that and that’s what I’d like to talk about.  He was a highly regarded scholar with two books to his credit – French Imperialism in the Middle East, seemingly very timely today, published in 1976 by the University of Wisconsin Press and From Ally to Enemy: the Enigma of Fascist Italy in French Diplomacy, published in 1988 by Kent State University Press as well as a dozen scholarly articles.  His field was French diplomatic history and, given the bizarre humor of a very youthful department, that made his choice of specialization the butt of many jokes among his sacrilegious colleagues – most of those jokes, so old and tired, that he would recite the punch line ahead of the teller.  Not only did he not take offense, but he joined in the merriment.  To say that Bill enjoyed life and friends would be an understatement.

“Bill was an active researcher who was awarded a Fulbright in 1983 for research in archives in Parris and London and you will not be surprised that, upon his return, he became active in the Fulbright Alumni Organization.  Bill also was a wonderful teacher – one of the most effective I know.  His lectures were the standard to which I compared myself and colleagues.  His courses included the Origins and Consequences of Total War, Twentieth-century Europe, and the History of Fascism.  Students spoke frequently of his lectures – their strength, structure and content.  His classes and his courses were always extremely organized and very popular.  Students knew what was expected of them and appreciated his fairness.

“When I was chair, Bill could not always teach because of his administrative responsibilities, but students would frequently ask why he was not teaching.  The grapevine would have worked its wondrous magic and students would keep asking about him.  I was pleased when he returned to teaching, even on a part-time basis, because I knew that the students would be pleased and that, in turn, would have pleased him.  I was always impressed by the fact that while he served as Vice Provost, he insisted on continuing his role as student advisor.  He relished his contact with students and he was an effective advisor. 

“On a very personal note, he was my advisor; he was someone I could turn to for advice on sensitive matters when I was department chair.  He was unfailingly thoughtful, balanced, straightforward and wise in his statements as I know he was in his relationship with students.  It is a testament to his teaching that a number of students have contributed to The Plain Dealer’sGuest Book consistently noting his caring, his concern for them as people, and his laughter.  Let me share just one example.

“Jack Hanley of Bay Village wrote, ‘Doc was my professor twenty-five years ago.  His lectures were well structured and always both informative and most interesting.  More importantly, he stressed the why and the how as important to understanding the what.  I have thought of him often since those days and always with respect and admiration.  I am sorry for your loss.’

“Bill was promoted to Associate Professor in 1973, Professor in 1982 and served as chair of the History Department from 1980 to 1987.  In 1988 he began working in the Provost’s Office where he held a list of titles, each indicating greater responsibility.  Despite his deep involvement and commitment to university administration, Bill continued to function as an historian.  He enjoyed working with students and they with him.  He also continued to write reviews for a wide range of journals including the American Historical Review.  He and colleague Beth Oberst of the Department of Modern Languages led several student study abroad programs to France and Bill enticed one of the students, John Horton, away from his love of Brazil to a new passion, France and French Culture.  It was John Horton’s determination that led to our library becoming a home to the microfilm collection of the Marquis de Lafayette’s papers.  Both John and Bill loved to note that CSU and the Library of Congress were the two US repositories for these invaluable papers.  As an historian, Bill was a supporter of the Library and served as president of the Friends of the Library.  He continued to feed his passion for the work of the historian until his death. 

“As an historian, teacher and administrator, Bill Shorrock made his mark on Cleveland State University.  He bridged the time from the bygone days of the Quonset huts to today’s institution.  He represented the historical memory within the administration and within the university at large.  He had lived the growth and maturation of CSU and had helped form this institution. 

“His loss will be deeply felt by his family, his friends, his colleagues, his students and by this institution which he helped define.”

Senate President Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleagues, Ronald Haybron and William Shorrock.

II.        Approval of the Agenda for the February 6, 2008 Meeting

            Acceptance of the Agenda for the February 6, 2008 meeting was moved, seconded and approved.

III.       Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 2007 Meeting

            Acceptance of the Minutes of the December 12, 2007 meeting was moved, seconded and approved.

IV.       Report of the Faculty Senate President

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that he has one announcement and two brief reports. 

Senate President Gelman announced that on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, the University is conducting what is called a Tabletop Exercise connected to security issues.  It will be a simulation of what would happen if an armed gunman was on campus.  Mr. Paul Novak, Director of Environmental Health and Safety, requested two members of the Faculty Senate to participate.  The exercise will take virtually the entire day.  It is obviously very important.  If anyone is interested, please let Senate President Gelman know and he will forward names to Mr. Paul Novak.  He noted that if anyone has questions and wants to talk to Paul Novak directly, feel free to do so.

