I. Eulogy for Cheryl P. McCahon (Nursing)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the September 17, 2008 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of March 5, 2008, April 16, 2008, and April 30, 2008
IV. Report of the Faculty Senate President
V. Senate Nominating Committee – Election of Faculty Senate President and Secretary
VI. Academic Steering Committee
VIII. University Curriculum Committee
IX. University Faculty Affairs Committee
X. 2007-2008 Annual Report of Committee on Athletics (Report No. 4, 2008-2009)
XI. Report on Parking (Report No. 5, 2008-2009)
XII. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
XIII. Report of the President of the University
PRESENT: C. Alexander, Barrow, Beasley, Belovich, Berlin Ray, C. C. Bowen, W. Bowen, Cagan, Duffy, Goodell, Gordon Pershey, Hansman, Hollinger, M. D. Jones, Kalafatis, S. Kaufman, Komar, Larson, Little, Meier, Meiksins, Mensforth, Mikelbank, Rashidi, G. Ray, H. Robertson, E. Rogers, Rom, Shukla, Silberger, M. Smith, Steinberg, Sterio, Tebeau, Tukel, Visocky-O’Grady, Welfel, Weyman, J. Wilson, Xu, Yu, Zhou.
Droney, Ghorashi, Hanniford, Markovic, Olson, L. Patterson, M. J. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Sutton, G. Thornton, Vogelsang-Coombs.
ABSENT: Dixit, Gross, K. O’Neill, B. Ray, Sawicki, Vonderwell.
Anagnostos, Bonder, Boyle, Drnek, Heinrich, E. Hill, McLoughlin, Mearns, Nuru-Holm, L. E. Reed, Sadlek, Scherer.
ALSO PRESENT: Engelking, Hoffman, Jeziorowski, Karem, Lieske, Meiksins, F. Smith.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Senate President Gelman stated that Cheryl McCahon, as many know was very active in faculty governance at the university and she was a long time Senator and the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee among other positions. Today, Professor Vida Lock will deliver the Eulogy for Cheryl McCahon.
Professor Vida Lock delivered the Eulogy for the late Cheryl P. McCahon. Her remarks follow.
“Cleveland State University, the School of Nursing and especially the nursing community of this region lost an integral member, friend, and colleague on August 3, 2008. On that day the human life of Cheryl McCahon ended, but her legacy will live on through the students that she taught, the nurses she mentored, the colleagues she influenced and the initiatives she began and nurtured. Cheryl leaves behind her husband David, daughter Mary, son Kristopher, daughter-in-law Magaly, mother, Janet Diab, brothers George, Mark and Gene, and sisters Nancy and Tina, along with many other relatives, to whom we extend our sincere sympathy.
“Cheryl McCahon grew up in Toledo and received her diploma in nursing from St. Vincent’s Hospital School of Nursing there in 1963. She went on to earn a BSN at the University of Pittsburgh, a MSN in Gerontological Nursing at Case Western Reserve University Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, and her PhD at Kent State University.
“Cheryl had many clinical positions before focusing her energies in nursing education. She began as an instructor at the Presbyterian University Hospital in Pittsburgh and later in the Continuing Education Department at Presbyterian University Hospital. After moving to Cleveland, she was an instructor at the then Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital School of Nursing, as well as at Lakeland and Cuyahoga Community Colleges. In the summer of 1980, she chose to be a full-time academic, taking a position as a faculty member in Gerontological Nursing at Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing. Cheryl came to Cleveland State University in 1983, where, in addition to teaching she coordinated the basic BSN program during a time of tremendous growth.
“For the last nine years, Cheryl had been Undergraduate Program Director of the School of Nursing. This role encompassed being responsible for day-to-day operations which included troubleshooting, overseeing the curriculum, developing clinical sites, and hiring clinical faculty. It also included being the liaison for a number of collaborative programs such as the CSU/VNA Vision on 22nd Street Partnership, the School Nurse Licensure Program, and the New Initiatives with the Cleveland Clinic. She was also Director of the inter-departmental Gerontological Studies Program for four years. Cheryl also found time for scholarly pursuits. Her CV lists over 70 publications, papers and presentations on a variety of nursing topics in education and gerontology. In 2005, she was recognized with the ‘Memorable Educator Award for Excellence in Ohio’ and was featured in Ohio Magazine.
“In 1997, when the Department of Nursing was without a Chair, Cheryl took the helm as Interim. Ten years later she again accepted the challenge when the now School of Nursing was left without a Director, despite her failing health. This is concrete evidence of how much she cared about the School of Nursing, its students and faculty. They reciprocated by gently caring for her during her last difficult months.
“Cheryl also cared deeply about Cleveland State. She served on a multitude of university committees. These included the Strategic Planning Committee, Faculty Senate, Graduate Council, the Undergraduate Affairs Council, and the College as well as several department PRCs. In 2005, the University presented her with the ‘Distinguished Faculty Award for Service’ to recognize her many contributions.
“Cheryl was also active on many professional and community boards and organizations, often holding leadership positions. Among the many, are the Nursing Education Mobility and Access Group and the Dean’s Roundtable at the Center for Health Affairs, Greater Cleveland Nurses Association, Ohio Council of Deans and Directors of Baccalaureate and Higher Degree Nursing Programs, Sigma Theta Tau International, the Alzheimer’s Association, American Cancer Society, the Ohio League for Nursing, the Nursing Education Administration Association, and the Ohio Gerontological Society.
“It is harder to summarize Cheryl, the person, whose special characteristics we will never forget. As I was thinking about what to say about her, I called a former colleague, Dr. Lois Owen, to get her input. The first word that came out of her mouth was ‘workaholic.’ She said that Cheryl didn’t know how to say ‘no.’ When Cheryl saw that something needed to be done, she just went on to do it, not thinking that it might be hard or even not possible. This perhaps, along with her open door policy for faculty and students, best exemplifies the person that she was. She wanted to see that what needed to be done was done, as well and as quickly as possible. To top it off, Cheryl had a wonderful sense of humor, which she shared liberally.
“Each year, the Northeast Ohio Nursing Initiative honors an individual whose strong commitment to nursing and service to others has made a significant contribution to the overall advancement of the nursing profession with their ‘Lifetime Achievement Award.’ In May of this year, Dr. Cheryl McCahon received this honor, and fortunately, while weak, was able to be present to receive it and the accolades of hundreds of her colleagues.
“Cheryl made it her mission to advance high quality nursing education in our region and to foster collaboration between nursing educators and nursing practice. Cheryl’s contributions to the field of nursing are many and varied. Her diverse clinical initiatives have been widely replicated and are now common in nursing education. More importantly, she personally forged partnerships in the community that continue to be active to this day.
“Her dedication to everything she did is remarkable. Cheryl was a hands-on, determined, down to earth, tenacious, and committed colleague and friend. Her legacy to her profession is evident in the outcomes she achieved with students, and in the sustained community initiatives that continue to improve the healthcare of citizens in NE Ohio.
“We will never know the full extent of her influence, but all of us whose lives she touched are so very grateful to have known her, and will continue to miss her greatly.”
Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleague, Cheryl P. McCahon.
Acceptance of the Agenda for the September 17, 2008 meeting was moved, seconded and approved.
III. Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of March 5, 2008, April 16, 2008, and April 30, 2008
Senate President Gelman noted that we have two sets of Minutes to be approved today. The April 16, 2008 Minutes were victim to the technical problems we had as recently as two or three days ago and approval of those Minutes will be postponed because they have not been completed. He added that since the March 5, 2008 and April 30, 2008 Minutes were only just sent out yesterday, if anyone would like more time to review them before we approve those Minutes that would be a reasonable request. Hearing no such request, Senate President Gelman asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of the March 5, 2008 and the April 30, 2008 meetings. It was moved, seconded and the March 5, 2008 and April 30, 2008 Minutes were approved.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that his report will be brief. As members of last year’s Senate will know, the Board of Trustees communicated at the Academic Steering Committee and we communicated with them over the summer and as a result, a process was put in place for naming two faculty members to a Presidential Search Committee. The Academic Steering Committee met over the summer and forwarded the names of five candidates. The chairman of the Board of Trustees, Ronald Weinberg, chose two of those five and two was the number set in advance. Professor Peter Meiksins is one representative and he (Sheldon Gelman) is the other. The Committee has met once which was an organizational meeting. Currently the chair and two other members of the committee acting as a subcommittee are selecting a search firm. The chairman of the Board will be visiting the campus at various points to discuss the search with faculty. So far he has emphasized in public and in private sessions the seriousness with which he and the entire Board view this task. They think of the selection of the President as the Board of Trustees most important responsibility. It is the Board’s responsibility. The Search Committee is completely advisory. Chairman Weinberg also emphasized his and the Board’s intention to conduct a national search. He has said that there is no preordained outcome and he encourages the widest possible participation in the search.
