Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

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

I.  Approval of the Agenda for the November 5, 2008 Meeting
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of April 16, 2008 and September 17, 2008
III.
Report of the Faculty Senate President
IV.
Election of one Alternate to the Ohio Faculty Council
V.
University Curriculum Committee
VI.
Academic Steering Committee
VII. Report from Erin Huber and Lee Ann Westfall, Students
VIII. Report on Enrollment (Report No. 10, 2008-2009)
IX. Report on Comprehensive Fund-Raising Campaign
X. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Office
XI.  Report of the President of the University
XII. New Business

PRESENT:  Beasley, C. Bowen, W. Bowen, Goodell, Gordon-Pershey, C. Hansman, Hollinger, M. D. Jones, Kalafatis, Larson, Little, Madhavaram for Gross, Meier, Meiksins, Mensforth, Mikelbank, Rashidi, E. Rogers, J. Sawicki, Silberger, M. Smith, Sterio, Welfel, Weyman, J. Wilson, Xu, Yu, Zhou.

Anagnostos, Bailey, Bonder, Boyle, Q. Brooks, Drnek, Droney, Ghorashi, Heinrich, McLoughlin, Olson, L. E. Reed, M. J. Saunders, D. Stewart for L. Patterson, Sutton, Thornton.

ABSENT:  C. Alexander, Barrow, Belovich, Berlin Ray, Cagan, Dixit, Duffy, S. Kaufman, Komar, K. O’Neill, B. Ray, G. Ray, H. Robertson, Rom, Shukla, Steinberg, Tebeau, Tukel, Visocky, Vonderwell.

 Benmerzouga, Carlton, Hanniford, E. Hill, Markovic, Mearns, Nuru-Holm, Sadlek, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Vogelsang-Coombs.

ALSO PRESENT:    Jeziorowski.

           Senate President Jerzy Sawicki called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 P.M.

            Senate President Jerzy Sawicki commented that because he wasn’t at the last Senate meeting, he wanted to take this time to thank Senators for electing him as the Senate President for the next two years.  Everyone applauded.

I.          Approval of the Agenda for the November 5, 2008 Meeting

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

II.        Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of April 16, 2008 and September 17, 2008

            Acceptance of the Minutes of the April 16, 2008 and September 17, 2008 meetings was moved, seconded and approved.

III.       Report of the Faculty Senate President

            Senate President Jerzy Sawicki announced that we now have four student representatives to Faculty Senate serving as non-voting corresponding members.  He asked those students present to please stand up when he called their names.  Students Mr. Charles Bailey and Ms. Quesjanee Brooks were present.  Students Ms. Rebecca Carlton and Mr. Khadidja Benmerzouga were not present.  Senate President Sawicki thanked the students for attending and said that he appreciated their time and involvement in Faculty Senate.

            Senate President Sawicki reported that the Ohio Faculty Council met in Columbus at the Ohio Board of Regents on Friday, October 10, 2008.  Unfortunately, he was unable to attend but Senator Brian Ray attended the meeting.  Senator Ray reported that nothing particular happened at this meeting so he has nothing to report. 

            Senate President Sawicki noted that he participated in the meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee of the CSU Board of Trustees on October 28, 2008.  At this meeting, the Academic Affairs Committee discussed the Institutional Affordability Report for the University System of the Ohio Strategic Plan prepared by Dr. Gitanjali Kaul, of the Office of the Vice Provost.  This document followed the format imposed by Chancellor Eric Fingerhut and reports on “good faith estimates” and accountability measures for Cleveland State University for six years, from 2008 to 2014.  The Report needs to be submitted to the Ohio Board of Regents by the end of this month.  There are twenty various items listed in the report; for example, total number of degrees awarded, federally financed research spending, number of students engaged in internships and co-ops, etc.  For each item, the Chancellor provided the target goal for the University System of Ohio and CSU provided its own good faith estimates in percentage.  After discussion, the document was authorized for approval by the Board of Trustees. 

Senate President Sawicki noted that today, Chancellor Eric Fingerhut was to visit CSU but his visit was cancelled.  He hopes that Provost Saunders will address this issue in more detail.

