Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE APRIL 16, 2008

I. Eulogy for Clyde (Bud) Bratton (Physics)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the April 16, 2008 Meeting
III.
Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2008 Meeting
IV.
Report of the Faculty Senate President
V.
Announcements of Coming Elections
VI.
University Curriculum Committee
VII. Admissions and Standards Committee
VIII. University Faculty Affairs Committee
IX.  Report of the President of the University (Report No. 28, 2007-2008)
X. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
(Report No. 29, 2007-2008)

XI.  New Business

PRESENT:   Barrow, Bathala, Bayachou, Beasley, Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Duffy, Elkins, Gelman, Goodell, Gross, Hollinger, Inniss, Larson, Mensforth, Rashidi, B. Ray, Reichert, E. Rogers, Sawicki, Silberger, Spicer, Steinberg, Talu (for Belovich), Vonderwell, Welfel, Weyman,
J. Wilson (for K. O’Neill), Xu, Zhou, Ziolek.

Hanniford, Heinrich, Markovic, L. Patterson, M. J. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Sutton, Thornton.

ABSENT:  C. Alexander, Doerder, Gorla, S. Kaufman, Lehfeldt, Lundstrom, McCahon, NcNamara, S. Murray, H. Robertson, Rom, Shukla, Sparks, Tebeau, Visocky.

Anagnostos, Bonder, Boyle, Droney, S. Emerick, Frazier, Ghorashi, B. Green, E. Hill, Humer, Jeffres, Margolius, McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Mooney, Heather Nguyen, Huong Nguyen, Nuru-Holm, L. E. Reed, Sadlek, Scherer.

ALSO PRESENT:  C. Bowen, Kahana, M. Smith.

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

I.         Eulogy for Clyde (Bud) Bratton (Physics)
           
            Professor Paul Hambourger delivered the Eulogy for the late Clyde (Bud) Bratton.  His remarks follow.

            “Clyde B. Bratton, Associate Professor Emeritus of Physics, passed away on March 4, 2008.  Among his survivors are sons Scott and Mike, daughter Susie, and three grandchildren.

            “Known to friends and colleagues as Bud, Dr. Bratton retired from Cleveland State in 2000 after 34 years’ distinguished service.  Bud was a highly skilled and versatile experimenter.  He worked on important projects that made substantial contributions in physics, biophysics and astronomy.  Along with his research, he taught a wide variety of courses, including a General Education course on Science and Religion, and he served as the Physics Department chairperson from 1993 to 2000.

            “Bud was born in Canton, Ohio.  He served in the Air Force in the early 1950’s then went to college and graduate school at Western Reserve University, earning a bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate in physics.

            “As you might expect of an Air Force pilot, Bud was a courageous person.  It showed in his choice of PhD thesis topic.  Rather than do a safe but routine thesis, he collaborated with Western Reserve Medical School Professor Amos Hopkins on pioneering nuclear magnetic resonance experiments on muscle tissue. Bud’s project, done at a time when few physicists worked on biological subjects, was one of the bases for the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and also led to later Nobel-prize-winning research by Richard Ernst of the Zurich Technical Institute.

            “Bud came to CSU full-time in 1967 after a short teaching stint at Western Reserve.  For several years he continued magnetic resonance work on frog muscle tissue, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

            “By this time the field was moving from basic research to the development of commercial MRI systems, so Bud was ready to try something else.  He was invited by Frederick Reines, University of California at Irvine, to join a project on detection of solar neutrons.  The detector needed shielding from cosmic rays, so it was installed in a deep salt mine near Grand River, Ohio.

            “At the end of the solar neutrino project, Bud joined a much larger Reines-led experiment to search for instability (decay) of the proton predicted by then-current theory.  He supervised the construction and daily operation of a massive water-filled particle detector 2,000 feet below Lake Erie in the Grand River mine.  The detector held a volume of water comparable to that in Woodling Gym’s Busbey Natatorium.

            “Though the detector worked properly, it saw no proton decays, indicating that existing theory had greatly underestimated the proton’s mean lifetime.  But in February 1987, astronomers detected light from a supernova explosion 170,000 light years from Earth.  By good fortune, the Grand River detector and two others (in Japan and Russia) were operating that day and recorded a 13-second burst of neutrons from the explosion.  The data helped confirm astrophysicists’ theoretical understanding of supernovae.  (One reason why supernovae are important is that most atoms heavier than helium were created within supernova explosions).

            “Bud spent 15 years on the salt-mine projects, going underground with the miners almost every working day.  He co-authored approximately 30 papers on the research and shared with the other team members, the prestigious Rossi prize awarded by the American Astronomical Society.  The team’s leader, Professor Reines, received a Nobel Prize in 1995, in part for this work.

            “As often happens with large group projects, Bud’s contribution has likely been underestimated.  In fact, his work on the detector, which required the skills of a top-notch experimental physicist, was crucial to its success.  And he was the subject of several articles in The Plain Dealer and other media, contributing greatly to CSU’s reputation.