Senate President Gelman noted that the first order of business is the election of a Faculty Senate President and Secretary. He said that before he calls on Professor Belovich, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, he might explain the odd positioning of the Senate Vice Presidential election on the Agenda. The Nominating Committee selected Professor Jerzy Sawicki as its candidate for President. There were no candidates by petition so when Steering met on September 3, 2008, we knew that the only candidate for President would be Professor Sawicki which would leave a vacancy in the office of Vice President. At that point, Steering initiated the procedure by which we announce the Nominating Committee’s choice of Professor James Wilson and allowed until sometime this week for a candidate by petition to file. If he understands correctly, there have been no candidates by petition. But because of this oddity, the election of the Vice President requires approval by Senate of the procedures. So what we are going to do is present the report of the Senate Nominating Committee with respect to the offices of Senate President and Senate Secretary and then we will turn to the election of the Senate Vice President.
Senator Joanne Belovich, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, commented that since Senate President Gelman had explained the situation, she would simply conduct the election. She noted that for President, the Nominating Committee’s candidate is Senator Jerzy Sawicki (Mechanical Engineering). She then asked for a motion to nominate Professor Sawicki as Senate President. It was moved, seconded and Senator Jerzy Sawicki was unanimously elected as Senate President for a two-year term.
Senator Belovich stated that the Nominating Committee’s candidate for Senate Secretary is Senator Heidi Meier (Accounting) and noted that there were no petitions for Senate Secretary. She then asked for a motion to nominate Professor Meier as Senate Secretary. It was moved, seconded and Senator Heidi Meier was unanimously elected as Senate Secretary for a two-year term.
A. Proposed Election Procedure for, and Election of, Senate Vice President
Professor Sheldon Gelman commented that because we departed from the Greenbook timetable in connection with the Vice Presidential election as we had to given the timing of the vacancy, the Steering Committee decided to request Senate ratification of the procedure to be followed and he is now requesting Senate ratification. There being no discussion, Professor Gelman asked for a voice vote in favor of the procedure to be followed and it was approved unanimously. Professor Gelman then stated that the Nominating Committee will now report with respect to the Vice Presidential election.
Senator Joanne Belovich stated that the Nominating Committee’s candidate for Senate Vice President is James Wilson (Law) and noted that there were no petitions for Senate Vice President. She then asked for a motion to nominate Senator Wilson as Senate Vice President. It was moved, seconded and Senator James Wilson was unanimously elected as Senate Vice President for a one-year term.
Professor Gelman stated that he had two other bits of explanation.
First, Professor Gelman noted that Professor Sawicki is in Germany and had asked him (Sheldon Gelman) to read a statement. Senator Sawicki’s statement follows.
“I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all members of Senate for electing me to be the next Senate President. I am committed to representing your issues, concerns, and to be your effective voice. It is a huge commitment and responsibility, but I am prepared to take the challenge.
“I regret that I cannot participate in today’s Senate meeting due to a long time commitment. I am presenting a paper at an International Engineering conference in Munich, Germany. I will be back to perform my duties at the end of this week. I look forward to working with you and thank you all for selecting me.”
Professor Gelman went on to say that Senator Sawicki told him that his role at the conference was agreed to a year ago and he regrets obviously to not being at Senate today.
Second, Professor Gelman stated that there is the question of who presides over the rest of today’s meeting. It’s funnier than you think because not only is he not the Senate President, he is not even a member of the Senate. His term had expired on August 31, 2008. He discussed this with Senator Wilson and with Senator Sawicki and they both asked that he (Professor Gelman) preside over the rest of this meeting. There is some precedent for this. When he was elected Senate President, Professor Mieko Smith presided over the remainder of the meeting although she was even a lower status that he is; she wasn’t Senate eligible. Professor Gelman went on to say that if there is any objection, Senator Wilson will have to take the podium otherwise he will proceed but he cannot vote since he is not a member of Senate.
B. Run-off Election of one Faculty Representative to the University Faculty
Professor Gelman commented that the second part of the Academic Steering Committee’s report concerns an election for the last position on the University Faculty Affairs Committee. There was an absolute tie vote in the Spring election between Professor Robert Krebs (BGES) and Professor Colleen McMahon (Psychology). They were both contacted and each thought a run-off election would be appropriate and each also would have agreed to a coin toss. The Steering Committee thought a run-off election would be preferable so, if there is no objection, he will proceed to that election. The two candidates would be those who tied last Spring. He added that if there is a tie again, he would like to proceed to a coin toss.
Ballots were distributed to Senators. Professor Colleen McMahon (Psychology) was elected to a two-year term on the University Faculty Affairs Committee.
Professor Gelman next proceeded to regularly scheduled elections.
Professor Sheldon Gelman stated that first there is an election of the position of Alternate Faculty Representative to the Ohio Faculty Council. Professor Rodger Govea is the current Alternate. He is eligible to be re-elected. Professor Gelman added that he did not talk to Rodger but he thinks that Rodger is not generally wild about going to Columbus at this point in his career so if anyone else is willing to serve or who knows of somebody who is willing to serve, he doesn’t think that Rodger would take exception to that. Professor Gelman then asked for nominations for the position which, strictly speaking, need not be filled. Many of the members of the Ohio Faculty Council do not have an alternate representative. There being no nominations for the position, Professor Gelman stated that there will be no election.
one-year terms to replace Retired Colleagues
Professor Gelman noted that Senate needs to elect two members to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel for one-year terms to replace Sylvester Murray and Samuel Richmond who have retired. Professor Gelman then called for nominations.
Senator David Larson noted that Senator Eileen Berlin Ray was willing to be nominated. Senator Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady stated that she was willing to be a candidate as well.
Senator Stephen Duffy moved to close nominations and the motion was seconded and approved. Professor Gelman then asked for a motion to elect the two nominees by acclamation. It was moved, seconded and Senators Eileen Berlin Ray (Communication) and Jennifer Visocky-O’Grady (HPERD) were elected by acclamation to one-year terms on the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel.
Professor Gelman stated that Senate needs to elect one Faculty Representative to the Self-Study Steering Committee. This is the Steering Committee for the university accreditation process. The Senate Steering Committee requested that its members, the head of each college caucus, attempt to identify willing candidates. Professor Gelman noted that this is a position that does need to be filled if we are interested in being accredited.
Senator Walter Rom (Operations Management, College of Business), and Professor Adrienne Gosselin (English, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences) were nominated. Professor Adrienne Gosselin was elected as the faculty representative to the NCA/HCA Self Study Steering Committee.
Professor Gelman stated that the Senate Steering Committee had requested that the caucus heads of each college solicit the names of interested colleagues.
The following faculty were nominated for election as representatives to the Academic Roundtable:
Professor Jeff Karem (English)
Professor Elizabeth Lehfeldt (History)
Professor Allyson Robichaud (Philosophy)
Professor Mark Sundahl (Law)
Professor Pamela Daiker-Middaugh (Law)
Professor William Bowen (Urban Studies)
Professor Sharon Bakke (Computer & Information Science)
Professor Catherine Hansman (CASAL)
Professor Francine Peterman (Curriculum/Foundations)
Professor John Turner (Chemistry)
Professor Anton Komar (BGES)
There being no further nominations, Professor Gelman asked for a motion to close nominations. It was moved, seconded and approved to close nominations. Professor Gelman stated that members may vote for up to five candidates. He added that the Senate adopted a rule two years ago that applies to all elections except possibly officer elections and that is that a plurality prevails – a majority is not required. So we will simply go through the ballots and declare the five highest vote getters the winners. If there is a tie after we count the ballots, we can report it back but since the Roundtable is going to convene before the next Senate meeting, he suggested that if there is a tie when the ballots are counted, after the conclusion of today’s meeting, we will be allowed to toss a coin in order to choose the fifth representative. He asked if there was any objection to the stated procedure.
Senator Chieh-Chen Bowen asked if there is a limit for one representative from each college. Professor Gelman replied that there was no limit.
After counting of the ballots, Professor Gelman announced the five faculty members who were elected as representatives to the Roundtable:
Professor William Bowen (Urban Studies)
Professor Jeff Karem (English)
Professor Elizabeth Lehfeldt (History)
Professor Anton Komar (BGES)
Professor Sharon Bakke (Computer & Information Science)
Professor Sheldon Gelman moved on to the next item, a report of the University Curriculum Committee.
Professor John Jeziorowski, the new chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that his report is pretty much summarized in the submissions that had been previously approved by the UCC and that he brought to Senate this afternoon for its consideration. He drew Senate’s attention to the first proposal.
(Report No. 1, 2008-2009)
Professor Jeziorowski stated that we have two representatives from the Chemistry Department to address any questions that Senators might have about the proposal.
There being no questions, Professor Gelman stated that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a new Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Sciences Degree and asked members to vote. The proposed Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Sciences Degree was approved unanimously by voice vote.
(Report No. 2, 2008-2009)
Professor Jeziorowski stated that the second item from the UCC is a Proposal to increase Credit Hours required for the BBA Degrees. He noted that the Academic Steering Committee had requested additional information in addition to the material that they had received at the most recent meeting and there is a copy of correspondence between Professor Jeziorowski and Dean Benoy Joseph from the College of Business that follows the proposal in the meeting packets. Professor Jeziorowski then asked Senators if there were any questions or comments.