Senate President Gelman reported that three email issues have come up in the last month that are different but all are worth mentioning.  The first concerns his own email.  As some of you know for the last nine months, the Law School email system has been occasionally dropping messages.  It is completely random and he is not aware of any message lost during the last month.  He noted that he sent a message to one of his colleagues last week which disappeared.  So he wanted to say that if anyone emails him, or for that matter anybody else in the Law School, and they don’t receive an answer, please telephone or email them again.  The problem has been going on for almost a year and there is no way to deal with it.  Surprisingly, it turns out that emails addressed to Sheldon Gelman at his first initial dot last name at the CSU address, seems to work better even when it’s forwarded to the Law School system. 

Senate President Gelman also reported that maybe five weeks ago, Violet Lunder’s email system in the Faculty Senate Office completely collapsed.  For a while we thought that we would lose all emails that had not been saved but those that had been saved had been restored.  He found this incident alarming enough that he inquired whether Senate could have an on-site backup so if that ever happens again, we could recover all emails.  He was advised by our financial liaison in the Provost’s Office, Fred Kantz, that it would be extremely expensive and no one on the campus has such a capability.  Other technical people have since told him that a backup is basically free so he is going to look into that.  In addition, he learned that there is a standard three-day period for repairing email that has malfunctioned.  Upon his request, the Senate Office’s ticket as it were was expedited.  The Senate Office was off-line for three days.  He also plans to speak to the chair of the Senate Computational Services Committee.  Senate President Gelman added that he doesn’t know that three days is an appropriate period of time for repairing emails. 

Senate President Gelman stated that he happens to be one of the Senate representatives to the Student Government Association.  He learned yesterday or the day before of the problem that they have been having with emails.  Attachments occasionally get deleted or eliminated so the message will come through and the attachments won’t.  That is not a problem that we had on the Senate side or from his personal experience, but it was serious enough so the Student Government is going to have the student senators obtain gmail and other outside non-CSU addresses so that the attachments can get through.  He noted that this seems to him like a regrettable, if perhaps a necessary, step and he has agreed to lend the Faculty Senate’s assistance to our brother or sister organizations, Student Government Association, and try to get that problem resolved.

Senate President Gelman noted that he wanted to say a brief word about the Provost’s Task Force on Engagement and Excellence.  Everyone should have seen a letter from the Provost to the university community about it.  Senator Connie Hollinger, chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, and he met with the Provost.  They had a very useful discussion of the issues.  They agreed that there should be a discussion at Steering.  He noted that Steering had a long discussion about the context for the Task Force and the Provost invited members of Steering to nominate members of the Task Force which they did but he (Senate President Gelman) actually misunderstood the arrangement.  He was even late in forwarding names to the Provost but in any case he believes that the Provost will be talking about the Task Force.  He just wanted to explain the involvement of the Senate and the Academic Steering Committee in the formation of that body.

Report on the myTime System  (Report No. 14, 2007-2008)

Senate President Gelman reported on the myTime system.  The delegation that Steering formed met last Wednesday with Vice President Jack Boyle and members of the myTime implementation team.  He wanted to briefly review the issues and where we stand. 

The first issue that arose was training which seems like a long time ago and the requirements seemed to be for all day training with lunch.  You might remember that the training was then made modular so that people who didn’t have to learn all of the functions of the system didn’t have to stay all day and the training was shortened and in some instances, on-site training was offered.  He believes that the training issue has been resolved at CSU, as it arose when the system was about to go on line.

Senate President Gelman reported that another thing the Steering delegation requested was off-site access to the system and, as everyone knows, that has been accomplished. 

The third issue involved the delegation of myTime responsibilities to assistants.  This was something that particularly affected chairs and colleagues with administrative responsibilities who don’t happen to be members of Senate such as Deans, possibly the Provost and Vice President Boyle who supervises a number of people.  The Senate delegation thought it would be very helpful if the administrative assistants could access and supervise timecards, make adjustments, and essentially do what they used to do with the old paper based system, short of finally approving the timecards.  Our proposal was that supervisors be allowed to delegate to somebody the power to view and to make changes but not the power to issue a final approval, and, if and when that happened, the supervisor could simply review the assistant’s work.  It would be very much like the paper based system we had previously.  Everyone at the meeting with Vice President Boyle and his group agreed that this would be desirable but there are technical issues which he is not competent to describe.  One of the members of Vice President Boyle’s team suggested we could see how the Cleveland Clinic handles this problem since the Clinic also uses the Kronos system.  We then suggested that it would be a good idea to think of faculty members as comparable to physicians at the Clinic. In any case, we remain hopeful that a technical solution will be found and that administrative assistants will be able to perform those functions.  He added that he is also going to check with the Ohio Faculty Council again to see if any member of that group knows of how another university is dealing with this problem.  He knows that at least two of the other university representatives believe that their university is on the Kronos system and neither of those representatives believes that they have to go through the various steps that our system requires us to go through.  Our discussion was very casual and we could have gotten it wrong.