            “After the salt-mine work was finished, Bud used the facilities of the Ohio Supercomputer Center and served for many years on its Statewide Users Group and Hardware Committee.  The Center’s online death announcement cites Bud’s invaluable service.

            “Bud had several major interests beyond teaching and research.  He sang regularly in his church choir, with the Chagrin Valley Choral Union and with the annual Berkshire (Massachusetts) Choral Institute.  He also held a private pilot’s license and flew regularly for many years after coming to CSU.

            “Bud Bratton made major contributions to science and to CSU.  He will be sorely missed.”

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleague, Clyde (Bud) Bratton.

II.        Approval of the Agenda for the April 16, 2008 Meeting

            Before asking for approval of the Agenda, Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that he would like to suggest two changes.  One change is that the President and the Provost have requested that the order of their reports be reversed today because of the content of each of them.  The Report of the President will be item IX and the Report of the Provost will be item X.  Senate President Gelman noted that regrettably, we were not able to prepare the Mach 5, 2008 Senate Minutes and he therefore requested that item III, Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2008 Meeting, be postponed.
           
Acceptance of the Agenda for the April 16, 2008 meeting as amended was then moved, seconded and approved.

III.       Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2008 Meeting

            As noted above, the March 5, 2008 Minutes have not been prepared due to an unusual amount of work in the Senate Office so approval of the Minutes will be postponed to the next Senate meeting on April 30, 2008.

IV.       Report of the Faculty Senate President

            Senate President Gelman stated that because of the lengthy Agenda, he will not give a report except to call attention to the coming elections attached to the Agenda. 

V.        Announcements of Coming Elections

            Senate President Gelman announced that committee elections will take place at the next Senate meeting on April 30, 2008.   He encouraged everyone to seek out colleagues for these elections. 

Senate President Gelman noted that at the next Steering Committee meeting, a large number of appointments of members to committees will be made.  Occasionally, there are not enough candidates which delays formation of the committees for the fall and require Steering to return to the issue at the first meeting of the fall.   He encouraged members of the Steering Committee to look carefully at the work sheets that Violet is about to send out.  In many cases, the Greenbook requires that a committee vacancy be filled by a member of a particular college – Business, CLASS, Science, etc.  In those instances, the member of the Steering Committee of that college is responsible for producing a nominee.  Again, it would be appreciated if members of Steering would attend to that.  He asked Senators to establish ahead of time that persons nominated for positions are able to serve.  He also announced the coming faculty-wide election of a Faculty representative to the academic Misconduct Review Committee.

            Finally, Senate President Gelman stated that he was unable to attend the last Ohio Faculty Council meeting this past Friday, but Senator Brian Ray did attend.  Senator Ray will report on the OFC meeting at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

            Senator Andrew Gross asked if the last April Faculty Senate meeting will be held in the same location as today’s meeting.  Senate President Gelman replied that the next meeting is scheduled in the same room as today’s meeting, SR 151.  He added that there are no good choices of a meeting room.  It was originally thought that a room in the Urban Affairs building would be the best location, although that room is auditorium style too.  Then it occurred to us that Urban is on one end of the campus and it was learned that in the past when the meeting is located on one end of campus and wasn’t centrally located, attendance was low so we changed gears to find a room more central.  He noted that if anyone doesn’t find this room (SR 151) satisfactory, to please email or call him or Violet Lunder.  He doesn’t really know if there is anything better.  Senate President Gelman added that we have serious quorum problems and barely made a quorum today.  In the absence of feed back or suggestions, we do plan to be here in SR in the fall.

VI.       University Curriculum Committee

  1. Proposed Four-Year EET and MET Programs 

      (Report No. 21, 2007-2008)
           
Professor Mieko Smith, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the proposed Four-Year Engineering Technology (EET) and Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) programs leading to BSEET and BSMET degrees respectively.  Currently students must complete the first two years of course work at an outside technical school, community college, or university before enrollment at CSU in the Junior year of the Engineering Technology BS degree programs.  These courses will allow new students to enroll at CSU as freshmen in a four-year program with a major in Engineering Technology.  Having these courses will also allow transfer students without the associate’s degree to transfer applicable credits and begin taking the remaining required freshman and sophomore courses at CSU before continuing.  This program is intended to serve undergraduate students who may attend either on a full-time or a part-time basis.  Professor Smith added that the Undergraduate Affairs Committee of the College of Engineering approved the four-year EET and MET programs in the fall of 2007.  Faculty of the Fenn College of Engineering also approved these proposals at their meeting of September 13, 2007.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman moved adoption of the proposals.  The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Proposed BA/MA Program in Environmental Studies and BA/MNAL in

Nonprofit Administration and Leadership  (Report No. 22, 2007-2008)

            Professor Smith next presented two proposed five-year programs:  a BA in Environmental Studies + MA in Environmental Studies and a BA in Urban Services Administration + Master of Nonprofit Administration and Leadership.  The format of these programs mirrors that of the BA+MPA program recently approved by the Graduate Council, the University Curriculum Committee and Faculty Senate.  As in the BA+MPA program, students in the BA+MA and BA+MNAL accelerated programs will receive their BA degrees upon completion of 128 credit hours, which is the same number of credit hours as the conventional degree programs.  The five-year programs include a transitional phase during which students complete coursework towards the MA or MNAL degree while remaining in undergraduate status.  Upon successful completion of this phase, students earn the BA degree.  The Graduate Council unanimously approved these proposals at their meeting of March 4, 2008.