Senator David Larson commented that he understands that the new majors have upper division requirements totaling from 30 to 38 credits but it is still not clear to him how many prerequisite credits there are at the 100 and 200 levels that students have to take before they can take the upper division credits.
Professor Jeziorowski asked if Dean Benoy Joseph could respond to Senator Larson’s inquiry. Dean Joseph responded that he assumed he just needed to respond to the prerequisites for the upper level courses and the prerequisites are the business core that is made up of 24 credit hours mostly at the 300 level. There are some 200 level courses in Accounting and Statistics that come to roughly 12 hours that are taken at the freshmen and sophomore years. Senator David Larson noted that this would put another 12 hours for the freshmen and sophomores in Accounting. Dean Joseph commented that this is already in place. Senator Larson said that he was just trying to get the totals because he has been told that they can’t go above 38 credit hours including prerequisites and, if that is not the case in the College of Business, that’s fine with him but he wanted to know that as a precedent because they will be revising their major soon. Dean Joseph stated that the only major that goes up to 38 hours is the Accounting major and that is because the CPA certification requires a minimum of 30 hours of Accounting which is what we have right now plus three hours of Business Law. So we are just meeting the bare minimum for Accounting and we want the Accounting students to be better prepared in a little more depth and this would be allowing them to get that. Dean Joseph added that all of the other majors are 32 hours and Finance is a 24 hour major that includes 30 hours but there has always been an Accounting course required for Finance majors. And with all of the things that have happened in the financial markets …
There being no other comments and questions, Professor Sheldon Gelman noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed to Increase Credit Hours required for BBA Degrees and asked members to vote. The proposal to Increase Credit Hours required for BBA Degrees was approved by a majority vote.
Professor Gelman moved to the report of the University Faculty Affairs Committee. He said that as he understands, the Committee has not yet selected its chairperson so Professor Jeff Karem will be speaking for the Committee.
Professor Jeff Karem stated that he is acting as temporary chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee because they have not yet held their first meeting to elect the chair. His proposal is a carry-over of business from the last semester. It was approved by the Committee and he is presenting the proposal to Senate for its consideration.
Proposed Revision to the Greenbook, Section 8.1.10, Extramural Employment (Report No. 3, 2008-2009)
Professor Karem noted that essentially the proposed revision to the Greenbook, Section 8.1.10, Extramural Employment, is an attempt to update. You may be aware that sometimes language in the Greenbook goes unrevised for a period of time and the language pertaining to Extramural Employment was out of date. UFAC brought it in line with parallel language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Professor Karem asked if there were any questions about the proposed revision. He added that it is a pretty glamorous piece of writing.
There being no questions or comments, Professor Sheldon Gelman noted that the University Faculty Affairs Committee has proposed a revision to the Greenbook, Section 8.1.10, Extramural Employment and asked for a vote. The proposed revision to the Greenbook, Section 8.1.10, Extramural Employment, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Professor Gelman stated that this proposal will be transmitted to the Provost and the President and from there it goes to the Board of Trustees.
Professor Gelman stated that a 2007-08 Annual Report was received from the Committee on Athletics. These reports are generally received by Senate and no action is required. If anyone wants to discuss any part of this report, this would be the time to do it.
There being no discussion, Professor Gelman stated that this report will be marked as received.
Professor Sheldon Gelman commented that because he could not find a parking space this year, he invited the Interim Director of Parking, Ms. Clare Rahm, to speak to the Senate. She very graciously and without hesitation agreed and we are delighted to have her at Senate today and thank her for coming.
Ms. Clare Rahm said that she brings just a few pieces of information and two ears ready to listen to commentary from everyone who is likely to be searching for a parking spot as well.
First, Ms. Rahm wanted to compare/contrast fall 2005 to Fall 2008 related to student headcount as well as lot capacity for our parking facilities. The first piece of information is that according to the book of trends, we have 15,500 students by headcount in fall of 2005; we have 15,700 students for this fall. Related to the capacity that parking has, we had 5,064 spots under the control of CSU either owned and operated or leased for CSU use in fall of 2005. This fall, we have 4,718. For those who want to do the math, it is 346 less spaces between this fall and fall of 2005. The numbers for 05 were provided by a master plan study that was done prior to her arrival. She arrived at CSU in fall of 2005. Ms. Rahm continued stating that we have 458 parking spaces that are dedicated to faculty/staff prepaid parking for the entire business day, every business day. That number has not changed since 2005. We have 171 spaces now dedicated to our residential student population and that number has increased by 100 spaces. We now have 800 students in our residence halls for this fall. That is very similar to the number we had and actually reflects about 150 more students than we had before so certainly dedicated spots for residential students are not necessarily contributing to what is being experienced and reported. In seeking an answer, she looked at the number of hang tags that have been purchased or the registrations for must pay tags and found that we are flat for all purposes in both the faculty/staff and in the student numbers. We are slightly below last year in student numbers with an increase in U-Pass collection so as she is looking at the facts that are available from data, she is short 346 spaces on campus. She is working with the Office of Institutional Research to take a good look at enrollment trends to determine if some of our hypothesis over the years, about when students need their parking spaces, has changed. She indicated that she doesn’t have that data yet but that will be available shortly. They are doing a census of parking lot usage by physical count. Starting last Thursday, they are doing it for five class days and that data will be available shortly as well. Ms. Rahm stated that there is no technology in our parking facilities to provide us with use data and so they are, at this point, dependent upon our individual employees who go out and count spaces. That is how they determine a lot is full and that’s how they decide if additional parking is needed. She noted that in the future she would like to change that, but she wanted everyone to know where the data comes from.
By way of one last announcement prior to comments and discussion, Ms. Rahm reported that a revised product has been adopted on behalf of faculty and staff who park infrequently on campus. She has been contacted a number of times since she took the interim role in April, from folks who only need to be on campus once or twice but also need the convenience of being able to come and go. The must pay parking is a bit of a challenge at this point and so is seeking access to that prepaid parking. What is being offered is a single use any day pass called a scratch off pass. It has no expiration date and the face value on it over the past few years has been $6.00. It’s been mostly used for visitors but it has been adapted over the summer and it has been offered to a couple of faculty members already – one in the College of Law and one in the College of Business – to purchase so that they are able to come to campus once a week to do the seminar that they are responsible for and still have access to a prepaid lot. It is discounted 30% which makes the discounted price $4.20 which we see as very close to parity to the $4.00 that one would pay under the must pay, but, again giving you access to additional spaces. So that’s an adaptation in the absence of technology we are trying to be creative. She doesn’t apologize for the absence of technology but she just wanted to acknowledge it.
At this point, Ms. Clare Rahm stated that she was open for comments and suggestions.
Senator James Wilson asked about the old Teamsters Building on East 18th and Euclid. He noted that there seems to be a fair amount of space there right beside the building and it could be marked for eight or nine additional spaces.
An unidentified person asked if there is any access to E-Learning course information as to how that might ease the load of parking on campus. Ms. Rahm responded that she hasn’t but it is among the questions she is asking Institutional Research. She is working with Institutional Research to see if some of that doesn’t help.
Provost Mary Jane Saunders chimed in about E-Learning. The number of student credit hours in E-Learning this fall, around 19,000, is equivalent right now to all of last year’s numbers so it’s really a growth part of the institution. Dr. Barbara Hanniford said that it is summer and fall combined which is almost as much as three semesters. Provost Saunders stated that last year it was 20,000 and also the RTA U-Pass has impacted the student parking and some faculty use it as well.
Senator Joanne Belovich inquired if there was any chance that the Science building will ever be power washed because the place is filthy. Ms. Rahm replied that it was done last fall and it is scheduled to be done soon. We generally do that first floor right near the windows except where the pigeons and others tend to make their homes. As soon as that project is finished and it is turned back over to us, part of that project expense is to clean that again for us.
Senator Belovich asked if that space will be painted and brightened up a little. Ms. Rahm replied that this is being looked at as well. Painting has been recommended for most of our underground spaces by our security consultant. A coat of white paint does wonders to make a space to not only feel but actually be safer so that is on the list of things that they are planning to do this year is to paint our underground areas.
Senator Stephen Duffy wanted to know if the stairwells in the Main Classroom to the underground parking lots are to be opened any time soon. Ms. Rahm replied that she is awaiting an answer. She had just created that question because of the number of phone calls received in her office and she did not come to the meeting with an answer from Capital Planning. She does know that the pedestrian exit that comes out onto the plaza in front of Science and Research is being explored. There is a pedestrian door that is a new door from that garage with key card access. Senator Duffy commented that you cannot get into that but you can get out. Ms. Rahm said that a card access is being looked at that will allow faculty and staff to be able to let parking know they want to go in that door and they will be to do so with the standard ID card and be able to go back in. They are working at trying to make that both an entrance and an exit. They want to do it in a neutral fashion so that there aren’t non-affiliates that choose to reside in the garage as well. As soon as she has an answer, she would be happy to get it to Violet so that she can add it to the Minutes. Senator Duffy asked if fire issues are associated with the stairwells being closed up. Ms. Rahm said that her understanding was that the building was granted an occupancy permit at the stage that it was in and it was conditional until the work was finished so she would assume that we are in compliance, but she is not qualified to say for certain – she just knows that we have an occupancy permit for both the garage and for the building.
