Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE MARCH 5, 2008

I. Eulogy for Paul J. Jalics (Computer and Information Science)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the March 5, 2008 Meeting
III.
Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2008 Meeting
IV.
Report of the Faculty Senate President
V.
University Curriculum Committee
VI.
Academic Steering Committee
VII. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
VIII. Report of the President of the University
IX. New Business

PRESENT:     Bayachou, Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Doerder, Duffy, Gelman, Goodell, Gorla, Gross, Hollinger, Inniss, Larson, Lundstrom, McCahon, McNamara, Mensforth, S. Murray, Rashidi, H. Robertson, Rom, Sawicki, Shukla, Sparks, Spicer, Steinberg, Visocky, Weyman, J. Wilson (for K. O’Neill), Xu, Ziolek.

Boyle, Droney, S. Emerick, Margolius, McLoughlin, Nuru-Holm, Sadlek, M. J. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Sutton, Thornton.

ABSENT:  C. Alexander, Barrow, Bathala, Beasley, Belovich, Elkins, S. Kaufman, Lehfeldt, B. Ray, Reichert, E. Rogers, Silberger, Tebeau, Vonderwell, Welfel, Zhou.

Anagnostos, Bonder, Frazier, Ghorashi, B. Green, Hanniford, Heinrich,
E. Hill, Humer, Jeffres, Markovic, Mearns, L. Mooney, Heather Nguyen, Huong Nguyen, L. Patterson, L. E. Reed, Scherer.

ALSO PRESENT:  M. Smith.           

Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M.                        

I.          Eulogy for Paul J. Jalics (Computer and Information Science)

            Professor Santosh Misra delivered the Eulogy for the late Paul J. Jalics.  His remarks follow.

            “Let me begin by extending my condolences and condolences of my colleagues from the Department of Computer and Information Science, as well as the College of Business Administration, to Kristi Jalics and Paul and Kristi’s children:  Alice, Emily, and Andy, and their spouses and their grandchildren – Paul has two grandchildren:  Nathan and Sofia, and to the entire Jalics family who are distributed over two continents.

            “Paul J. Jalics, a Professor in the Department of Computer and Information Science passed away on the evening of September 23, 2007.  He had retired from Cleveland State in March 2007 after more than 31 years of distinguished service.  Dr. Jalics was one of the pioneers of the CIS department.  During his tenure, Paul made major contributions to the department and to the University’s mission through classroom teaching, course development, scientific writing, and organization of the department’s computing facilities.

            “Paul joined Cleveland State University in 1976 as an Assistant Professor.  He completed his Ph.D. from Case Institute of Technology in 1973 and promptly proceeded to Germany, his birthplace, to apply his Computer Science knowledge to enhance operating systems of a Control Data 6600 machine.  For those of us not up to date on the history of computing, Operating Systems were in their early stage of development during those years.  Paul was truly a pioneer in this emerging discipline.  After working in Stuttgart, Germany for a year, Paul came back to the U.S. and applied his skills on behalf of Fisher Foods as a technical consultant.  He cold not stay away though from his true calling of teaching and research and that led him to join the very young Computer Science department at Cleveland State.

            “Paul was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor in 1981 and as a Professor in 1989.  He was a research fellow at the Hungarian Institute of Science in 1984.  Paul was a true multilingual; he spoke three languages fluently.  He consulted for a number of local, national and international companies such as Digital Logics, Chi Corporation, UNISYS, and IBM.  Paul had a passion for measuring Computer System performance.  He brought this knowledge to his classrooms, published numerous papers and applied his vast skills to his consulting assignments.  In some small way, today’s computing environment has been richer due to Paul’s work.

            “Paul was born in Floss, Germany on August 18, 1945 to a Hungarian nobleman living in Germany as a refugee.  The family returned to Budapest in 1946, but had to flee the country in 1956 to escape the aftermath of the Hungarian revolution.  Initially, Paul’s family came to Vienna, Austria.  After approximately six weeks in Austria, the family traveled to New York by boat with the help of the U.S. Government.  The family then moved to Cleveland to join their relatives already living in Cleveland.  He went to high school at St. Ignatius and then to Case Institute of Technology on a full scholarship.  He met his wife Kristi in a Hungarian folkdance group where both Paul and Kristi were members.  If you knew Paul as I did, you would have never guessed that Paul would have been a folkdance specialist.