IV.       Election of one Alternate to the Ohio Faculty Council

            Senate President Sawicki commented that for those members new to the Senate, the Ohio Faculty Council is a body which advises the Chancellor and which promotes the cause of public universities in Ohio in a variety of ways.  Members of the OFC include the President of the Faculty Senate of each public university and the free-standing medical school, NEOUCOM and one other elected faculty representative.  In addition, an institution may elect one alternate faculty representative.  Professor Stephen Duffy (Civil Engineering) has indicated a willingness to serve as the alternate delegate to the Ohio Faculty Council.  At this time, Senate President Sawicki asked if there were any additional nominations from the Senate floor.  There being no further nominations, Senate President Sawicki asked for a motion to elect Professor Stephen Duffy by acclamation.  It was moved, seconded and Professor Stephen Duffy was elected as the alternate representative to the Ohio Faculty Council for a two-year term.

V.        University Curriculum Committee

            Professor John Jeziorowski, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that he has two items from the UCC for the Senate’s consideration.

  1. Proposed Suspension of the Major in Industrial Engineering (BSIE)(Report No. 6, 2008-2009)

            Professor Jeziorowski presented the Proposed Suspension of the Bachelor of Industrial Engineering Degree Program.  He noted that there are three representatives from the College of Engineering at Senate today to respond to questions, concerns, or comments that Senators might have regarding this proposal as well as the UCC’s second proposal – Dr. Bahman Ghorashi, Interim Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Joseph Svestka, chair of the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department; and Dr. William Atherton, chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department.

            At this time, Professor Jeziorowski asked if there was any discussion regarding the proposed suspension. 

            There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Jerzy Sawicki noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed the Suspension of the Major in Industrial Engineering (BSIE) Degree and asked members to vote.  The Proposed Suspension of the Major in Industrial Engineering Degree was approved unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Proposed Merger of the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME) Department into the Mechanical Engineering (MCE) Department

(Report No. 7, 2008-2009)

            Professor Jeziorowski next presented the Proposed Merger of the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department into the Mechanical Engineering Department.

            Senator Peter Meiksins stated that he would like to ask the same question today that he had asked in Steering.  He noted that he has no objection to the proposed merger but he wonders whether anybody has inquired as to whether locating a group of five faculty from Industrial Engineering into Mechanical Engineering has any effect on the accreditation status of the Mechanical Engineering program.  At the time this proposal was discussed in Steering, there wasn’t an answer to that question.  He wondered if anybody has an answer now.

            Professor Jeziorowski noted that there are three representatives from the College of Engineering at Senate and deferred Senator Meiksins’ question to those representatives. 

            Interim Dean Bahman Ghorashi responded that only undergraduate engineering programs are not accredited anymore.  The only division is the graduate program that is accredited by the NCA.

            Senator Meiksins noted then that the five faculty will not have status in the undergraduate Mechanical Engineering program and will not be teaching courses in the undergraduate program.  Dean Ghorashi responded that this was correct.

            There being no further discussion, Senate President Sawicki stated that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed the Merger of the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME) Department into the Mechanical Engineering (MCE) Department and asked members to vote.  The proposed Merger of the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department into the Mechanical Engineering Department was approved unanimously by voice vote.

VI.       Academic Steering Committee

            University Strategic Planning Committee Annual Report
            (Report No. 8, 2008-2009)

            Senator Connie Hollinger, chair of the University Strategic Planning Committee, commented that the report has been distributed and there is nothing in the report that requires ratification.  The USPC is simply supplying the report to Faculty Senate for its information.

            There being no discussion, Senate President Sawicki stated that this report will be marked as received.

VII.     Report from Erin Huber and Lee Ann Westfall, Students

            Cleveland State University Environmental Science Green Roof Project
            (Report No. 9, 2008-2009)
           
            Senate President Sawicki reported that he was contacted by Ms. Erin Huber, a student from our Environmental Program in the College of Science.  She and her colleague Ms. Lee Ann Westfall, are proposing an exciting Green Roof Top Garden Project on top of the Recreation Center building.  He noted that Ms. Huber and Ms. Westfall would like to share their project with the Senate.

            Speaking first, Ms. Lee Ann Westfall thanked Senate for having her and her colleague Erin Huber at Senate today to talk about the Green Roof Top Garden Project.  She noted that they had learned about the Roof Top Garden intentions in their Environmental Science class last year and they took it upon themselves to do some research.  They spoke to City Council members, the Mayor of Cleveland, and then finally after months of knocking on the CSU Architect’s door, he finally opened it.  They have been working with Mr. Ed Schmittgen on designs and have been working for the past year on fund-raising.  Ms. Westfall noted that there are three main benefits for a Roof Top Garden that they are focusing on:  the educational aspect, the environmental aspect and the recreational aspect.