            There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman moved adoption of the proposals.  The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Proposed GenEd Catalog Rights for Transfer Students

(Report No. 23, 2007-2008)

            Professor Smith next presented the University Curriculum Committee’s proposed GenEd Catalog Rights for Transfer Students.  The UCC proposes a two-year transition period for General Education requirements for transfer students who enter CSU in fall 2008 without a completed Associates Degree.  We currently have a policy for students with an Associates Degree but the vast majority of our transfer students do not come to CSU with completed degrees.  Students who started at another institution prior to fall 2008 and have been continuously enrolled at that institution and transfer into CSU will have the option of fulfilling our old GenEd requirements through summer 2010.  If the students’ enrollment is interrupted and they return to the transfer institution anytime from fall 2008 forward, they will have to complete GenEd08 requirements.  Beginning in fall 2010, all transfer students will be expected to follow GenEd08.  Students who begin at another institution from fall 2008 forward will not have this option and will be expected to meet the requirements of GenEd08 when they transfer to CSU.  Professor Smith added that the proposal was forwarded to the UCC by the Interim Director of GenEd because of concerns brought up by advisors and counselors.

            There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman moved adoption of the proposal.  The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Announcements  (Report No. 24, 2007-2008)

Professor Mieko Smith noted that she had two items to report.  First, the UCC approved a Program Development Plan (PDP) for a proposed Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering degree.  This proposal is in response to increased interest in biomedical engineering.  The proposal will be going to the Ohio Board of Regents.

Second, Professor Smith reported that UCC approved a proposal for a Biomedical Engineering Track in the MS in Chemical Engineering.

VII.     Admissions and Standards Committee

            Proposed Poll Worker Excused Absence Policy (Report No. 25, 2007-2008)

            Professor David Larson, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee’s proposed Poll Worker Excused Absence Policy.  He explained that for the last several elections, we have had an ad hoc Poll Worker Policy.  Professor Deborah Geier of the Law School brought the proposal for a permanent policy to the Admissions and Standards Committee.

            Senator Jeffrey Dean referred to I. a. of the proposal:  “excuse all students from class attendance and from any assignments, quizzes, and other coursework otherwise due during the period beginning at 6:00 p.m. on the evening before any statewide election and ending at 10:00 p.m. on election day …” and asked if there was anything wrong with changing the ending time from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 Midnight.  He then moved a friendly amendment to the proposed policy to change the ending time to 12:00 Midnight. 

            There being no further discussion, Senate President Gelman asked for a vote on the friendly amendment to the proposed Poll Worker Policy.  The motion was approved.  Senate President Gelman then moved adoption of the proposed Poll Worker Policy as amended.  The proposed Poll Worker Policy as amended was approved unanimously by voice vote.

VIII.    University Faculty Affairs Committee

  1. Proposed Revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.1.8 C) Application for

Extended Leaves (Non-Bargaining Unit Members Only)
(Report No. 26, 2007-2008)

            Professor Chieh-Chen Bowen, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the committee’s proposed Revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.1.8 C) Application for Extended Leaves (Non-Bargaining Unit Members Only).  Professor Bowen noted that the committee used the language in the AAUP-CSU Contract.  Senator Brian Ray of the Law College brought the proposal to the UFAC.

            There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman moved adoption of the proposed Revision to the Bylaws.  The proposed Revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.1.8 C) Applications for Extended Leaves (Non-Bargaining Unit Members Only) was approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Proposed Revision to Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 P) – University Safety and Health Advisory Committee  (Report No. 27, 2007-2008)

Professor Chieh-Chen Bowen then presented the UFAC’s proposed Revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 P) University Safety and Health Advisory Committee.  The University Safety and Health Advisory Committee consists of two subcommittees:  the Environmental Safety and Health Advisory Subcommittee and the Health Issues Subcommittee.  Professor Bowen explained that the major revisions are to combine both subcommittees into one committee and rename it the Environmental Safety and Health Advisory Committee, and to reduce the membership of the committee which is quite large.  This will reduce the number of vacancies that have not been filled on the committee for several years.