            “I have to add a very personal note here since I was a young Assistant Professor to whom Paul became a friend, a mentor, a co-researcher, and a most valued colleague.  This sentiment is shared by many of my colleagues in the department.  He taught me the fine art of measuring computer system performance.  He also taught me how to look at complex computer code and tune a program to improve its efficiency and reliability.  He welcomed me into his home in Bath Township and his apartment in Budapest, Hungary.  He was a very quiet person, but did his work, helped colleagues and students, and provided technical leadership in many areas of the department.

            “Paul had lived during the growth and maturation of the Computer Science department and had helped define many aspects of the department’s curriculum and research agenda that benefited this institution.  I personally lost a good friend, as did many others in this University.  His loss will be deeply felt by his family, his friends, his colleagues, his students and by this institution which he helped shape in many ways.”

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleague, Paul J. Jalics.

II.        Approval of the Agenda for the March 5, 2008 Meeting

            Acceptance of the Agenda for the March 5, 2008 meeting was moved, seconded and approved.

III.       Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2008 Meeting

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that before he asks for approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2008 meeting, he wanted to describe some corrections that the Provost has given us concerning her remarks.  On the bottom of page 14, the Provost in fact described the location of nursing and teacher education degrees at Lakeland and mentioned that she was discussing matters within a 30 mile radius of Cleveland.  On page 16 in connection with Senator Andy Gross’ inquiry, the amounts weren’t $14 and $15 million but rather $40 and $50 million.

            Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 6, 2008 meeting as corrected was then moved, seconded and approved.

IV.       Report of the Faculty Senate President

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that he had three or four brief items to report on.  First, we have been barely making a quorum and thinking about it, it has occurred to the Steering Committee that there are some elected Senators who have class conflicts which prevent them from attending the meeting.  So this year, and actually two years ago, Steering approved a policy which is consistent with the Greenbook but perhaps goes beyond it in one small respect and under this policy the Senators of a college can designate a temporary replacement for a Senator who has a class conflict.  As soon as the class conflict is resolved, the elected Senator will resume his or her duties.  The Law College has just done that and the Engineering College is in the process of doing that.  He would ask that if there is a Senator in a delegation that has a class conflict to please invoke this procedure and name a temporary replacement appointee and get a majority of the Senators to agree and let Violet Lunder know and we will prepare a name card.  Again, the elected Senator will be able to resume his or her position when there is no longer a class conflict.

            Senate President Gelman next spoke on myTime.  Senate President Gelman reported that Professor Joyce Mastboom, a member of our myTime delegation, asked him to describe a very happy encounter she had with Mr. Bill Shepard.  Her department of History was having some issues and Bill Shepard of IS&T offered his services.  Mr. Shepard went to the History department and did an inventory of the problem and devised various solutions which didn’t require reprogramming anything but actually took care of the problems.  So Joyce Mastboom wanted Senate President Gelman to recommend this procedure to Senate.  He ran into Mr. Shepard on the way to Senate today and Bill underscored his willingness and delight at learning these problems and solving them.  Senate President Gelman reported that as a matter of public record, he is authorized to give out Mr. Shepard’s extension which is 2110 so if anyone or any department is having problems, don’t hesitate to call Mr. Shepard.  It is quite possible that there is some assistance available.  Bill also mentioned that they are continuing to look into the technical feasibility of allowing administrative assistants to do the preliminary work before electronic time cards are approved.  While there is nothing definite to report and no guarantee of a technical solution, there is some good news.  Other institutions have been located which have not exactly the same installations but similar ones where these problems have been solved.  So there may be further news to report on that front.

            Senate President Gelman mentioned a meeting room change for Faculty Senate meetings.  University Center is going to be demolished before our next meeting.  Our tentative plan is to meet in the Urban College.  We will actually look for a more central location.  He noted that he talked to Violet about the history of Senate meeting locations.  It turns out that the farther you get from the geographical center of campus, the more attendance declines.  He noted that he will try to come up with something that’s more centrally located.  If that is not possible, he urges everyone to make the long trek through Communication and across the bridge to the Urban building.  We really have no choice.  This beloved building (University Center) won’t be here.