Finally, Senate President Gelman stated that there is the matter of classified employees and the log in and log out requirement.  When the Steering delegation met with Vice President Boyle and his group last week, we were informed that senior management of the university has decided that all classified employees would continue to log in and log out.  He noted that he had suggested that there be a department by department or unit by unit discretion so that each unit could, in light of its own culture and problems, decide whether they want their employees to log in and log out.  That proposal was rejected.  This change is not, strictly speaking, a function of the myTime system although it came to everyone’s attention when the myTime system was adopted.  The myTime system is perfectly compatible with our non log in and log out mechanism.  Faculty members, of course, don’t log in and log out and they are paid the same as is true of hourly professional workers like Violet Lunder.  He commented that if he understands it correctly, there are two problems that the university administration saw.  One was that some employees were perhaps not working as many hours as they were claiming and another problem is that some employees were working too many hours and not putting in for overtime.  He has to say that to him it’s unclear that the computerized system really solves any of those problems but he is not a human resources person. 

Senate President Gelman said that he would like to provide some background.  First it is very clear that the responsibility for a decision in this area rests with the university administration and not with the faculty.  What’s more, there is currently a collective bargaining agreement which governs virtually all of the affected employees.  Finally, for all he knows, the employee’s representatives’ favor the position the university has adopted – one common rule for everybody and no unit variation.  So by law as well as under the governance structure of the university, faculty members are only observers.  We can comment on a situation, as we did, but we don’t have the power to do any more.  Finally, he should say that even among the members of the delegation, there was disagreement about whether a unit by unit or a department by department policy variation was a good idea.  Having said all of that, he personally very much regrets the decision that the university reached.  We have talked about the issues of the university and its culture and climate and past, there is no need to repeat that discussion.  He noted that he has talked to affected employees who are very deeply hurt by this and regard it as a gesture of distrust.  We hope that the university is not creating the culture of an industrial work place, which is the way many people think of it.  He spoke to one woman who has tons of comp time coming to her.  She told him that when she was growing up, her father penalized her for being late and so now she is a big fan of punctuality.  When she gets caught in traffic now, she becomes extremely upset.  It’s not a financial matter and she could log in at 8:05 instead of 8:00 and if she didn’t log out at 5:05, that could dip into her endless amounts of comp time but it wouldn’t make any difference to her.  The reason is that she doesn’t only regard the university as her employer, she regards the university as home and this is a very odd way to be treated. 

Before leaving the topic, Senate President Gelman remembered his own experience.  In the Philosophy Department over forty years ago, when he was an undergraduate and the college was moving to a computerized system, they had punch cards.  We all know what punch cards are.  They were literally pieces of cardboard with holes punched out of them.  Those cards were the repository of the course information and the system in his college adopted one year was that you could register for a course if you had a punch card or physical possession of the card and you would get the card according to the rules laid down by the associate dean.  You would have to follow a very strict procedure.  You would have to see your advisor.  The advisor couldn’t see you before 8:00 A.M. on this day, couldn’t see you during lunch; couldn’t see you after 5:00 P.M.  If you needed a signature, you had to wait another day.  You had to report to the departmental office; your card would be checked for a signature; various notations would be made, then you would be given a card.  The Philosophy department secretary Mrs. Schulman handled it a little differently.  The cards would come over about a week before you were allowed to pick them up.  She put them all in cardboard boxes with candy.  When you wandered into the Philosophy department office, you picked up the cards you wanted and you would have some candy and you registered.  It worked fine.  It wouldn’t have worked fine in the History department where many courses were oversubscribed; it wouldn’t have worked well in the Biology department where the pre-meds were extremely competitive; but it worked fine for us.  He is only saying that he loved the candy and the cards.  When he contributed to the university, he always thought of Mrs. Schulman and he is very glad she never worked under the myTime system.  Senate President Gelman noted that some of the key members of myTime are present today if anyone has any comments about the system.