There being no discussion, Senate President Gelman moved adoption of the proposed revision.  The proposed Revision to the Bylaws, Section 8.2.3 P) University Safety and Health Advisory Committee, to be renamed Environmental Safety and Health Advisory Committee, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

IX.       Report of the President of the University (Report No. 28, 2007-2008)

            President Michael Schwartz first announced that Senator Andy Gross is celebrating forty years of service at CSU, and the same is true for Professor Nelson Pole. There are many people here who have served thirty-five, thirty and twenty-five years as well.   There was a luncheon for these people with extended service to the University today which was very nice.  He congratulated them.  Everyone applauded.

            President Schwartz reported that there is some concern that our graduation rates do not appear to be all that they should be.  Recently, he and the Provost have seen a preliminary study, since it has not been released, done by someone at the Ohio Board of Regents using logistic regression models to try to determine or predict what graduation rates should look like at the universities in the system. It takes into account variables such as students in remedial English or Mathematics, or if students live on campus, Ohio residents, minority status, gender, etc., and based on a model the Regents have produced, this university graduates101% of its predicted graduation rate. Some of our sister institutions in the system graduate from fewer than 100% of predicted rates.  This needs some further refinement but all of that will change when our full admissions standards kick in for the first time next fall and we shall see what will happen.  Our admissions standards are relatively minimum standards with completion of 13 units out of the 16 in a college prep program, state-specified core curriculum in high school with a minimum 2.3 GPA in high school and completion of the ACT or SAT with a score of 16 or 750 respectively.  You will be surprised to know that many people who have applied  do not have all three so they are steered to community colleges.

            President Schwartz talked about the Chancellor’s Plan and other developments.  He noted that the Plan is 140 pages long and not an easy read but it is full of some pretty interesting things that will affect us.   Everyone should recall that earlier on in his discussion on the future of higher education in Ohio, there was strong talk about merging CSU with Akron.  The earlier draft of the Chancellor’s plan still had comments in it about the possibility of that merger.  That hasn’t all gone away but it’s not glaring.  Part of the Chancellors plan is that he wants to sharpen the missions of both campuses making Akron the engineering campus, eliminating engineering at CSU and making CSU the medical or medical and science campus.  For now, the merger notion has gone away and is not found in the Chancellor’s Plan but there is language that he will use publicly that says if these two universities don’t perform in carefully well-defined areas, they will revisit that idea again.  The University of Akron’s focus will be on Engineering and in areas of Polymer Sciences and Engineering.  The Chancellor’s view is that the fundamental driver of the economy in our region here is going to be in things medical and medically related – health and safety which he sees as the defining theme for CSU.  As you know, CSU has built considerable strength in a number of areas in the College of Urban Affairs in areas of City Management and Urban Policy and we are number two in the nation.

            President Schwartz reported on the various colleges.  In Business, Accounting is doing very well.  The Dean focuses very hard on entrepreneurship which is going very well.  In Law, we will see how they do next July.   The College of Education and Human Services has developed and is very well thought of in a number of fields including Math and Science, in Education and Urban Education Leadership programs.  In the meantime, it is very important to us that there is a growing group of very talented biomedical scientists on this campus.  With all of these strengths, what is the identity of this institution going to be in the future?  Where do we go from here?  The Chancellor’s answer to that is a general pervasive theme across all of the college units that CSU can be and should be and will be health.  The health identity is crucial to our long term success and that is where we are going.  The Provost has already had this conversation with the academic deans and they understand full well that that’s the identity that we are going to pursue.

President Schwartz stated that everyone needs to know that he has real concerns about this document; not because it isn’t bold, because it is, not because it isn’t creative, because it is, but he has real concerns about the understanding here of what constitutes a Baccalaureate here – that’s the real concern.  He doesn’t want to see it cheapened.  A good BA degree requires education in the Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences that are not mentioned in the Chancellor’s Plan.  We are going to pursue the Arts initiatives and Theatre and Graphic Arts in the Playhouse and we would like to take over the Allen Theatre for our theatre programs.  President Schwartz said that his proposal is that performance arts here and at all the other public institutions in Northeast Ohio rotate so we could expect to see the University of Akron’s programs in dance and Music and theatre, Kent State and Youngstown State all coming up here to perform while our performances make the rounds of those other institutions as well.  The Arts matter.  They are behind economic development and they are the driving force in Ohio.  The value of the Arts, in collaboration with our sister institutions –the arts deans met last week on our campus and are very excited about doing those things.  Exhibitions in Graphic Arts should also rotate.  Within the humanities and the social sciences we are not going to be crippled in this, but that there is an identifying theme of health.  It is important that there is an identifying theme and each college will have some requirement in identifying a theme.  Each college can participate in making that our identifying theme.  Every university in the State must have some overarching theme that can be plainly seen as making a major contribution to the rejuvenation of the economy in the State and to economic development.  We are going to do that too but without doing damage to the real meaning of the university.