            Finally, Senate President Gelman commented about parking.  The one time chancellor of the University California once said something very famous about the faculty’s interest in parking which Bill Bowen repeated to him (Sheldon) a couple of years ago.  He hasn’t had anything to do with parking until now.  He did notice that in the Baker’s Union lot, which is on the West side of campus, there has been increased ticketing of cars in the faculty lot and it looked to him, although there was a fair amount of space, that the cars were ticketed if they were parked along the building.  So this afternoon he called Mr. John Oden, the head of parking, who first thought he (Sheldon) was trying to fix a ticket and was not very receptive.  He explained that he didn’t want to fix a ticket but he wanted to fix the entire parking lot.  Mr. Oden said that if you are not parked within the lines, you are not parked legally.  Senate President Gelman said that he understood that but he wanted more lines painted.  He said that he actually thinks it should be possible to do something and Mr. Oden said that he will look at the lot to see if anything can be done.  For those of us on the Western side of the campus, he hopes there is something that can be done.  Senate President Gelman commented, “Let the record show that Senator Andrew Gross wishes us good luck.”

V.        University Curriculum Committee

            A.  Proposed BA in Organizational Leadership  (Report No. 18, 2007-2008)

            Dr. Mieko Smith, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that she had one item for Senate’s approval and that is a proposed BA in Organizational Leadership.  The proposal states that the Bachelor of Arts in Organizational Leadership is a multidisciplinary program of study for those interested in leadership theory and practice in complex organizations in today’s society.  The leading unit of the program is the College of Urban Affairs with extensive participation by the College of Business and the School of Communication.  The University Curriculum Committee approved the proposal in November 2007 and subsequently faculty approved the proposal in February 2008.  The UCC recommends the Faculty Senate’s approval of the proposal.  Dr. Smith noted that Dr. Wendy Kellogg, Chair and Associate Dean of the College of Urban Affairs is available to respond to questions.  Professor Roberta Steinbacher is also available to respond to questions.

            There being no questions, Senate President Gelman stated that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a BA in Organizational Leadership.  He then called for a vote.  The Proposed BA in Organizational Leadership was approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Report on New General Education Courses  (Report No. 19, 2007-2008

Dr. Smith noted that this item is not on the Agenda but she wanted to give Senate a report on new General Education courses.  The UCC newly certified General Education courses are recorded as GenEd08 to distinguish them from the old courses.

VI.       Academic Steering Committee

Proposed USPC Reporting Timeline  (Report No. 20, 2007-2008)

            Senate President Gelman stated that the next item is a proposal from the Academic Steering Committee itself.  It involves the Strategic Planning Process and the chair of the University Strategic Planning Committee, Connie Hollinger, happens to be a Senator and is here.  The existing system which we describe in our proposal produced the Strategic Plan but there were also some small really procedural problems.  The existing arrangement requires that the Strategic Planning Committee report at the first meeting of Faculty Senate in the fall.  Given the nature of the committee’s work reviewing reports and the like, this has required the committee to work over the summer.  Even working over the summer each year that the committee has reported, it has barely been able to complete the very substantial reports in time for the Senate meeting.  If you think back to our first meeting of the year, you will remember that we received a very lengthy and detailed document from the Strategic Planning Committee on the Tuesday before the meeting. 

            Senate President Gelman noted that another problem that is strictly procedural and we saw evidence of it at the first meeting this year, is that the existing plan requires that the University Strategic Planning Committee’s report be accepted or rejected in total.  If there is even a small question about it, under the existing procedure, the entire report has to go back to the Strategic Planning Committee.  At this past September’s meeting, a Senator had a suggestion about amplifying one of the evaluation criteria and the chair of the committee, then Susan Hill, thought that the suggestion was well founded.  The Senate was powerless to just amend the report because all Senate can do is say no and send the matter back.  What’s more, the charter documents say that if the Strategic Planning Report isn’t adopted, it isn’t the guide for decision-making during that year.  What the Steering Committee proposes is first, to eliminate the reporting date.  We would require that the Strategic Planning Committee report but not specify any time.  There would have to be a report once a year.  Second, we would substitute ordinary parliamentary procedures for the either accept and reject or reject in total and remand and send back mechanisms.  So if these procedures had been in place in September, we could have simply amended the strategic planning recommendation to say that, if it was feasible, we would add this new implementation measure.  Senate President Gelman asked if there was any discussion.

            There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman asked for a vote.  The University strategic Planning Timeline was approved unanimously by voice vote. 