Senator David Larson commented that he is not a myTime team member but he wanted to share Senate President Gelman’s concerns that the classified staff are now officially second class untrustworthy citizens of our university.  That is an unfortunate message to send.  Beyond that, he asked if there was at least going to be an attempt to make the system work.  One of the problems is, with everybody trying to get in at 7:55 A.M. and out at 5:05 P.M. you can’t get on even for chairs, he has discovered.  He was trying to get on for thirty seconds and could not do so and said, “The Hell with it.”  So he thought that he would do it later.  However, our classified people can’t do that if they can’t get on.  So at the least, if we are going to have this invidious system, he wishes that we could at least do something to make it function properly, which it doesn’t right now because he knows from his own experience.

An unidentified administrator responded that over the past week, they have studied performance issues.  The vendor has been called in and we have our own network that is looking at the system.  Most often times the issue is the PC in question – sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t.  Right now they are running a lot of diagnostics on the network, on the PCs, on the application communication on the servers to see what could be causing the slow-down. We have experienced slow-down on the SV and we are trying to tie it to some of that.

Senate President Gelman stated that one of the issues that was discussed involved research assistants in the Law School and in fairness he has to say that while five faculty members in emails have complained bitterly about how the system worked, later three faculty members praised the system, and one offered to provide technical support to members of the Law School.  She almost called him (Sheldon) yesterday morning when the system crashed on his computer, and one faculty member was on both sides.  She was very unhappy with the system on Wednesday and pretty happy with the system on Sunday.

V.        University Curriculum Committee

            Dr. Mieko Smith, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that she had one item for Senate’s vote and one item for Senate’s information.


A. Proposed Five-Year BA and MPA Program in Urban Studies
(Report No. 15, 2007-2008)

Dr. Smith reported that a Five-Year BA and MPA program has been proposed based on a needs assessment conducted by the MPA program faculty.  In the proposed program, students who have earned 90 hours with a GPA of 3.25 or higher can take 500 level MPA courses.  When they earn 120 hours, they are admitted to the MPA program.  As can be seen from the Flow Chart included in the meeting packets, students will receive a BA at the completion of 128 hours and continue on their study in the MPA.  The proposal was approved by the MPA faculty in November 2006 and the Urban Studies faculty approved it in January 2007.  This proposal has been around for two years.  The Graduate Council approved it in May 2007.  After a few additional meetings with the program faculty to discuss the issue of credit hours required for a BA, the Curriculum Committee has approved the proposal.  The UCC recommends that Senate approve the proposal.  She noted that a PowerPoint presentation provided for the UCC and the Academic Steering Committee is being passed around if anyone needs more information.  Also, Professor Vera Vogelsang-Coombs, Director of the MPA program is available to answer questions.

            There being no questions, Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a Five-Year BA and MPA Program in Urban Studies.  He then called for a vote.  The proposed Five-Year BA and MPA Program in Urban Studies was approved unanimously by voice vote.


B. Status Report on General Education  (Report No. 16, 2007-2008)

Dr. Mieko Smith stated that she is happy to give Senate good news about the General Education course recertification Phase I.  There were 223 submissions and they were reviewed by seven faculty working groups, each of which included at least one UCC member.  Approximately twenty percent required revision and all of them were resubmitted with suggested revisions.  Eventually, all courses were approved by the UCC.  Distribution of the approved courses is shown in the handout prepared by Professor Liz Lehfeldt, Interim Director of the General Education Program.  The University Curriculum Committee and Professor Lehfeldt set the dates for the Phase II recertification.

    1. Courses should be submitted to the College Curriculum Committee by March 17, 2008.
    2. College Curriculum Committee should forward the submissions to Professor Lehfeldt by April 15, 2008.
    3. UCC will conduct course reviews in the similar manner as in Phase I.

Dr. Smith thanked all of the faculty volunteers and the UCC members who made this success happen, as well as Professor Lehfeldt for her extremely efficient administrative support.

VI.       University Faculty Affairs Committee

Proposed Revision to Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 N) – Computational Services Committee  (Report No. 17, 2007-2008)

            Dr. Chieh-Chen Bowen, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that she has a proposed revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 N) regarding the Computational Services Committee in terms of the membership and composition of the committee.  UFAC basically updated titles and names of departments.

            Senator Elise Rogers noted that she wasn’t particularly clear about what exactly has been changed. 