President Schwartz commented that in talking about doctoral programs, and everyone may see this in the paper, folks at Ohio State are taking a good look at their Ph.D. programs.  We only have seven of those.  The Chancellor has said that this is a university that should probably have more of those programs at that level.  President Schwartz said that he will recommend that to the Provost and decide which ones we can go with and make that go.  This is not so much a sea change but it is an acknowledgment that identity matters and the work that we do has to contribute to the regional well-being.  In the course of all of this, conversations were had about our relationship to NEOUCOM.  We have had meetings with them and continue to do that.  We are becoming a collaborator with that enterprise and our goal is to take the first twenty students in the BSMD program in the fall of 2009.  Another goal is to create a NEOUCOM presence in Cleveland or as close to our campus if possible.  In research, there is an opportunity for us and for our students and that will be a good thing.  In the long term, that is where we are.  The closer we can have that medical school to or at CSU the better off we will be.  The Provost and the President at NEOUCOM and members of the Chancellor’s Office will meet immediately on what kind of support we will need for all of this to happen shortly.  It is important for Faculty Senate to hear this because there will be a number of considerations as we go along.  The Faculty Senate’s job is to keep the place academically honest as we pursue these kinds of innovations and goals.  We cannot allow the Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences or the other professions but especially the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences or the other professions to wither in the face of more unilateral demands. We are not going to let that happen.

An unidentified Senator asked President Schwartz if Columbus has some plans in mind in terms of reallocating these resources.  Will some of these areas be more expensive than other areas?  President Schwartz is articulating a battle in terms of the Social Sciences and the Humanities as well as Health Care and that is the proper direction but it may not be inexpensive and it may require reallocation.  President Schwartz said that there are two answers to that.  One is that it will require some reallocation of funds, but don’t expect to see any new money especially in this economy.  We have been held harmless from some cuts already.  The other piece is that the Chancellor has organized a consultation but which in the past has always been a lecture series.  This is a consultation for real about devising a brand new formula to back this up.  The idea is that in order to do this work, we will have to give up some goals which are quite realistic.  We will be judged against that.   That plan has to be in the hands of the Chancellor of the Board of Regents by the end of December of this year at which time they will review all of the plans from all of the universities and send them back for rewrite, but the formula as we have known it as totally based on enrollments and programs by level will disappear.  Our Provost is on that consultation committee so we are well represented.

An unidentified Senator stated that it seems to him that since we are focusing on economic development in a relationship with the private sector whether its polymer science or whether it is liquid crystal or health care, part of that plan could be in a partnership with the private sector where they are bringing in new resources to CSU to help achieve this promise across the state and that would be looking at new resources as well as reallocating state revenues.  Is there anything in that plan about an effort in Columbus to start identifying key private sectors – the Cleveland Clinic would be a good example, in terms of endowing certain chairs of a medical school or a biomedical program.

President Schwartz said that yes, there is a section in there focusing on the private sector.  The more of these public private partnerships the better and that’s fine.  Also what is in there can be a little troublesome.  There is some talk in there about the Chancellor developing a system foundation for private fund raising system-wide.   This raises questions about our ability to control how we use our own assets and our foundation.  We are on the verge of launching a major campaign.  Are we going to be told how to use that money?  There is some precedent for this even in Congress where they want the institutions to spend our money in certain kinds of ways and in certain amounts.  I would want to be very careful about that.  But the answer is that yes, public private partnerships would be really very important to all of us.

Senator William Bowen asked if polymer science at the University of Akron or liquid crystals or any of our acknowledged areas of excellence arose as a consequence of a centrally organized state plan for higher education.  President Schwartz replied, “No.”  Kent State’s liquid crystals growth was a consequence of dumb luck.  The founder of the liquid crystals institute guy, his name was Professor Glenn Brown, recently deceased, came from Ohio University.  He was interested in liquid crystals but nobody cared and nobody would do anything about it and he got it going, but for him it was strictly an academic enterprise.  Nobody saw any particular uses.  When Glenn Brown retired, the next director who was very practically minded, and who was also a chemist and an engineer saw all kinds of uses that the thing just exploded.  The University of Akron’s move into polymer science came as the rubber industry departed and polymers became more important as replacing rubber.  The Regents preferred to fund that effort and they did.  The President at the time, Bill Muse, saw this as a major opportunity for the development of science and engineering at Akron and it just took off.  This is the first time in my 32 years in Ohio that there has been some sense of higher education as a system.  So we all have to start getting used to this because it’s not going to be easy but it’s a fact of life right now and in a system, everything and everybody has a place and a use.  The Chancellor of the system in Ohio is kind of all powerful here and from the time of his appointment, he has had enormous power.  This is a centralization of authority that nobody in Ohio gets used to.  Unless you have worked in states like California, New York or Florida, you don’t really get what a system means; well it is going to mean that here to and that is a coordinated system, and coordinated centrally with a powerful central figure.  That’s where we are headed.  So in answer to Senator Bowen’s question, no, it has not happened before but it’s going to happen now because it’s a total restructuring and change of philosophy in Columbus with regard to the role of higher education.