VII.     Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders stated that as she was reading the February 6, 2008 Senate Minutes, she noticed that she had said that the shorter the Agenda the shorter her remarks and they were seven pages so apparently she was not true to her word there.  She noted that today she will be briefer.

            First of all, Provost Saunders noted a clarification of something brought up last time by Senator Andy Gross.  He had asked a question about the size of our endowment because it was not reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education and so she found that information and reported to him but she thought Senate might as well have it in the record that ending this year June 30, 2007, there was $43,831,358 in the endowment.  The other thing that was reported in the Chronicle was the rate of return for that year as they compared rates of returns of different foundation investments and our rate of return last year was 15.27% which would put us in very good standing in comparison to the other institutions.  She also had assurance that they will plan to get those numbers to the appropriate body so that they are in the Chronicle next year.

            Provost Saunders also reminded everyone that the Dean for the Graduate School search is ongoing; that’s an internal search.  The deadline for applications is March 17, 2008.  Everyone should have received information about it in a variety of ways and she encouraged people to apply and to consider colleagues for nominations for that job.  It is an exciting job in an exciting time at the institution and everyone is encouraged to look at that and to consider that.

            Provost Saunders said that she wanted to spend a little bit of time today on some faculty achievements specifically in the area of grant getting and research.  We heard some exciting news about Dr. Nigamanth Sridhar in the Electrical Engineering Department.  He is the first person at this University to win an NSF Career Award.  These are very prestigious awards which recognize young faculty at the beginning of their career.  You have to put in a proposal that integrates both research and teaching and they are highly competitive and the award is substantial.  It is $450,000 so that is a real accomplishment of our young faculty and a real national recognition of the quality of our faculty.  So we hope that’s the first of many career awards and that is really a significant thing.  We also have some other major grants and she thought we should recognize the faculty that have been getting those grants.  Dr. Bibo Li in the Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences Department has a $1 million grant of which she received her annual payment of $250,000 from NIH on the Characterization of Trypanosome Telomere Complex; Dr. Bette Bonder, Dean of the College of Science, got $60,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services for Geriatric Education Centers; Dr. James Salzman in Education got an Ohio Department of Education award for $220,000 for Literacy Educator Training; from NASA Glenn, Dr. George Kramerich got $115,000 to study the Application of Modern Theories of Interface Control and Ergonomics to Space Exploration Activities.  Our own Dr. Jerzy Sawicki also received from NASA Glenn $154,000 to study Smart Structural Health Monitoring of Rotating Components Using Active Magnetic Force.  From the Research Corporation which is an institution which again recognizes active young researchers and really kick-starts their research career, Dr. Petru Fodor in the Physics Department got a $50,000 grant for development of characterization of semiconductor-metal nanostructures fabricated through directed self-assembly.  Then finally, Mr. Peter Whitt, who is the associate director of the Center for Health Equity, got an NIH grant to examine health disparities for $174,000.  So we have faculty that are really becoming very prominent on the national scene and bringing in significant amounts of funding to the institution.  Dr. Saunders went on to say that this is really important for us as we move forward as a university and develop our research profile.  With the addition of the new position of Vice President for Research, it is hoped that this will help faculty find places to get funding, help them to be successful at funding and help them to manage well the money that they receive.

            Provost Saunders commented that Vice President Jack Boyle and she have been talking about the budget for next year.  The State is making us cap the undergraduate tuition.  We know when we look at the budget that we have another $5 million that we need in revenue to cover the raises across the university and in order to do any of this without raising tuition at the undergraduate or possibly even at the graduate level, we are really going to have to hit a pretty high enrollment target.  That extra cost has to be covered by new students and new student credit hours.  So Vice President Mike Droney’s team that got together last year for the enrollment challenge for the undergraduates, specifically freshmen, and in addition to the work that they did last year on getting the freshmen enrollment up and some of the transfer enrollment, they are going to spend a lot more time on the transfer and also on the graduate enrollment.  Our Master’s degrees are part of the pride of this institution and one in which we do very well.  A lot of the graduate recruitment sits really back at the hands of the faculty.  So it is a little bit more difficult to do an enrollment challenge with the distributed model that we have but she is asking everyone to bring this message back to their departments and when asked to do things about recruiting transfer students and graduate students, that it is taken to heart.  It’s important for us as an institution to remain fiscally healthy especially in light of the looming accreditation.  She said that she is calling upon everyone to do that.  There will be some short-term strategies for this year and our main problem in graduate enrollment seems to be between the admission and enrollment.  If we can increase the numbers of students that enroll, that have been admitted, we will do much better.  We have a pretty big differential there between the numbers admitted and the numbers that actually enroll.  So they will be counting on everyone to help them with some strategies for contacting those students in a regular manner and making this a welcoming place and making sure that the students have the information that they need in getting them to enroll here.