Professor Bowen responded that the number of colleges changed so instead of stating the number of faculty members, UFAC proposed stating one faculty member from each College excluding the Graduate College so there will be seven appointed faculty members.  In addition, there are two non-voting members.  One is the head of IS&T and the other non-voting member is the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence and two student members.  The Directors of the Campus Micro Computing Facilities were eliminated.  That is basically the proposed membership of the committee.

Senate President Gelman noted that the University Faculty Affairs Committee has proposed a revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 N) and asked for a vote.  The proposed revisions to the Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 N) Computational Services Committee was unanimously approved by voice vote.

VII.     Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders commented that first of all, she needs to tell everyone that the shorter the agenda, the shorter her remarks since she gathers her thoughts while sitting in the meeting.

            Provost Saunders reported that President Michael Schwartz is off campus and will not be at Senate today.  So her report concludes the administration’s remarks.

            Provost Saunders stated that she had some things in no particular order to bring to Senate’s attention that are going on across the university.  First the specter of accreditation is looming again.  This university is on a ten-year accreditation cycle.  We were accredited in 1989, in 1999 and it is coming up in 2010; eleven is our year for accreditation.  This is a very large self-study because it is a university-wide accreditation.  She reported that she has spent some time reading the 1989 report and self-study responses and the 1999 report and responses and the follow-ups, and she feels that the university is in extremely good shape going into this next cycle of accreditation.  She stated that she doesn’t think we have any of the “red flags” that were out there in the last two cycles and certainly if you see the things that were highlighted as problem areas of the university including things like fiscal stability, the IR, assessment, the Law School performance – there has been tremendous progress on all of them. 

            Provost Saunders commented that we always have a faculty member spear-head this in large committees and sub-committees looking at every aspect of the institution, and she would like to get a person on board very soon to work on this.  The accreditation group, the NCA really requests that someone start by this spring by starting to attend the training in April.  So she is opening this up to the Senate as a community for nominations, self-nominations, and suggestions of someone to spear-head this with extremely strong organizational skills; that’s what it takes to get through this.  She noted that we’ve got a lot of good things to report and this is a major undertaking to get it all together.  Provost Saunders said that it sits with the President to do the accreditation but we will be looking for a faculty member to sort of get on board right away and help them plan the correct way to get though this accreditation.  She added that this would be a positive experience for all of us.  She asked that if anyone has any suggestions or nominations, she would be very happy to receive them in a reasonably short period of time so that we can get on board for going to that national meeting in April.

            Secondly, Provost Saunders thought that she might have mentioned this before, but she wanted to give Senate an update of Bob Rawson one of our new Trustees, who had been a Trustee at Princeton.  One of the things he brought to the Trustees was the fact that Princeton always honored the Emeritus faculty with an Honorary Degree.  She noted that this proposal has been brought to the Senate Graduation, Convocation and Assembly Committee and the committee has endorsed this and they are putting together guidelines for nomination of Emeritus Faculty for an Honorary Degree to be honored at the Commencement ceremonies.  She added that she thinks it is a terrific idea.  We have so many people who have dedicated so much of their life to this institution.  We just heard the two Eulogies today and we think how important it would be to faculty that spent their whole life here to be recognized in that way.  It is so meaningful to the individual and for us as an institution to start recognizing our own at CSU.  So that information will be coming out soon and she would like to get it in time for the December Commencement to start this as a process.  She added that she is really thrilled about that suggestion.  It is a great way to honor our faculty.  She noted that this information will be coming out as a message from the Provost in the Campus Mail Bag.  We should be thinking now about appropriate people to nominate.

            Provost Saunders noted that Senate President Gelman spoke earlier about the Task Force on Excellence and Engagement that she is composing, and they are going to start next Monday, February 11, 2008.  She had suggestions for faculty from Senate representatives, from the Strategic Planning Committee, from Deans and sat down and composed a very good committee that is representative of the entire university.  The best part about the committee is that every single person asked said yes, so that is a good sign that faculty understand that at this institution, at 43 years of age, it is time that we look at our areas of excellence and also this idea of the engagement with the community in defining ourselves as an engaged university and that is really happening and people think it is the right thing to move forward.  She stated that she would email those names of the Task Force via campus email to everyone as a message from the Provost so everyone will know the various representatives.  She is very pleased with the committee and she is very pleased that the faculty are willing to serve.