Senator Beth Cagan stated that it would help also to have some signs so that you know how to get to the garage from the first floor of the Main Classroom building. She added that she figured it out but it took some time. Another Senator inquired if they had thought about guaranteed parking or something like that. If you can do some planning and locate spaces even for those coming in on Friday and at the time of class on Mondays and Tuesdays so people can get some parking somewhere because a lot of students wait until a space opens up and then they are late for class and say that they couldn’t find parking. He wondered if they can think of some plan where there are some parking spaces which are not very near to the college. Ms. Rahm replied that there is parking North of Chester that is viewed by students as undesirable because it is a one or two block walk. They are finding that those spaces remain available until approximately 11:00 A.M. most days. Mondays and Wednesdays have hit us very hard this fall with the shortage of spaces as well as the number of students enrolled in courses those mornings which is causing a challenge, but that is being looked at. When students are in the que, they are encouraged to proceed to other places but many students would prefer to wait to get a covered spot than to walk. That’s a lifestyle change they want to encourage but they are not going to take responsibility for doing that. The idea of dedicated parking on this campus has not been thoroughly investigated and it is not part of how parking developed itself over the years on this campus and so the must pay and the pre paid have been in place for a long time. We are always open to having a broader conversation about that and hope that the representatives that are on the Parking Advisory Committee will join her in that conversation this year because it is certainly time.
A Senator asked about alternative designations for less expensive parking that is further away so that he can buy a spot in a distant lot at a discount. Ms. Rahm said that this was proposed two years ago by the Parking Department in public hearings. They wanted to have a core and a non-core price and within the public meetings that were held in the University Center as well as visits made to a variety of places including union representatives, etc., we got pushed back on that and were told that this appeared to be classicist and that they didn’t want that. The Senator stated that as a faculty member, he would be happy to walk two blocks for a lower price. Mr. Rahm noted that this is still on the table but the last time it was presented, it didn’t have good solid public support and the department chose not to proceed.
A Senator stated that besides U-Pass, which is great, are we going to encourage people to car pool, take bicycles, take motorcycles and do other things that don’t use up parking spaces? Ms. Rahm replied that one of the things they are looking at currently is that there is no listing of where you can park a bicycle. So they are working on having that added to the parking web site so that people are able to point and click to determine where a bicycle can be parked and also that’s been included in what the security guards that are being funded through parking funds are going to pay attention to which are those areas. There is also some conversation going on regarding the extent that it could be offered to commuting groups. One of the things that currently sits on the books of Parking Rules is that you may only have a pass that only you are allowed to use and so one of the things that the Parking Advisory Committee will be taking a look at is how could one share and how committed is the campus to that idea because what other campuses do, is it is a very prime location as well, it’s identified for a community group. The car pool idea is out there and is part of the conversation and it’s really a matter of getting a rule changed which is not difficult but also determining the level of public support for that kind of a change because with the shortage this year, this did seem to be the year to also push that currently. She added that this is a great idea and the Parking Advisory Committee is talking about it.
Senator Duffy inquired how many parking spaces we are going to lose when the Bookstore comes down. Ms. Rahm answered that at this point, she would like to first give a summary of what’s coming back on line because that is the better conversation. The South Garage which is the construction that can be seen adjacent to the Wolstein Center that used to be called Lot Z will hold 623 cars. Now that garage is being built to support Wolstein Center and their conference pavilion specifically so there will be some balancing of hang tag use, must pay use and Wolstein guest use in that garage but that does bring us back to parity with 2005 with the opening of that next fall. In addition to that, another garage will be added on what is currently Lot D which holds just under 200 cars. A garage will be built which will hold 300 cars that will support the new housing to be built on Euclid at East 24th Street. Finally, when the Student Center is finished, parking will be available under the Student Center and under the plaza and that will yield about 100 spaces. Ms. Rahm went on to say that specifically, as we look at starting the construction, Lot D holds 187 spots so that will be closed after the fall semester for construction to re-open a year from then and Lot V is all meters. She was not sure how often Lot V is used by anyone but the guests to the Administration Center and guests to the Book Store but Lot V does have 18 parking spots so we will lost those for that period during spring semester. She noted that it gets better next fall and we are still in negotiation. There are some action plan pieces she wanted to report on. On the first, they are still in negotiation with one final private operator for some designated spaces. We have a fantastic arrangement with Playhouse Square that any pre paid tag holder can use that garage Monday through Friday, entered any time at no additional cost to the user and that is a 700 car garage so we see that as overflow. From their perspective, it is very seldom that they have less than 200 empty spaces so there is a lot of opportunity there and it’s covered.
A Senator stated that he liked the 10 plus 1prepaid parking pass. Mr. Rahm stated that they are actually going to adapt that again which can be easier for people to do and easier for the parking attendants to deal with because we want to speed it up. We value our must pay customers but we would like to get cash out of our booths which is safer for everyone involved.
Senator David Larson asked Ms. Rahm if she could send out either electronically or on paper, a list of the must pay lots because the one he usually uses is now sometimes full and he doesn’t know which ones outside the core are must pay and which ones don’t have anybody working there so you can’t park there. He doesn’t know where to look. Ms. Rahm said that she is happy to report that the university Marketing Department just finished an update of the campus map and it should be on the Parking web site today. It will have an update of all the lot descriptions and it will also have the new lots that have been added – Lot 30 that we are leasing next to Viking Hall and a new lot up on East 17th and it has the Hanna Garage and the Playhouse Square information as well.
Professor Sheldon Gelman wondered about the East 17th Street Garage. He noticed that there was no construction over the summer and then just before fall classes started, increasing numbers of spaces were taken. Ms. Rahm asked if that would be the University Parking facility between East 19th and East 21st. Professor Gelman said that would be the one he was referring to. Mr. Rahm stated that UPF is our single largest facility and it holds 900 cars and the repair to the expansion joints which means basically that the slabs of concrete don’t fall on people and cars was started this summer but was delayed due to some issues with our vendor. It is to be finished by October 1st. Regrettably there aren’t any penalties in that contract for delays and she apologized for that. She is learning. They are not supposed to be taking up more than 100 spaces at a time and they are in the last of the repairs up on the top floor. Signage was not what was expected from that company and she apologized for that because at certain times you couldn’t enter from East 19th or you couldn’t enter from East 21st and there wasn’t any way to know that but it is supposed to be corrected quickly. The other thing that has been corrected is that the vendor never used Lot J. Those of you who know the small lot in front of the Doan Electric Building on Chester was all caged in for construction use and never used so that has been taken back from Capital Planning and they graciously gave it up and so those 39 spaces return for use as well.
Senator Peter Meiksins said in light of what was just said, how confident is she that the Wolstein Garage will be finished on time next fall. Ms. Rahm stated that this new garage is scheduled to be finished by the summer so they gave themselves a six week window and to date that contractor has been very speedy. Part of that is they have work they want to do next year that they are bidding on that they can’t do if they don’t finish our job on time. She is finding with that kind of an incentive she feels more confident.
A Senator noted that the entrance to the East 17th Street Garage is often dangerous when there is a que there because there is a que in each direction on 17th and only leaves one lane for through traffic that people have to play “chicken” on with people leaving the garage and there are other entrances into that garage that are never opened. Has anyone explored using those other entrances instead of the one on East 17th? Ms. Rahm stated that the entrance on Chester is the other dominant entrance to that garage and the use of that was suspended at the request of the City of Cleveland and others because of the quing issues that were created on Chester because of that being such a busy thoroughfare. At this point, they are trying to investigate what signage would be necessary to direct the que to only go one direction and to begin communicating through the web site, etc. that if you are wanting to enter that garage, we would prefer that you enter from Chester Southbound on East 17th or whatever seems to make the most sense. Euclid is a problem so she doesn’t want to send drivers to Euclid so she tries to send people in another direction. Ms. Rahm went on to say that they are going to take steps verbally to try to change the climate, but at this point, that is a really tough piece for them. They are also out working that que letting people know that if they are prepaid there is another lot that’s typically empty just further North on East 17th. It is very tough. She is not quite sure what the thought was then but she also knows that Euclid was very different when that garage was built so that’s a tough one to adjust to.