            Provost Saunders noted that this is all she has for today and she is happy to take questions.

            Senator Andrew Gross thanked Provost Saunders for bringing the news about the grants – very good news, and he thanked the Provost for sharing the endowment figures.  He believes that under President Schwartz’s leadership the endowment just about tripled in about the last decade and that is a major accomplishment.  At the same time, he thinks that there is a ways to go because the $43,000,000 puts us at 565 out of the 795 schools listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education

Senator Gross also stated as a plea to the Provost and to others in regard to searches for Deans and Graduate School voting and all of those things that are wonderful but today he thinks they could be on line and save some of our national forests.

Provost Saunders responded that they did put it on line under the Provost’s message to faculty.  She said that she didn’t think they did a hard copy.

Senator Gross said that he believed the request from the Interim Dean of the Graduate School for various nominations was also in the paper format.  He just made his comment as a suggestion.

Provost Saunders stated that she does know that when they do faculty searches, there is a requirement in national rules and regulations about the paper.  She agrees with Senator Gross about the endowment.  It has grown but she does agree that we could have a much more substantial endowment that would really help us.

Senator Kathy McNamara raised a concern and asked if Provost Saunders has been made aware of the difficulties that we have experienced this year with graduate admissions.  Again, she doesn’t know how widespread this problem is across the campus but our graduate program admits once per year with an application deadline early in February and we have still not received application materials that are needed from Admissions.  She has been contacted by a number of applicants who expressed concern about materials and she ended up by asking them to send her duplicate copies of all of their materials so that they can be viewed within the department.  She noted that at first she thought perhaps this was just their program or their department but she has heard rumblings from other sources on campus.  Given the Provost’s concern, she thinks appropriately about losing enrollment.  Our problem doesn’t seem to be as much of a gap between admission and enrollment as it is between application and admission.  She was wondering if there is any awareness about it or how it is being addressed.

Provost Saunders replied that she absolutely agrees with Senator McNamara.  Statistically we are exactly the same as last year in the number process but in her mind, at this point in March, we should be much further ahead with processing.  We have a very archaic system as everyone knows of sending the same piece of paper around to a lot of different offices and that’s really not the way to do business today.  As Senator Gross mentioned, we really should be doing a lot of this electronically and have an electronic file where everyone can open it and everyone can process it and that’s essential.  Provost Saunders said that she should be copied on anything like that and she will see what can be done to move things faster.  Sometimes it may be sitting on one desk or another desk and when we get to the bottom line sometimes it’s maybe not what the impression is of who was holding it up.  But, Senator McNamara is exactly right.  At this point in time, we really should have our admit letters out there.  We really need the departments to be working full on that and this is something that we need to improve.  Provost Saunders noted that some of the colleges have worked with Graduate Admissions for a much more streamlined process.  The College of Education sort of gave them their minimum admit criteria and they do it electronically now and they do it automatically so there are opportunities like that to work with them for a process.  The departments that do interviews or do other things, sometimes that is more difficult.  Sometimes what you might want to do is an automatic admit and send to the department the ones that might be grey in one zone or another.  Another problem we have is what’s labeled “incomplete.”  If you have everything and you have two letters of recommendation and you are missing one, can that now go to the department to make the phone call and get the third letter?  Sometimes the label is incomplete and all there needs to be is a phone call.  They opened the file and there was nothing in it and so that incomplete umbrella really covers everything from missing one piece of information or the transcript isn’t official or something like that.  We do process a tremendous number of graduate applications but we need a cleaner system.  She again stated that she does agree with Senator McNamara.