            Provost Saunders gave updates on a couple of searches.  There is a search for a Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and that is posted now and is open for nominations and self-nominations.  There soon will be posted the internal search for the Dean of the Graduate School.  Mr. Richard Steiner has accepted our offer for Vice President for Research and Provost Saunders will put out a message for that including the list of his credentials.  That was a national search and Mr. Steiner was our number one candidate and she is very glad that he accepted.  He is a Vice Provost of the SUNY System of the State System of New York in the Albany System Office and responsible for a lot of the research projects and community and strategic outreach of that whole system so he is bringing a wealth of talent to us.  His starting date will be in June 2008.  He will make some visits here before that but that bodes well for us getting our research profile to always increase and getting the service part of our institution to our faculty.

            Provost Saunders commented that she couldn’t be more delighted to hear of GenEd approvals and courses that had revisions to be made and that was responded to well and that people made those revisions and that now we have a full compliment for at  least next fall of GenEd.  She wanted everyone to know how much she appreciated the work that individual faculty put on, the Review Committee put on, certainly the Chairs did in getting this revision of GenEd through.  She is very grateful for it and she knows that it will do well for our undergraduates.  She thanked everyone for their hard work on that.  She noted that we are not through with a complete compliment of courses but she appreciates everyone stepping up to the plate with that.  Quite a few chairs had said that between myTime and GenEd, they were re-considering their massive stipend that they get but she thanks them for doing all of their work.

            Provost Saunders noted that the 4+1 by Urban being approved today – that’s a wonderful move and she knows that a lot of units of the university have taken this seriously of looking at pulling of our undergraduates into the professional masters degrees by making it open, accessible, and something that we can recruit at the junior year for our top students to continue on to the masters degree.  We know that citizens of this community and out there in the workforce have a need for increasing levels of education for any job and this is certainly something that helps us recruit undergraduates.  She said that she talked last Saturday at the scholarship competition where we had 140 students come who had already been given some level of scholarship; they have an average high school GPA of 3.7; most of them were accompanied by two parents and friends and we then gave talks to them.  One thing that we did advocate with this group of high achievers and certainly with their parents was this idea of continuing on for the fifth year of getting a masters degree.  Planning that is part of your educational process so the more we have of those the better.  Provost Saunders said that she appreciates the faculty who have been working on that.

            Provost Saunders commented that everyone should have seen signs around campus on the Engaged Learning Rollout.  She added that she could not be happier.  We have a terrific guy in charge of marketing now.  We haven’t had a chance to have a talk to the unit that you are in and will ask to come by.  Mr. Rob Spademan is a real pro when it comes to marketing.  Everyone knows that we have been struggling for that brand, that identity for this institution.  She just thinks that Engaged Learning is absolutely the brand for us.  It came out of strategic planning and it’s coming out really of our analysis of what we do and how we integrate with the community; it’s a tag line that works with many, many different parts of the organization; it’s one that can be modified for all sorts of different types of activities with “engagement” being the key word.  She is just thrilled that our marketing guy is taking this and running with it and coming up with some really creative things with Engaged Learning.  She said that we are going to take that as our ad line and it’s far better than the other institutions in our area and it turns out that it is unique in the nation so we are trade marketing this as Cleveland State.  That’s all to the good.  She asked everyone to look for that role model and then begin thinking of incorporating this in everything we do in our departments and in our programs with Engaged Learning.

            Provost Saunders noted that President Schwartz always talks about what’s going on in the state and seconds before she walked over to today’s meeting, she received a copy of the Governor’s State of the State Address.  There are two important things that have come out of the Governor’s office recently; one is that even though there is a substantial short fall in revenue in the state, which is considered to be anywhere between $700 million and $2 billion, they did not cut back higher education.  This was an absolute first in the state that there weren’t across the board cuts and there weren’t cuts in the commitment to higher education funding.  So we really did look at that as a substantial commitment from this administration that by not getting cuts really speaks to the fact that they value higher education and will continue to make this a priority in the Governor’s ongoing platform.  So that’s the good news.