A Senator inquired if there will be any studies with respect to the must-pay lots and the pre pay lots because it seems to her that sometimes maybe there are spots in the must-pay lots and the pre-pay lots are overfilling and visa versa. Ms. Rahm responded that a pre-pay person can use any lot. The unidentified Senator asked about somebody who just has the must-pay tag and does not use the pre-pay tag and it seems sometimes there may be spots in pre-pay lots and yet the must-pay lots are overflowing. Ms. Rahm said that this is one of the questions that the Institutional Research Team is going to help her answer on providing them with the CSU ID numbers of all the must-pay registrations as well as all of the pre-pay registrations. IR is going to help her figure out where people’s offices are and from a student’s perspective, where is their first class of the day. It is also known that students tend to park wherever their first commitment of the day is or where their last commitment of the day is so they are going to try to get answers because she is concerned that our must-pay folks may not have sufficient options.
Professor Sheldon Gelman said that he wanted to thank President Schwartz for telling him about the lot North of Chester on East 17th Street which actually does have some spaces and it had more spaces until he told the Urban Affairs College about it. If you approach that lot from the South, it says Theater Parking and you won’t go in their. Only if you approach from the other side does it say CSU Parking.
Professor Gelman stated that next we have a report from Provost Mary Jane Saunders.
Provost Mary Jane Saunders said that she was looking forward to following the report on parking as something that would be extremely antagonistic but Clare handled herself beautifully and we appreciate all she does for us. Ms. Clare Rahm is in charge of a lot of our auxiliary things and our dorms and she is just a wonderful person to work with and she single handedly holds Andy’s hand on the Rec Center. Provost Saunders thanked Clare for all of that.
Provost Saunders welcomed everyone back and said that it looks like a busy year one more time for us. She has quite a few things to talk about and she will try to touch on them briefly but let everyone know that she is available for questions about them and in her rather lengthy welcome back to the faculty she touched on some of these issues there too so everyone can go back and read about them.
First of all, Provost Saunders stated that we have a real milestone to celebrate at this institution. For the first time, ever, or certainly since we have been recording this, our freshman class came in with a high school GPA of over 3.0 or 3.8 to be exact so that’s a real indication that this institution is attracting better qualified high school students, it’s a compliment to our Honors and Scholars Programs, it’s a compliment to the Senate and to the faculty that decided that admissions standards would be appropriate for this institution and so that’s a big deal for CSU to have a freshman class to come in with those kinds of high school credentials. Provost Saunders said that we look good in enrollment in the fall. We are down in freshmen and one reason she thinks is the new admission standards although they are not academically rigorous, there are still students who were turned away and who we diverted to the community colleges to get their first couple of years or to get their developmental math and English classes so that they can compete at the university level. We are up in transfer students, we are up in domestic graduate students, and down in international graduate students. So, one more thanks to Mike Droney who put together a great enrollment team and she knows that a lot of the faculty and the deans and staffers participating on that so we are healthy in enrollment this fall and she thanked them for that.
Provost Saunders noted that this year we have really three major academic initiatives that are going to take up a lot of our time. The first in which a lot of people are participating is our NCA accreditation – it’s our year of self study. Everyone will hear about the new accreditation process that is quite different than in 2000 when we went through the accreditation before. This is our major accreditor. In 2000, the way that accreditation was organized was very parallel to the organizational chart of the university so Student Affairs reported on student affairs, Finance reported on finance, etc. Now they have cross-cutting questions that you are expected to answer as a university as a whole so it’s going to be a very different kind of study and we want to use that study effectively to help us plan for the future. It’s much less now like an audit of looking at past activities and much more where are you positioned to move forward. So that large task is being chaired by Dr. Gitanjali Kaul and Dr. R. B. Nordgren and she knows a lot of people have volunteered to serve on some of the steering committees or the subcommittees of that and she thanks everyone for that. That will be a big undertaking this year.
Provost Saunders commented that the second big undertaking is the implementation of the new agreement with NEOUCOM. She handed out a sheet about the agreement. She noted that everyone may or may not know that by legislative decree Cleveland State is now a full partner in the Public Medical School, NEOUCOM over in Rootstown. Before this, the partners for the entire history of NEOUCOM were Kent, Akron and Youngstown so this is a real important thing for this institution to be able to participate in a BS MD program and a program that we have proposed that is going to be quite different than anything in the country which is a post baccalaureate MD program. We really want to concentrate on urban health as our piece of the training of primary care physicians which is NEOUCOM charge, we are looking at a complex of courses that will introduce these students to the urban health problems, urban health initiative challenges, look for students to enter the program that have a commitment to Cleveland and the health of this city, and it’s going to be a national model for providing an urban health primary care physician training track. So, we are looking at admitting our first class to Cleveland State in fall 2010 – that would be the post baccalaureate class. They would matriculate here two years before going on to NEOUCOM. Provost Saunders said that everyone is quite excited about that. There are a few hurdles in the road but we will try to get over those. Provost Saunders went on to say that the other things we have going on with NEOUCOM are an increased partnership on research and everyone will be hearing more about that from our new Vice President of Research, Rick Steiner, of how to have interdisciplinary research between our faculty and their faculty. This is the partnership with NEOUCOM researchers and then the baccalaureate and the post baccalaureate classes. CSU is quite excited about that and that is something everyone will be hearing more about.
Provost Saunders said that the third major thing going on this year is the concept of the institution identifying its mission as different from other institutions in Northeast Ohio and across the state and identifying the Centers of Excellence. She noted that she distributed a draft handout of some of the activities that will take place this year in our desire to help fully inform the Trustees who are going to be the ones who deal with the Chancellor on where this institution will be going in the future. There will be that Roundtable that everyone has been hearing about and she thanked Senate for the nominations today. They will be working with the CSU Trustees Academic Affairs Committee. They are going to make this one of their primary charges for the year. The Chancellor will be on campus the night of November 4th and all day November 5th, which is another opportunity for dialogue. The Strategic Planning Committee which everyone knows is an ongoing committee has also taken this as a charge for the year and we also have now a report from the Provost Task Force on Excellence and Engagement that worked all through last spring and all summer and she will have the report posted on the Provost web site. She just got it so she hasn’t fully digested it but she does want to really thank that committee for working so hard on this. In her review of the earlier drafts, it’s an extraordinarily well-written and well-thought-out document that maintains our commitment to being a comprehensive university while looking at areas we can excel in in Northeast Ohio. So she specifically wanted to thank the members of that committee – Barbara Margolius who chaired it, Jeff Brudney, George Hastimerverdis, Jim Drnek, Grace Huang, Raj Javalgi, Andrea Jennings-Sanders, Kathy Judge, Anton Komar, Vida Lock, Michael Mauldin, Mark Tebeau, and Jim Wilson. A special thanks from Provost Saunders to all of them for working so hard on this and helping to shape this year’s dialogue. So she will make that available to everyone to look at and it will help form the basis of the discussion this year.
Provost Saunders remarked that there have been some questions about the budget which she will try to address. She noted that everyone should remember that this isn’t her area of the institution and there is also a Senate Committee of PBAC who gets briefed by Jack Boyle. She knows that there were concerns about how we ended last year and how we started this year. Unfortunately, we ended fiscal year 08 with a real decrease in the income off of the university investments. You can’t pick up a newspaper and not know that we are not alone in having investments deliver less income. This institution imbeds investment income as part of its base budgeting so we depend on that to pay the bills – that’s not an extra. We have sources of revenue like tuition from the students, the state subsidy – that is a source of revenue that we use to balance university books. And unfortunately at the end of last year, that did not do very well at all and we did not end the year with what we had termed in our budget modeling as margin or profit and we had an agreement at this institution with central budgeting that at least 80% of that profit would go to the academic side, to reward the academic side for meeting its target goals for enrollment. Provost Saunders said that she and the President went around to all of the colleges and talked to everyone about how important it is to keep the enrollment up and how important it is to keep our budget healthy. So unfortunately, what happened at the end of the year, there was an anticipated $4 million profit which was lost in the market at the end of the year and we actually fared better than a lot of institutions did and certainly her own personal investments did at the end of the year. That started the year for us at the academic side with a little bit of caution about committing to long-term investments because of the fact that we started the year without this one-time money that we always have to fund things like start-up, fund searches and fund a lot of the activities on the academic side. Provost Saunders continued stating that the other major encumbrance we have right now, because of the changes in the faculty contract, is a window of retirements but we also have a financial commitment to a lot of those retirees of one-third salary and right now, we’ve got within the next four years an encumbrance of about $5.7 million against paying the commitments to the one-third retirees. That has tied some of the money up that we would ordinarily be able to use to invest in things for the next few years. To put it in perspective, the average cost of the one-third retirement is about $30,000. Those retirees teach two classes so that’s about $15,000 per class, while ordinarily the cost to us, if we hired a part-timer to do that, would be $1,500 per class so it’s about a ten-fold increase in cost for that particular class to be taught. So we have that on the books as something that we are committed to and have to book in to pay. Some of you were disappointed in not being able to fill tenure-earning faculty positions right away, but we do have this commitment that we have to honor for the next three years. The four-year out commitment is quite substantial that we have to meet before we can free up money to hire tenure-earning faculty. With that said, we have authorized over 54 searches for next fall as a combination of term, tenure-earning and visiting and to put it a little bit in perspective, this particular fall, we hired 29 tenure-earning faculty. Of those 54 authorized searches, 23 are tenure-earning so we are keeping pace but we do have this major financial commitment. We also have some uncertainty about what the subsidy model, the new funding formula, will bring in the future and she and the President have talked about that as well.