VIII.    Report of the President of the University

            President Michael Schwartz said that he had just a couple of comments.  The first is that he has never been so glad in all of his life to see a debate go away.  That was probably the longest two weeks of his life but it came off very, very well.  The Presidential debate reflected extremely well on the university.  He commented that Ms. Sonali Wilson, the University Legal Counsel and Secretary to the Board of Trustees, and Mr. Rob Spademan, our new Marketing Director, picked this up and did it with an awful lot of help from people all across the campus.  Those were the two folks that were up day and night for all of the two weeks to get it done.  Along with that, Peter Anagnostos, the Vice President for University Advancement, was in the fray as well.  He knew that we would have to raise about $300,000 pretty fast to cover our one time direct costs and that was achieved in about four days.  That was terrific work.  In fact, the people who run the Wolstein Center, a company known as SMG, stepped up to the plate and they really pulled this thing out beautifully for us and NBC was moved to say that they had never worked with people who were that proficient, that sophisticated, and that professional, and they said they might want to come back here.  President Schwartz added that he wasn’t so sure of that.  In any case, it was a very good experience for us.  We did in two weeks what other universities did in three and four months and we did it better and we’ll see if we did it cheaper.  President Schwartz wanted to acknowledge the fact that Laura Kalafatis from Case Western Reserve University who had experience with their Vice Presidential debate came over and gave us a hand one day and a lot of good advice.  Then he called the President of Florida Atlantic University, Frank T. Brogen because they had hosted the Republican debate and wanted to know what to expect and what not to expect, and he was right on the nose and gave us some very good advice and put his executive assistant in touch with Sonali Wilson.  All of that good advice helped get us through.  We had plenty of help and a lot of encouragement and in the final analysis, the candidates showed up and it came off very well.  Just as he was recovering and he and his wife were at some kind of a black tie event and got home last Saturday night and sat down at about 11:00 P.M. and turned on the television set, there was Saturday Night Live and there we were again.  We probably couldn’t have paid for any of that.  We came off really well in all of that.

            President Schwartz commented about what is going on these days with the Chancellor’s Master Plan.  He said that he would like to be able to tell everyone but he doesn’t know.  The Chancellor is going to spring this more toward the end of this month.  President Schwartz doesn’t expect there to be any really bomb shells – he is almost certain of that.  He is not quite sure that the definition of the University System will be that much clearer.  At one point the Chancellor does announce what the Master Plan is but we will see.  In the meantime, we have been engaged with conversations with NEOUCOM about our participation with that school in Rootstown.  We will be adding about 35 students to their class pretty soon, but as you know, that won’t be cheap.  Somebody’s got to come up with the money to support those students while they are in that six year BS MB Program.  The President at NEOUCOM, Dr. Lois Nora  and he have had some conversations and are going to do what they can down in the General Assembly and with the Chancellor to make sure that the funding is available.

            President Schwartz commented on our men’s basketball team.  They were picked ninth and finished second.  These are very nice young people and the same is true for the women’s team which did a very good job this year as well.  More of the attention will go to the men’s team because they have a legitimate shot of going to the tournament.  All they have to do is beat their arch rivals three days in a row and they will be off and running.

            President Schwartz next commented about snow.  We seem to have a lot people who are students and who are willing to pay a hell of a lot of money for a product they want and so the definition of a split second is the amount of time that elapses between the appearance of the first snow flake and the first call at his home asking, “Are we having school tomorrow?”  A number of people find all of this life threatening and so on.  It is true that it can be difficult to drive in the snow.  His email had a number of questions about what are the conditions under which he might want to cancel classes and close the university.  President Schwartz said that he will be very clear about this.  To the extent that it is humanly possible, we are going to keep this place open.  Students have paid a good deal of money for an education, and we have an obligation to deliver it and we are going to do it.  The limiting factor here is not how hard it is snowing in the Heights when it isn’t snowing on the West side at all, it’s what’s going on here on this campus and to the extent that we can clean the streets, keep the sidewalks clear and keep the parking lots open, we are going to be open.  The decision as to whether or not to drive here or get on the RTA and get here, that decision should not be left to the university and its administration.  That decision should be made by adults in terms of what their perceptions are of their own needs for safety.  So as a consequence of that, it seems to President Schwartz, he has been telling some students that they didn’t see any government offices close, they had not seen any corporations announcing that they were closed, they hadn’t heard that the Clinic was closed, and we are not going to close unless we absolutely can’t keep it open because we can’t clear the streets, can’t clear the sidewalks, and can’t keep the parking lots open, but we have been able to do all of those things so we are open.  He added that this is about as crystal clear as he can make it.  We are here to deliver an education for students who pay for it.  Now, last week when we were closed one day, which had nothing to do with snow although it did snow, we did had one phone call from a student, Mieko Smith knows the student, who wanted to know when she was going to get a rebate from the class that she missed.  That’s why he tells everyone that you can’t do this right.  You also can’t cook the way their mothers cook and there are a lot of other things you can’t do right but the snow thing seems to be the worst in any case.