            Senator William Bowen asked if there is any reason to think that this change from what the Centers of Excellence were before sort of arose from within the activities that were going on in faculty members’ offices, etc., and is there any evidence that the new system will create more Centers of Excellence or better Centers of Excellence or Centers of Excellence at all.  President Schwartz responded that this is hard to answer and calls for too much speculation about what might and what might not happen.  He can tell him about some things – he can tell him that for now the Chancellor sees this focus for us as something that we have to pursue and we should pursue. We have real enormous strengths here to help professions as well as science research.  That is critical and we have it and we can make it grow and we can also let every one know that.  Does that mean that other things that would normally occur in the course of inquiry and research, etc. are not going to be paid any attention to?  “No, it doesn’t.  It means that we are going to get this up and running and then turn our attention to other things as they become possible and wise for us and we are going to do that.  Right now we have resources to pursue – one thing at a time and we need to do it very well and just keep moving.”

            Senator Stephen Duffy asked what role the faculty will play in all of this.  President Schwartz responded that this is very new and there will be plenty of faculty involvement.  He can’t imagine doing this without the faculty.

            Senator Michael Spicer stated that he wanted to speak in support of the President’s sentiment for maintaining the diversity of strong programs and he also wanted to speak against the central planning that seems to be going on.  It’s hard to get the British to say nice things about American education.  He noted that there have been a number of articles in the magazine, “The Economist”, that have repeatedly pointed to the strengths of the America higher education system and they see us in decentralization and the ability to precipitate competition.   To the extent that decentralization will reduce competition, it will be damaging to higher education in this state and it is going on nationwide and is damaging nationwide.

            President Schwartz said that Senator Spicer’s point was very well taken.  He noted that several years ago, he remembers sitting in the Office of the rector at the University of Warsaw in Poland and the rector was telling him that for next year’s Freshmen entering class, they only had room for eight students in Electrical Engineering because the central labor planning body had called him up to say that’s how many spaces he needed to reserve that year.  You kind of get the feeling that this kind of centralized planning and control can be the elimination of the competition and that can be a good thing.  The competition in Ohio is out of hand.  It has gone too far; it’s insane.  If he had every dime that we spent on advertising back to spend on the students, he would be one very happy person.  Our commitment to marketing and advertising in competition with the other institutions is terribly wasteful. He is torn here in between his own view, aside from his job, as to what really is the wisest course here.  He has worked in systems, one in Florida and in other places that were developed that way.  His preference is for some kind of hybrid, but he has not figured that out yet. He appreciates the thought behind Senator Spicer’s question. What is the wisest economic development package we can put together without wrecking the notion of a university?  That’s why we all have to be very conscious to maintain the integrity of the word “university,” in the course of moving forward in a direction, put in our resources there and still say that we are not a polytechnic – we are a university.  That’s not going to be so easy and if the faculty abandons this, we will fail.  So it’s terribly important that this body (Faculty Senate) becomes a concerned and even loving critic of what we are trying to achieve. And to the extent that the Senate can function in that way, we become a stronger institution as we go.  We’ve made a hell of a lot of progress at this place.  We’ve changed it in so many different kinds of ways, all to the good. This is a good university which deserves an opportunity to grow as other universities much older than we are have grown.  We are going to be just fine doing this but we really have to do this together and to watch carefully what’s going on.  President Schwartz said that a couple of years ago, he made the rounds of the colleges and asked everyone to come and talk to him and the Provost.  What does it mean to have a CSU baccalaureate degree and what does it mean to be an educated person?  There was a terrible turnout in those sessions.  The question wasn’t exactly of any moment, but it is now.  He is going to make those same rounds again.  This is a pivotal time in higher education in Ohio.  The faculty is fundamentally responsible for deciding what the university is going to mean and to find a way to implement that as well as having a defining theme.  He noted that Provost Saunders will have more to say on this.  He asked everyone to please let him know what is going through their minds.  He will be more than happy to take all comments, questions and concerns and he will answer them sooner or later.

            Senator Elice Rogers asked if the President could think of any university system that has a “whole system” like the system the Chancellor is talking about.  President Schwartz responded, “Yes, some of them are crazy.”  When he worked in Florida, he was a department chair and a dean and the president was so constrained, he couldn’t wait for the phone to ring from Tallassee telling him what he was supposed to do.  We are not in that game at all here, not by a long shot, but there were more FTE positions in the system office than there were in Florida Atlantic University.  You won’t see any of that here but it sure is worth watching.