Provost Saunders commented that of the new faculty who are coming in this fall, of these faculty the academic credentials of these new faculty, which everyone attracted and for which she thanked everyone for working hard in the search committees, really have outstanding credentials. She read some of the institutions from which faculty were attracted from: Ohio State, Cornell, Medical University of South Carolina, Columbia University, SUNY at Buffalo, University of Georgia, University of California Irvine, Penn State, University of Iowa, University of Houston, University of Nebraska Lincoln, University of Missouri, Case Western Reserve, UT Austin, University of Florida, University of Toronto, Kent State, Florida State, UNC Chapel Hill, and the University of St. Andrews Scotland. So we’re attracting faculty from really what used to be called Research I, top tier institutions and that’s a credit to this institution and to everyone for attracting such great young faculty here. Provost Saunders encouraged everyone to mentor those faculty as best as can be done so that we retain those faculty and they are successful here at Cleveland State. She said that she is very pleased about that and she did share that with the Trustees to let them know about the academic credentials of our faculty.
Lastly, Provost Saunders said that she always likes to recognize some of the major grants that have come in. She looked back over her notes of previous Senate meetings and realized that she had not done it for a while. The list is long so she said that she would mention half of the list now and half at another time. Again, the faculty and staff and deans have been very active in getting external funding and it’s really a tribute to them. Provost Saunders read a few:
Bette Bonder received a $2 million grant for the Chose Ohio First Engaged Scholarship Program in Bio Sciences and Health Care; she also has a grant on Geriatric Education Centers;
Ned Hill was funded by the McArthur Foundation for $83,000 for Regional Economic Resilience;
James Salzman continues his Literacy Educator Training and received $300,000;
Maria Angelova received from the U.S. Department of Education $250,000 for Project Reach;
Charles Phelps received $200,000 for a project funded by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners;
Yan Xu and Jeff Dean both were successful in programs from the Department of Education for fellowships and graduate assistantships in areas of national need – both of those were funded, one at $400,000 and one at $500,000;
Gitanjali Kaul got her latest yearly amount from the U.S. Department of Education for our Learning Communities, and, remember that was a $2 million grant;
Cheryl Delgado in the Nursing program received $200,000 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for Nursing Scholarships;
Mark Tebeau from the Cuyahoga County, U.S. Department of Education was funded for Constructing, Consuming and Conserving America for $145,000;
Majid Rashidi received $1 million from the U.S. Department of Energy on his Wind Spires Alternative Energy;
Surendra Tewari continues to get funding from NASA on several projects: one for $122,802 for a project titled, “Effect of Convection and Step-Change in Growth Speed on Dendritic Array Morphology During Directional Solidification”; one for the supplemental funding of Tewar54 for the project titled, “Strain-Tolerant Self-Sensing Environmental Barrier Coating for SiC/SiC Ceramic Matrix Composites and Si3N4 Ceramics” in the amount of $102,000 – a three-year award totaling $607,393 is anticipated; another for Integration of NDE and Finite Element Modeling and Image Visualization for $45,000 for Amendment 5 of an anticipated total award of $507,303;
Dan Simon received $300,000 from NSF for Bio Geography Based Optimization of Multiple Related Complex Systems;
Siu-Tung Yau received $100,000 from the American Diabetes Association for Glucose Monitoring Devices;
Collette Hart received $165,000 from the U.S. Department of Education for Global Entrepreneurship;
Valentin Boerner received $209,215 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences for Boern08 for the project titled, “Functional Analysis of the Synaptonemal Complex;
Wenbing Zhao got $150,000 from NSF for major research equipment acquisition for computers;
Roman Kondratov received $300,000 from the American Heart Association for Pharmacological Modulation Cardiovascular Circadian Clock Systems;
Barsanjit Mazumder an additional American Heart Association award of $120,000 for Resolution of Cellular Inflammation.
Provost Saunders noted that these grants are across the university in many areas and they are really significant amounts of money that the faculty are bringing in to help to support their research endeavor at this institution. She added that she is very, very proud of that.
At this point, Provost Mary Jane Saunders offered to take and respond to questions. She added that everyone will want to hear from the President as well. He will talk more about some of the external factors pressing on this institution at this time, parts of being a system, and things about the subsidy.
Senator Elice Rogers commented that she had always wondered what role Athletics plays in generating revenue so we can go to the tournaments. Provost Saunders replied that Athletics are funded out of auxiliaries. We cannot use state dollars to fund our athletes. She assumed that goes back into their pot when they go off to play games where there is an amount of money associated with playing that particular team or going to the NCAA and there is shared revenue back to the Athletics Department. Last year they did so well, they won the trophy of the conference that they are in – the champion’s trophy – because they won in so many sports so they are really doing well. But, the best part about Athletics, there is every year a banquet in the spring for the athletes that get a 3.0 or better and some of those athletes have gotten 3.0 or better seven semesters in a row. About 120 of the 170 athletes maintain that. They also compete as teams for the highest grade point average and some of those grade point averages of teams – in women’s volleyball this last year the GPA was 3.99; the year before it was women’s softball with a straight 4.0. Lee Reed, the Director of Athletics, honestly puts academics first. You can hear Lee speak in any audience, not just an academic audience, and that’s what he talks about. That’s the best thing about our athletics program; it’s really athletes scholars and with the emphasis from the Athletics Department on scholarship.
Senator Kathleen Little asked Provost Saunders to explain the rationale for using graduate assistants only for undergraduate students. Provost Saunders responded, one of the things we struggle with at this institution is the graduation rate of our undergraduates. It’s becoming more and more important because as you will hear from the President, unless she answers her question completely and the President doesn’t have to talk about this, our system of funding for the state share of instruction which we call subsidy or SSI is becoming outcomes based. What they are looking at is not just how many classes you offered and how many student credit hours generated, but things like, what was the graduation rate of your freshmen cohort. That can then effect the funding for every program at the institution – graduate programs, upper division, etc. Our undergraduate’s six-year graduation rate, is about 30% of our freshmen who start here who graduate in six years. About 10% are still enrolled at the end of six years. Now when you look at the demographics that look at the predicted graduation success, knowing that our students are first time in college, knowing that their ACT scores are on the low side, knowing that they are in developmental math or developmental English, knowing that they are Pell Grant eligible – all of those things point to a graduation success rate just about where we are. We graduate a couple of students better. We know that our budget is based on, in the past, our student credit hours; that these students would stay to their sophomore year, their junior year, their senior year, that we wouldn’t just have one semester’s revenue or one year’s revenue from these students and our institution is so heavily weighted on graduate students, we don’t have the big undergraduate population that supports the graduate programming that’s so much more expensive. So, her philosophy is, we have these students who are graduate students here at this institution that are successful and they are successful in those disciplines and we have a very skewed ratio of students being used as teaching assistants to students being used as clerical help or RAs, etc. Only about 25% of our graduate students that we pay for, it’s part of our budget – that’s real money that we give to those students, are really being used to keep our undergraduates academically successful here. So her plan is, let’s divert what those graduate students do – let’s have those successful students work with our less successful undergraduate population. When we start seeing increases in retention, we start seeing major changes in revenue if the student stays for four years or five years versus a student staying for one year. We have never been able to increase the amount of money we put into grad assistantships. The effective buying power of that has gone down year after year after year and in every single program review she does, people say we need more grad assistants. She pledges that with the money we would get, we could point to increased retention of these undergrads, we would put back into grad assistantships. So by having our successful students help our less successful students, the institution would be healthier. The grad students really like that and need that as part of their training and she would much rather see someone be a tutor for an undergraduate in a discipline and work with that student, then to see them doing duplicating for a department or clerking in an office, etc. So we really have tried to move the grad assistantships to helping us with the undergraduate success. We can document how many students will stay and we can take that money and say, “Is this because of the investment of using our graduate students this way?”
Senator Little agreed with Provost Saunders that our graduate assistants should not be used for secretarial duties but her concern is that they are not getting research experiences unless someone has grant money, and, to her, that’s part of our obligation to them not just for them to be our slaves. Provost Saunders said that this institution is very different from most institutions – most institutions do not pay grad assistants as RAs unless the money comes in off of grant funding and the reality is this can keep faculty from going out and getting grants because of the fact that you get an assistant to help with your research. The other thing that was extremely uneven across the institution was that in some departments and disciplines everybody had to get grant funding to hire a graduate student or to match on the grant whereas in other parts of the institution they were just assigned to a faculty member for whatever the faculty member wanted to do with the student. This was studied for over a year and a half and every single graduate student was interviewed about what they did, and Graduate Council did a study on it. This wasn’t a decision taken lightly and it was felt that for the good of the institution, it’s what we need to do.