            Next, President Schwartz commented on today’s Senate meeting which is the last one in this building (University Center).  We will be inconvenienced here for about two years in terms of food service, in terms of centrality of meeting spaces, etc.  But it will get better after that.  When he came here almost seven years ago now, he promised the students of Student Government, the students of this university, that they were entitled to and would have before this was over two things:  one was a new student recreation center and the other was a brand new student union building and we are going to deliver on those things but, like everything else in public higher education in Ohio, it just takes forever.  But, we are going to do it.  He first set foot in University Center in 1978 shortly after he had returned from the old Soviet Union and when he got into this building (University Center), he thought that he was back.  It was like stepping into a black and white movie.  Our students deserve better than that and so does everyone.  So, be unhappy for a couple of years, but when it’s all over and all is said and done, this whole university will be much happier for that inconvenience.

            Finally, as to the endowment, President Schwartz noted that Vice President Anagnostos and he are going to announce a campaign he hopes before this spring is out and it will be very different from what everyone is used to, very unusual because it will not be designed necessarily to enrich the coffers of Cleveland State, it will be called a campaign for Cleveland and the question will be, “What are the needs of this city and region as we can assess them?  What are the needs that we can meet given our current programs and strengths and structures?”  Another question will be, “Will people come forward to help us improve those strengths so that we can address the serious issues and problems of the region?”  President Schwartz stated that he thinks people will resonate to that campaign.  That may mean we are going to need more of a lot of things that we already have, but whatever that takes, we’re not going to be shy about asking for all of that help.  That announcement will be forthcoming and President Schwartz wanted everyone to know about it.  He added that Senator Gross’ question is absolutely on the money.  A $43 million endowment for this institution is not shameful but it is no where near good enough and we need that money now more than ever because we can not anticipate much more help from the State in the near future – it’s not going to happen.  The answer for us is private funding and we’re going to go get it.

            Senate President Gelman commented that if you attended the last Senate meeting or personally any meeting other than this one, you will know why he says, “be sure to destroy the sound system when the building is demolished.”

            Senator Andrew Gross asked Senate President Gelman to clarify whether in his or the Steering Committee’s mind we do really need three meetings in April or could they be collapsed to two.

            Senate President Gelman noted that Andy Gross had emailed him yesterday about the fact that there are three Senate meetings scheduled in April.  Normally, we have two meetings scheduled in April and if you are on Steering Committee you know when we are approaching the end of the semester because you are meeting every week – Steering, then Senate the next week then Steering and then Senate – and in his time of service we’ve always done that.  This year for Steering members there is a six week cycle and for Senate members it is three bi-weekly meetings in a row.  Two of the meetings are the ordinary meetings.  The first of the meetings in the cycle is there because we were a week behind for reasons Violet Lunder will remember and he doesn’t in putting together this year’s schedule.  In one way, it’s an artifact, April.  The first meeting is April 2 and the last meeting is April 30.  He said that he didn’t know if people would be happier if one of the meetings fell in March or in May.  We absolutely will, and the Steering Committee always does, try to determine whether a meeting can be cancelled.  Normally, the committees’ work, including Mieko Smith’s committee’s, kind of balloons as the end of the year approaches.  Any program that wants to begin in the fall will urgently want approval in the spring and the reasons the meetings are spaced that way is it reflects the historical ebb and flow in the case of the end of the year flow of business.  He noted that Steering will look at the meeting schedule.  On the other hand as he said to Andy Gross, if we put together one massive agenda and aim for a marathon meeting, we would lose a quorum and before we have lost a quorum there would be unhappiness about anybody saying anything.  So far no proposal has attracted any discussion which is a good thing.  So, the answer is, we will do what we can.

IX.       New Business

            There being no further business, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 3:55 P.M.

                                                            Lolita Buckner Inniss
                                                            Faculty Senate Secretary
                                                            (Minutes reviewed by Sheldon Gelman

/vel

 

[Top of Page]