X.        Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
(Report No. 29, 2007-2008)

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders said that everyone needs to remember that this report is two weeks old.  We are all struggling with it too and reading it and there are a lot of different things in it including relationships with K-12 and community colleges – this is a very complex document.  So as we get charged with implementation or responses to different parts of it, she will let everyone know.  However, we are ahead of the curve in having a Committee on Engagement and Excellence that represents every college in the university and they are definitely going to be one mechanism for faculty input into implementation of how to work on its overarching theme as a college and as a university and some points of measurement and progress.  We do know that the Chancellor will give us some kind of template to work with that in fact our budget will be measured against having made progress in particular areas.  It is hoped that it will not be too complex that we have to create a whole new level of organization to deal with it.  We did have an opportunity the last couple of years, we were charged with moving money in Ph.D. programs to STEM disciplines and in order to get our $65,000 match, we actually had to produce a 30 page document several times.  So the reporting on these things can be onerous and her goal being on that subsidy committee is that we don’t make it quite as onerous but we will definitely have to show progress toward our mission differentiation. The Deans have all been talked to about this at the last Dean’s meeting so many know that what we are going to do is work through the university structure working with the colleges and the departments to discuss this and there certainly will be more formal mechanisms set up for faculty input.  She did want to point out that the President talked about the provost at Ohio State ranking the graduate Ph.D. programs and just as a reference point there are 95 Ph.D. degree granting programs at Ohio State.  So we are not quite there yet with our seven and we certainly have work to grow and that is something everyone should know that she endorses and that this is something our institution should be moving toward.  We recently heard approval of our seventh Ph.D. in Psychology that we share jointly with the University of Akron in Adult Development so we were able to add an additional Ph.D.  We have a proposal for the doctorate in Physical Therapy which will be an additional doctoral level degree as well.

Provost Saunders noted that there was a question about the public private partnerships and a good example of that is in the jobs package that the governor has put out for job stimulus.  One of the features we are very excited about on which our university was behind, Ned Hill and Bill Napier worked very hard with the speaker of the house on a Co-Op package and there will be $250 million available for the next budget biennium for co-op programs and they will have to have a one to one match from industry.  We are very pleased about that because we think this institution has a long history of internships and co-op and that kind of money can really help us work with the local business community.

Provost Saunders noted that she had a few business items apart from the strategic plan and she begged Senates indulgence and said she will try to get to all of them.

Provost Saunders commented that first of all, listening to the Eulogy for Bud Bratton, she was very lucky when she was the Dean of the College of Science. Bud took her down two miles under Lake Erie to tour the salt mines where they had that great physics experiment.  It was like being in another world and it was really a thrill for her to see where they did that great detection of the neutrinos and traveling down with the miners and seeing the mining equipment.  She added that if anyone ever wants to film a movie down in the salt mines, it would be a really unique set.
     
            Provost Saunders thanked Connie Hollinger for organizing the last SPUR session with the university and the community.  We used as a title for that our engagement piece, Engaged Learning, Engagement with the Community and it was an extremely successful day and she thanked Connie and her committee members and all who participated.  Provost Saunders commented that as a spin-off to that, the President has asked the Deans who all made presentations on engagement in their colleges to do the same kind of presentation to our Board of Trustees so that they get a feeling for the kinds of activities that the faculty do with students here especially those that tie in with the community presence, and she thanked everyone who worked on that.
           
            On the subject of Engagement, Provost Saunders mentioned that Dr. Barbara Margolius’ committee referred to as Engagement and Excellence, had come to her with some initial recommendations about community engagement.  Professor Margolius will be sharing that with Senate as part of the Provost’s presentation but Dr. Margolius asked the Provost to just give Senate an overview and the main feature is that they are going to recommend that the university pursue the Carnegie Ranking of a community engaged university, and by following that template, that will give us a roadmap for how to move forward with that which includes things like data collection, assessment, a reward system and curriculum connections.  These are preliminary recommendations but that committee is working very hard on that and will continue to work on this excellence piece through this summer.  So that is a good point for everyone to know who their representatives are from their colleges and to talk with them.

            Provost Saunders noted that we have had a new hire here for several months but he was not introduced to Senate.  She introduced and welcomed Dr. Jim Drnek, our new Dean of Student Life.  Dr. Drnek has come to us from the University of Arizona which is really a good institution for us to look at as an inspirational model.  Jim was involved there with a lot of community service projects and he will bring a level of excitement and professionalism and work with the students.  His area is now under the Main Classroom in the build out as the University Center gets torn down this summer.  So they are sort of mixed in there with other student services and advising and enrollment and it is a terrific mix in bringing together those folks.