Senator Crystal Weyman commented that she is from Biology and they have a doctoral program there and every single one of their GAs do only teaching and yet they all earn their Master’s in addition to doing their own research, but isn’t there something to be gained from assisting with other research with other students and faculty members? There is certainly something to be gained from it but to say that they don’t get to do research in Biology and Chemistry, all of our GAs are purely GAs and yet somehow we manage to turn out all of the thesis and, would she like them to be RAs?, absolutely.
Provost Saunders stated that this isn’t one hundred percent use of GAs. If we have new faculty, it’s part of the starter package to get them started – matches on grants are appropriate; in programs, that’s something negotiated with the dean and there will be some allowed of course, but the reality is we need to shift that balance to having grad assistants be teaching rather than other duties and there were intended to be other duties as assigned when we really went in and looked at what they did.
Senator Bill Bowen commented that what our policy has said since 1977 is that the educational experience of the students is really what’s first. He has a doctoral student now who has come here with a master’s and a bachelors in four years as a military intelligence before he came here and we are paying him a little bit more than his (Senator Bowen’s) eleven year old son makes when he goes and does weeding in his neighbor’s yard for $1.50 or $2.00 or more. What we are supposed to be doing and what our policy says is, first of all make sure that it’s an educational experience for the students and not maintaining the institutional revenues first.
Provost Mary Jane Saunders replied that she is trying to present this as, “What is the benefit to the graduate program if this happens?” The benefit will be that we will put more money in GAs that we don’t have now. She went on to say that the other benefit is that it is important to increase the success rate of our undergraduates and one way of doing that is to have the work with a successful graduate student in that discipline closer to their age, closer to their discipline, a good mentor, a good role model and you will find that being a teaching assistant really helps them in their discipline and we all know that. You learn your discipline best when you have to explain it to somebody else.
Senator Bowen commented that this may be a shift in the university policy without first going through the processes that we have in place to make that shift.
Provost Saunders inquired, “What processes?” She stated that this was examined by the Graduate Council.
Senator Bowen noted that he is on that committee and he didn’t see this sort of systematic examination that Provost Saunders is talking about leading to the kind of decisions that she is talking about. Provost Saunders replied that she was given the report of which every student was interviewed about what they actually did under the assignment that they were given. She was given a report that talked about distribution of GA versus RA at other institutions and she was given a report of how many of our students are TAs versus RAs or GAs in the general sense so she thinks that it was looked at. She knows that it is somewhat different but we should give it a chance. It’s important to support our undergraduate endeavor. She stated that there isn’t anyone in this room that would think that our undergraduates are as strong academically as our graduate students; there has always been a big shift here of our big dichotomy between our undergraduate population and we know we have to work with those students. She wants retention of those undergraduates to be part of the academic mission; she doesn’t want to hand it off to other parts of the institution; she wants to see that as something the departments are putting their energies toward.
Dr. Lily Ng commented that she is from Chemistry and noted that they do graduate a bachelor’s degree student within a reasonable time – four to five and one half years and they all produce papers and publications and communicate with the outside nationally. It is extremely important and in fact she tells the students all of the time that they need communication skills and one way of developing communication skills is to teach undergraduates. It doesn’t matter if they go out and work in industry. You still need to know how to communicate with those that are under you. That is a very important part of your training. In chemistry there is tutoring all day long. She can think of this healthy undergraduate being tutored by a graduate student and it’s really a pleasure to see the undergrad come into the tutoring program sitting there talking with a grad student and then learning from him. She just wanted to support what Provost Saunders is saying.
Provost Saunders said that is what she wants to see – the people in the discipline working with the students in that discipline. We have these centralized tutoring areas but they tend to be on the freshman level classes but students still need help in some of the upper division classes. They certainly need help usually when they reach anything with statistics and any content like that. They all need help in learning how to write reports and she is hopeful that it will be good. Provost Saunders stated that Rosemary Sutton has put in some other things for retention and supplemental instruction of which there has been a tremendous outpouring of support from the faculty. They were looking at about 20 classes and 75 either separate faculty or classes wanted to have what used to be called at her age, recitation, sections where in fact there was an extra session held to work on the homework. Those are the kinds of things that she wants to see the graduate students working with too and to be available to help with homework problems in a particular class not just the ones that they go to the central tutoring for which they may not have the expertise, for example, in the engineering class or the psychology class or the urban class.
Professor Jeff Karem wondered if there were any models out there to sort of monitor the effectiveness of how graduate students contact with other graduates. He knows that at least one of the issues in certain accreditation areas is the degree to which part-time or graduate instruction versus full-time faculty instruction occurs and he understands the supplemental instruction is different but he was wondering – he is not a scientist, but he knows that correlation and causation are two different things obviously, but he was wondering how we are going to figure out if this is working. There are a lot of different retention activities out there but he was wondering how we are going to sort out assessments.
Provost Saunders noted that she would leave a little bit of that to Rosemary Sutton to talk to Senate about because again, we will have numbers of students retained. We might have some antidotal evidence from departments where it worked. We do know that there is overwhelming evidence that if the student has contact with a human being at the institution at some level deeper than lecture, that’s the number one factor of keeping a student at an institution. Honestly, it can be that they have gone with the guys that are the groundskeepers. Student employment on campus is huge. There are stories where if they worked as student employees, this meant some contact with the department secretary so it isn’t just the faculty member and we are really hoping that this contact with the grad students gives them that extra bit of CSU human contact that then will help.
Senator Stephen Duffy inquired if there is a mechanism in place that if we improve our retention rates it converts into some sort of dollar amount. Provost Saunders responded, “Yes, we know absolutely down to the department how many students stay from each semester to the next semester.” Senator Duffy stated that his question is more, okay we have a positive effect, and Provost Saunders talked in terms of if we have that positive effect, we are going to reinvest that back into the graduate program. He asked the Provost how she is going to invest that retention rate into dollars. Provost Saunders replied that it is absolutely at this point in time correlated because that student takes x classes at x cost. It can be tracked to the individual student – what their revenue is to the institution.
Senator Duffy said that he was curious; Provost Saunders had made the comment that she was somehow going to reinvest back into the graduate program if this program works. His question is, how is the Provost going to model that? Provost Saunders replied that they do models and Mike Droney runs them all of the time. We know a new student here, we know a student who is here one semester, we know a student who is here two semesters; we can dissect our student body and our student credit hours against was that student here before, is that a new student, at what level is that student; we will be able to say we retained 15 more students than last year; these 15 take this load; it’s worth this amount of money in subsidy plus student credit hours tuition. It’s a number you can get to.
Senator Duffy asked if Provost Saunders had a game plan of taking a percentage of that money and reinvesting it in the graduate program. Provost Saunders replied that she did have a plan.
Dean Vera Vogelsang-Coombs noted that the Graduate Council will be discussing this item at the next Graduate Council meeting on October 7th.
Professor Sheldon Gelman now turned Senate’s attention to President Schwartz.
President Michael Schwartz began by saying that some years ago after he left the Presidency at Kent State, the first thing that the new President did was assign him to chair the parking committee. He considered that a hostile act then and would consider it one now if that were to happen. He is very grateful for Clare Rahm and all of us should be.
President Schwartz stated that on October 14, 2008 at Noon in Waetjen Hall, he will inflict himself upon everyone for the last time at the Convocation and Awards Ceremony and he thinks that for those who can, it might be a very interesting time.
President Schwartz commented about safety and security. The Senate might want to invite Bernard Buckner, who is the security chief for this university to come and talk about all of the new security plans that have been put in place, training, etc. Everyone probably already noticed the security guards that have been hired. They are not armed but are walking the campus all of the time all over the place. They seem to have worked out extremely well and are very good and friendly people and they keep an eye out on the campus. Everyone might also have noticed that there is a white truck with our seal on it and it says, “Safety.” It patrols the parking lots all day and at night and it does it on a random basis. It has begun to take effect and we are having a lot fewer break-ins and are not seeking stolen cars out of the lots and it’s making a big difference and that was a really good investment. We are getting all of the blue lights on those phones repaired and all up to speed. We are taking safety very seriously here.