            Provost Saunders commented that she would love for everyone to get on line and read the State of the State Address because it had some things that certainly caught her by surprise.  One thing that we have heard from the Chancellor, even the Governor started talking about the Chancellor’s plan, this roll-out of the system that’s coming out in March.  So, he tipped his hand on two things one of which we knew about and one that we did not know about.  The one we knew about was this idea of using the community college campuses and having partner institutions go out and offer completion degrees there.  And, you know that we already do that with some of our community college partners.  We have nursing and teacher education and one of the business degrees at Lakeland. You can get to about twenty institutions of higher learning in a 30 mile radius of Cleveland so it doesn’t affect us as much as it affects some of the other institutions across the state.  The second one was a surprise to us – they want to extend the PESOP program and these are their words.  They want to have something called “Seniors to Sophomores” – in which seniors in high school will enroll in a college campus for their senior year.  That year will dually count for their senior year in high school and their freshman year in college.  Perhaps a great way to win students into the system – she has grandchildren about that age and she can say that seventeen year olds today are not the same as seventeen year olds when she was seventeen.  The impact for us, again as one of the things in her work responsibility, is that the tuition for the year will be free.  So, we are running around like crazy looking at this thing.  We are now going to offer the freshman year to any high school senior for free.  The PESOP program has imbedded in it a pay-back system that has all of the details of the portion of the time students would have spent in the high schools and their state allotment per student gets paid to us when we bill them back depending upon the school system they are in and the particular rate.  But, we do not collect subsidy on PESOP students and certainly we don’t collect tuition on them.  This could be a great plan but we really have to look at the details to understand the assistance certainly.  But, the Governor promises this starting next fall.  The PESOP program, as currently constructed, is very complicated to administer and understand and to enter work correctly.  So, we are not all advocates that seniors should be on the college campuses.  She added that she is not sure that this was the intent of the PESOP program so everyone might want to read the Governor’s State of the State Address and look at that.

            Provost Saunders went on to say, the good news is that we haven’t been cut in our budget but she supposes the bad news is that we now have high school seniors in the state attending college which could be a good thing.  She thought, as she was reading this, that this is actually the plan we’re putting into place to pull them into graduate school and, with the 4+1, of getting them into the professional masters and now apparently that plan has reached down to the high schools.  She can say that she advocates it on one end and maybe not on the other end.

            Provost Saunders said that she would be happy to take questions.

            Senator Alan Reichert inquired if there was any more discussion about merging the universities in Northeast Ohio.  Provost Saunders replied that everyone needs to know that the President and she and our Board of Trustees have spent countless hours trying to fiend this off.  Neither of them believe that this is in the best interest of this institution.  That is one of the reasons why we have moved forward so aggressively on defining our mission differentiation, of saying that we are different from the other institutions, and of defining our mission as we sit in this community.  She feels relatively confident right now that with these efforts, it will not be a proposal.  The best she could say is that there has been an amazing amount of work to convince the Chancellor that this might not meet the goal that we envision.  We are doing our best because she doesn’t think merging is the solution. 

            Senator Andrew Gross stated that he has one note of thanks and one question on two numbers, one of which just relates to what he wants to talk about.  With regard to a note of thanks, last fall he had mentioned the infrastructure and he is happy to learn just today that the worst situation, which is the main lobby stairway in Woodling Gym, that has been leaking for ten years, has now been finally put out for bids so he is happy. 

            Senator Gross stated that his question is about endowment and debt.  The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008, lists about 800 institutions around the country – private, public, large and small – everybody in there that he knows of except a certain school along Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio.  He tried to find out who put this out and the Chronicle said, “It’s a voluntary participation by the members of the National Association of College and University Business Officers.”  He believes that our numbers have gone up and he would be hoping that we would be in the next listing.  The other one is datedFebruary 4, 2008, Cranes, Cleveland Business, “University of Akron undeterred by projects debt.”  The University of Akron is carrying or trying to repay $432 million in debt and moves have affirmed that the university’s A2 rating for debt has downgraded its outlook to negative from stable.  That goes along with Dr. Reichert’s question. 

            Provost Saunders responded that on the first item about the endowment, she has spent probably as long as he (Dr. Gross) did going through that list starting at the $1 billion and getting down to the $100 trying to find Cleveland State in there and we were not there.  We annually report that.  Her guess is that because our Vice President in that area Bill Spiker left, that might just have been one of the things that just didn’t get reported.  She wishes it was in there.  She wants to know the performance of the endowment; she wants a benchmark of other institutions and she was just like Senator Gross.  She started where she thought we were and then she expanded it out and then expanded it out again and again and she couldn’t find it and she thinks it was a non-reporting and she agrees with Senator Gross that we should be reporting. 