            Provost Saunders commented that the President had mentioned how far we have come in really becoming an exemplary institution.  She came across something that periodically asks to review universities across the country in the US News and World Report and she really doesn’t think very highly of those reports since about 25% of the rating is reputation and is not based on productivity, faculty publications, etc.  But they did something different this time – they took a list of what are the components of an exemplary undergraduate education using a report from the AACU, American Association of Colleges and Universities, and that’s a very well respected national group and she knows that some of their publications help frame our general education goals and guidelines and outcomes.  If you look at this you can see that we have come quite a long way and this is going to be the basis of the speeches she gives to parents when we recruit students here.  We have come a long way in moving from what is the generally accepted definition of exemplary undergraduate education.    In first year experiences, we are improving the ASC 101 course; we had last year for the first time, the freshmen book experience and with the new Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies, looking at that first year course and especially getting faculty involved in that will be critical.  Learning Communities - we received that $5 million grant from the Federal Department of Education written by Dr. Gitanjali Kaul and organized by Dr. Charlie Pratt; which is allowing us to have learning communities for the first time.  In our GenEds we have a Senior Capstone for the first time across the university; undergraduate research that was funded out of the Provost’s Office for two years running and really would like to expand that program to not just be the summer; service learning really imbedded in our engaged learning endeavor; study abroad, another program that she would really love every undergraduate here to have the opportunity to do and George Burke has been getting some foundation funding for that and we have been matching that founding funding so that our students can have that experience.  The Internships Co-ops that’s really a value that we have and want to expand and writing in the disciplines – that was really a core of the new GenEd.  You can look at this and see that measuring ourselves against sort of a national standard of where undergraduate education can be, we are really making good progress.

Provost Saunders wanted to mention some recent faculty grants because some of these are really significant and she would really like having that in the record.  When she came to Senate today, she read back over Senate notes, and it is amazing what you learn about an institution by the discussions going on in the Senate.  So she did want to highlight some of those recent grants we received from faculty.

Dr. Crystal Weyman received a NIH grant of $176,000 to study Molecular Regulation of Skeletal Myoblast Apoptosis

Dr. Surendra Tewari received a $332,000 award in Optical Diagnostics from NASA Glenn;

Dr. Barbara Margolius received funding from the Ohio Board of Regents for Choose Ohio First Scholarship Program for Student Success in Mathematics for $4,500,000;

Dr. Glenn Goodman got an award for the CSU Library Adapted Computer Lab for our students with disabilities for an additional $23,000;
 
Dr. Rama Gorla has an award from Parker Hannifin for Two Phase Flow and Heat Transfer in Liquefied Natural Gas Industrial System for $76,000;

Dr. Joanne Goodell from our College of Education received an award from the Ohio Department of Education for Partnering for Success for $639,521;

Dr. Barsanjit Mazumder in the Biology Department has his funding of year four of $265,000 from NIH for a study on Translational Silencing for a total award of $1.34 million;

Provost Saunders noted that our faculty continue to do well in external grant getting.  It is very important to us as a university to have those kinds of activities to support not only our graduate endeavor but all of these faculty work well with undergraduate students, high school students, high school teachers, community college professors and really those grants go a long way to making this a great university and she wanted to recognize that. 

Provost Mary Jane Saunders thanked the Senate for giving her time for her report and offered to respond to questions.

Senator Stephen Duffy noted that the Provost had mentioned the State’s willingness to match industry dollars and asked her to expound on that.  Will they match salaries paid to students?  Provost Saunders replied that her understanding is that there is a team working on that right now and she can forward to him the draft language that is going to the legislature that speaks to some of it.  We believe that it is a one to one match; we believe that there is support for the students plus some infrastructure support which is important because all of these relationships take some administrative person who is going in and setting these up and organizing them and making sure that they are good relationships.  The last piece of it that we are really happy about is it is also going to be graduate education which is good for us because of having so many masters’ candidates here.

            Senator Duffy asked if the Provost had any idea when the legislature will vote on it.  Provost Saunders said that she thinks the Jobs Package is in the next budget.  She thinks, however, that they were talking about some start up money and small awards to get institutions ready to apply for the bigger award.  So it is hoped that there will be some planning grant money soon and then follow it up by the major competition.

            Senator Duffy asked if the Provost’s Office will communicate with the various academic units when this money will be available.  Provost Saunders replied that absolutely, but what they are doing to organize it right now is getting together teams under the direction of Lisa Camp who will be involved in writing a proposal, and Paul Klein, who is our head of Co-op who really knows who the contact people are within our colleges and they are going to get a team together to work on this.  We have not yet seen the call for proposals but we wanted to be as prepared as we could be because some of you know that working with the State, it can be, here is the announcement and tomorrow the money to divvy up, so we have to be really prepared but we are in very good shape.  There has been a discussion at the staff level about what would make us unique and what would make us stand out in the competition.  We had Paul Klein come and talk to all of the Presidents and give us his view of where the program is now and what we do that is different from Cincinnati and Toledo and Ohio State and so we brainstormed and came up with some good suggestions out of that group as well.

            Senate President Sheldon Gelman said that on behalf of the entire Senate he wanted to thank President Schwartz and Provost Saunders for their remarkable reports in the initiation of discussion of state-wide developments.  In addition, he wanted to thank them for their representation of the university in these really unusual times.
 
XI.       New Business

            There being no further business, Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked for a motion to adjourn.  It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.

 

                                                            Lolita Buckner Inniss
                                                            Faculty Senate Secretary
                                                            (Reviewed by Heidi H. Meier)

/vel

 

[Top of Page]