President Schwartz talked a little bit about how we are going to earn our money here in the future. This year will in all likelihood be the last year that this place is funded by reimbursement model. What that means is on the 15th day of the semester, we have counted the number of student credit hours we have in the courses that are being taught and at the level of those courses – these produce mythical FTE students and we get paid for how many of those we have or we get a distribution of funds based on that. It’s a simple reimbursement model; it never covers our costs, it never has. Those days are over. As Provost Saunders mentioned today, we are going to move to an outcomes based model. Most of the money from outcomes, ninety some percent of it, at least as planned for the first year of its implementation, will be based upon graduation rates and course completions. Courses will be considered completed by students who earn a D or more. That tells you something about the F grade and where it’s headed. It’s an open invitation for grade inflation and there are no two ways about that – it’s obvious but that’s exactly where that thing is going to go. He noted that he has objected to this for most of a year and has lost; his fellow presidents think that somehow that’s a great idea. So courses completed in the different disciplines will determine how much money we are going to get in large part and the graduation rate will too. There are two things about graduation rates: one is it doesn’t make any sense to have a raw graduation rate at the end of six years for all of your first-time full-time freshmen students because that is all that has been counted. It makes no sense to do a thing like that unless you take into account the characteristics of those students as they enter and those characteristics are many and the Board of Regents did a kind of a quick attempt at making a prediction equation for this and it was really pretty good but their data are not up to what they should be. They were using ACT scores, they were using age, they were using residence on campus, they were using gender, they were using things like remedial courses, and race was also in there. When they modeled it that way, we did a little bit better than the prediction as far as our graduation rate was concerned and it looked like a very promising thing to do. They argue, however, that the data they collect are not all that good. For example, in terms of family income, which has always been a good predictor, the only data most institutions have on family income is the data they gather from the Fee Application Form for student financial aid. A lot of students don’t fill that out so it’s very hard to gather that information, but it can be done. In the meantime until that’s all done, and that could take a while, the only variable that will be included here in the raw graduation rate will be an indicator of income which will be eligibility for the Ohio grants which are for low income families. That is the only one that will be included and they are letting imperfect data for income status stand for literally all of these other variables which is crazy but it all can be done in the short term.
President Schwartz stated that the other thing he is concerned about in graduation rates is that it is going to be based on first-time full-time freshmen and all of the money we get or much of it is going to be dependent on, for us, 300 and some kids who enter as first-time full-time freshmen in an entering core of about 1,000 or 1,100 students. So however many of those students graduate in six years will tell us something according to this model about how we are keeping students in the system and graduating them. It doesn’t say anything really about all of the students who transfer in here by the thousands and who graduate by the way in pretty big numbers. We graduate more students in one year than we took in four years earlier or six years earlier. So we are kind of caught in all of this and we are trying to intervene with the Chancellor in having these kinds of issues resolved. We are the only university that gets caught up in this and that’s an issue. President Schwartz promised to keep everyone posted about how it goes.
President Schwartz added that there are some other things that will contribute to our income – metrics on achievement of certain state-wide goals and how we are doing in terms of Centers of Excellence, etc., but in the model they are very, very small amounts of money. It’s still based on the achievement of our students in terms of first-time full-time freshmen and their graduation rate and that’s going to be a real problem for us.
President Schwartz commented that Provost Saunders had mentioned the idea of mission differentiation and Centers of Excellence. There is a new document out that was distributed yesterday from the Chancellor to the trustees who were at a meeting in Columbus in which finally there is some language about Centers of Excellence that says quite specifically, this is not to exclude the idea of the humanities and the arts as being Centers of Excellence on your campuses – you should think about doing that. President Schwartz said that this language comes from a lot of push-back that has come from this really raw emphasis on STEM disciplines only. He said that he was glad to see that and so we will watch that this year too. In all of this measure of accountability, there are roughly 30 measures of accountability that range from graduation rates to new companies that spun off and attracted a million dollars or more in funding so that is a real stretch from what universities are supposed to be doing.
President Schwartz stated that the days of reimbursement models are gone and the outcomes based models are in. On November 4th and 5th the Chancellor will be on campus and, as part of his stay, he wants to meet with faculty representatives and that would be a good thing for everyone to come to.
President Schwartz noted that we also have reports due to the Chancellor’s Office on tuition and cost of attendance as part of the concern in keeping tuition down. We will probably face another biennium of no tuition increases and along with that probably no increase in state aid. There isn’t any more money.
President Schwartz commented that recently we’ve received three gifts of $1 million or more each. One of them for Professor Rashidi’s work with wind energy and one of them for Professor Webb’s real estate work in the College of Business. President Schwartz reported that about ten days ago, Peter Anagnostos and he had lunch at Parker Hannifin Corporation and asked, in a series of them to come, for some money to help us move our theater program into the Allen Theater in Playhouse Square. We made that request at 1:00 P.M. in the afternoon and at 4:45 P.M. we got a phone call from Parker Hannifin saying they’d give us $1 million toward that. President Schwartz said that he is especially grateful for that. The arts here have not, over the years, fared particularly well. They are housed very badly and the emphasis has been taken from them and what he has heard is that, well we’ve got a Cleveland Institute of Art and we’ve got a Cleveland Institute of Music up the street and what’s our role. Our role is to educate those students who come to us whether it’s in the arts or the sciences, whether it’s in the professions or the humanities and to do it well under good conditions. The arts are a very important aspect of any university worth calling a university and before he leaves, he wants to get the theater program out of the Factory Theatre which is well-named. That’s just an awful place. Well we’ve got the first million; we need ten million to remodel the Allen. The idea at the Allen Theater, so everybody understands what he is trying to achieve with this, is beyond our theater program. We can move our theater program over there for sure; if we have enough money, we can even build a very good facility for building sets and design work and lighting, etc. But even if our theater program were really busy and had 5,000 students in it, we probably couldn’t occupy the Allen Theater all year long so with the proposal is that we would establish the Cleveland State University Collegiate Theater Festival and we would rotate theater productions from Akron, Kent, Youngstown, our own, Baldwin Wallace, Case Western Reserve, all of them through that theater venue. As a Center for Collegiate Theater, as far as the President knows, there is nothing like it anywhere else in the country. He would like to see, frankly, the CSU logo hanging up there on Playhouse Square and that kind of a theater festival would easily make this an even more vibrant arts community than we have seen in the past. That lobby at the Allen Theater makes a very good gallery space and we need that too. So on that project we are going to have to do with private money and we are out looking for it. It is very important and it is worth doing and he wants to get it done before he leaves. He added that there are many other projects he would like to get done before he leaves but that one is especially important to him. That program was allowed virtually to collapse to the point where there was nothing left of it and we are slowly putting it back together again and Professor Michael Mauldin is doing a wonderful job with great students and we are going to help him. That may not be big-time economic development but it is a big-time university development kind of thing that we ought to be doing.
Finally, President Schwartz talked about enrollment. He reported that we are 1.5% over last year and we are up in credit hours about 2.5%. In this last go around, we would have been up a lot more. Because of our new admissions standards, we turned away 350 students who one year ago would have been admitted. Other universities have done better than we have. Youngstown finished up 1.6%, Akron about 5%, and Toledo about 6%. Bowling Green is down 2.2% and Kent is not talking. President Schwartz noted that all things considered, we did well. Frankly we did better than he would have expected us to do given the imposition of those three requirements for admission to the university. So, we have done well and we will do better. This university is okay if our markets would just settle down and we could predict a little better. But right now, there is a better feel on the campus at opening then he has seen for a very long time. Students seem to be having a pretty good time of it and claiming that they are too busy and this is too hard so he knows that things are going well. One of his little markers about how we are doing around here is how much CSU clothing the students are wearing. He keeps checking the receipts at the Book Store and we are doing fine and so are they.
President Michael Schwartz commented that he hopes he will see everyone before then, but he is looking forward to October 14 and the Convocation Ceremony. Among other things we will receive on that day is the James J. McCafferty Trophy from the Horizon League which is the trophy given for the best all-around athletics program in the conference. He is really proud of that because we have gone from worst to first.
Senator William Bowen inquired if the President has figured out how this outcome based subsidy will affect our revenues if we take the characteristics of our student body right now and plug those into the new formula. How would we have done under this? President Schwartz responded that this was a good question because the problem is that there is no new formula. There has been work done on it with a formula consultation group. Now a Regents consultation is not a consultation; Provost Saunders will tell you that it’s a lecture series. So you go down there and you lecture people but you are not consulted. The Inter-University Council has produced a model and it’s been modeled off and on but we lose a lot of money under it currently. Miami loses money. The Chancellor has taken that model, which is not all bad, and has said, “Thank you for your advice which I may or may not take.” So we just don’t know what the model is going to look like. The Chancellor has taken it upon himself to produce a model that we will all have to live with. It will pretty much be no questions asked and we will see it when we get it.
Senator Mittie Davis Jones stated that she was curious about the drop in enrollment attributed to imposition of the new admissions standards and asked if this is the first time that they have all been applied. President Schwartz replied that this is not the first time. There are three requirements. Last year we imposed two of them and the 350 students that were turned away this year was because this year we imposed all three of the standards and those students did not make those three. So it was high school grade point average of 2.3, which you should pretty much have by showing up with some frequency, ACT 16 which is not particularly burdensome, and 13 of 16 units in the college prep curriculum. In four more years, 16 units in college prep will come into play.
Senator Jones commented that the third standard that was applied was the 13 of 16 units. President Schwartz said, “Yes.” He added that based on that we had 350 students apply here who couldn’t meet those three standards. Their chances of success at this institution were minimal. We had directed them to the community colleges that are grateful for our efforts.
Senator Stephen Duffy noted for the record that the President and CEO of Parker Hannifin is a Mechanical Engineering Alumni. President Schwartz confirmed that he is and he is a wonderful guy. His name is Donald Washkewicz and he is a terrific guy and is always happy to see us and to help us out.
There being no further business, Professor Sheldon Gelman asked for a motion to adjourn. It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M.
Heidi H. Meier
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]