            Senator Gross inquired if it is between $40 and $50 million.  Provost Saunders replied that this is what she thinks it is.  She will get to Senator Gross the exact number and should have our growth percentage.  What they reported is, whose investments did well and whose investments didn’t and they highlighted ones that got, for example, a twenty percent return on investments.  Anything over thirteen percent was about the average.  They highlighted the top performers and then they highlighted the under performers.  So this is a signal to the investment strategy of that particular foundation and obviously you didn’t pick the right stocks or the right bonds or you didn’t have the right mix.  But, we should be in that.  We do report most of our things that are reported in the Chronicle.  Secondly, about the Akron debt, that’s our sister institution.  If you go to that institution, you see a lot of building.  None of these buildings come free.  We would be extremely pleased, and I am sure that Vice President Jack Boyle would be very happy to talk to this group about our bond rate which she knows is very good, about our level of debt which is extremely good in relationship to the revenues that we collect and he has absolutely handled both our portfolio and our building with very strong fiscally conservative tactics which leaves us in extremely good shape.  She stated that she has a lot of confidence in Jack.  One of the things mentioned in the last accreditation cycle was of the institution in the red, and, as you know with Jack’s budget management and our tightening our belts, we have ended in the black certainly in the last few years even with declining enrollment and even with things like debt against the institution for buildings.  So we don’t take on a building unless we can pay for it.

            Senator Connie Hollinger stated that she finds the proposal for students in their senior year to attend colleges and universities very interesting and she is waiting to see what will happen.  But, she thinks that there is another group that she would like to offer to Provost Saunders.  She doesn’t know if colleges and universities are thinking about this as, “a viable niche in terms of enrollment and numbers” and that is the older adult – adults who have retired, who are at the other end of the spectrum.  They would be most important.  Provost Saunders responded that if we are looking at over age 60, we participate in a program, which she thinks is state-wide, called Project 60.  We have lots of enrollment under Project 60 and in fact, we don’t get subsidy from the state for them and they don’t pay tuition and they sit in class on space available.  But, we have quite a few people enrolled in Project 60 and that is administered in Orientation.

V.P. Mike Droney reported that there are roughly 300 seniors in Project 60.

 Provost Saunders reported that she has heard nothing but raves of everyone in class about how interactive the seniors are and how much the other students appreciate having someone who has lived through some of these things.  Provost Saunders commented that she thought that Senator Hollinger might be mentioning the returning adults of an age group of say 25 to 55 and again, that’s a specialization of this institution and we have always welcomed that kind of person to this campus.  We have a big project for returning veterans called Project SERV which is getting national attention for which we got a lot of money from the state in very short order to support because it was so innovative.  We have John Schupp, an adjunct professor in chemistry who took this on and just ran with it.  We are having special classes for returning veterans to keep them in the cohort and to tie them into all sorts of services that are out there – financial aid, veteran’s services, mental health, consultations – everything that you need to return to civilian life.  So that’s a dedicated program and we are going, in fact, to Washington in a couple of weeks and that is one of the programs that we are going to bring up to our representatives and senators as something that we get federal money to support. 

            An unidentified Senator asked what the project is called.  Provost Saunders responded that it is called SERV which stands for Supporting Education for Returning Veterans.  You can Google SERV on our web site to find out more about our program.  It’s a marvelous thing and it’s really based on the fact that Ohio has a larger percentage of enlistees than other states and this area has a large percentage as well of people that sign up.  Of service men and women who sign up for the GI Bill, only about ten percent use those benefits and they actually pay in the first year to get into the GI Bill program.  There is a lot of activity about that.  Again, with the returning adult, we are trying to do as much as we can on the East and West to offer completion degrees, to offer GenEd on line, all the things you need to do to pick that up.  Some of the colleges like Business are very aggressive in reactivating an undergraduate Bachelor in Business Administration which is the kind of degree that returning adults who are out there in the work force might want to get.  We are also looking at the Bachelor of Science and the Bachelor of Liberal Studies as the kinds of programs that we can put together in a bachelors degree that’s good for some in the work force who may need the degree to be a supervisor or to move on to a masters program.

            Senator Connie Hollinger mentioned that there is also Mareyjoyce Green’s re-entry Women’s Program.  Unfortunately, she doesn’t know the number of students in the program.  Provost Saunders noted that this program has for many years served returning women.  The faculty here have always been proud because that is one of the roles of Cleveland State.

            Provost Saunders stated that she is so pleased that we are into this semester.  It looks like all is going well.  The faculty continue to be productive in scholarship and teaching and research and Provost Saunders thanked everyone for their hard work.

VIII.    Report of the President of the University

            President Michael Schwartz was unable to be at Senate today so there was no report from the President.

IX.       New Business

            There being no further business, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:15 P.M.


Lolita Buckner Inniss
Faculty Senate Secretary


[Top of Page]