            Ms. Erin Huber very briefly spoke on the benefits of a Roof Top Garden and why she and Ms. Westfall are so excited about developing this garden on the Recreation Center for everyone to use.  It will improve our environment and being environmental science majors, their hearts are really into that and it’s going to help improve the air and water quality within the City; it’s also going to provide urban habitat for butterflies, birds, different animals and it’s going to be a very unique space.  In addition, the educational benefits are immense.  They actually have already developed programs for local school teachers to have green training programs here, bringing youth from the local school systems to visit the garden to learn about green architecture and green building sustainability.  She indicated on a PowerPoint presentation the three uniform plots on the right side of the roof that would be dedicated to the Science Department on campus to do research in filtering pollution from our air and from our storm water.  There are a lot of educational and environmental benefits to the proposed roof.

            Ms. Westfall mentioned that there will also be recreational benefits.  CSU can host award assemblies or fund-raising events on the roof.  The recreation center can use the roof for yoga classes, etc.  On the fun side, there could be outside barbecues, movies under the stars, and we could watch the Cleveland Air show.  It will allow a friendly atmosphere for students as well as faculty which is one of the main focuses that Cleveland State University is working on right now.

            Ms. Huber noted that everybody had laughed about watching the Cleveland Air Show from the roof but the Board of the Alumni Association has already asked to watch the air show and that is why it was mentioned. 

            Ms. Huber stated that everyone is probably wondering how much is this Roof Top Garden going to cost and where are we going to get the money.  She noted that getting the money is the hard part; that’s what they are working on every day – trying to fund the project.  They are going about this in a unique way.  They are looking to fund the project from the broad community of Cleveland and the local region and all the way down to students, faculty and alumni here on campus.  They really want to fund this from the broad group of people that will be impacted by the project.  The full cost is just under $240,000 which at first seemed like a lot, but they have been working on funding one half, $120,000, through private foundations, corporations and individuals and then Cleveland State University has agreed to make a class-match gift in the spring of 2009.  So of the remaining $120,000, CSU is going to split that.  She and Lee Ann are trying to raise one quarter of the $240,000 through faculty, alumni, and students in the class of 2009.  She noted that they have a big job ahead of them but they have already raised about $9,000 through various small fund-raisers.  Ms. Huber went on to say that it has been a long road.  She added that if anyone feels that this project touches them in any way, or maybe it is something they would like to be more involved with, she and Lee Ann are here today to ask for Senate’s support in helping them get the word out.  Ms. Westfall distributed information and brochures.  They are holding an event in the Recreation Center on November 19, 2008 from 6:30 P.M. to 8:30 P.M.  Light appetizers and beverages will be provided.  The Recreation Center has also donated a couple of full-year memberships worth about $500 and will raffle those off to people who come and donate.  She and Ms. Westfall asked that everyone encourage members of their departments to join them on November 19 to help get the word out and raise funds for this project.  It is a community funded project and everyone’s support is needed.

            Senator William Bowen commented that this project is highly commendable and what Ms. Huber and Ms. Westfall are doing is really terrific.

            Everyone gave Ms. Huber and Ms. Westfall a robust round of applause.

VIII.    Report on Enrollment (Report No. 10, 2008-2009)

            Senate President Sawicki reported that we have all been hearing about enrollment issues. He was contacted by a number of people concerning issues related to enrollment and what the numbers are for each college.  He then contacted Vice President Mike Droney and asked him if he would be willing to provide Senate with an overview of the current enrollment and how enrollment has changed in the last five years.  Vice President Droney said that he would be happy to report on enrollment.

            Vice President Mike Droney commented that this is always a tense moment.  He noted that his PowerPoint presentation was distributed to Senate at the beginning of the meeting.  He reported that enrollment is kind of an interesting thing.  He gets the credit but actually everyone should get credit.  He noted that people probably don’t have any idea how many faculty help him in recruiting activities and the like and obviously anything done in the classroom is used for retention and he really appreciates that.  He noted that Senator Ashtosh Dixit has been helping for over two years.  Every semester Mike Droney goes to Professor Dixit’s group and shares some enrollment problems we currently have and Professor Dixit and his class take it on as an assignment each semester.  So he received some good input there as well.  At this point, Vice President Droney just wanted to say thank you to everyone first.

            Vice President Droney commented, “Why do we talk about enrollment?”  We hear all kinds of budget issues and economic issues and the bottom line is, if anyone is not aware of it, our operating budget is roughly $200 million.  Tuition pays for almost 60% of that budget.  Government subsidy pays for about 37% and the rest is other income that we made on the campus from other areas.  Obviously, to help us on the operating budget side, we want to continue to grow enrollment.  Everyone understands that about one third of the students are graduate students and two-thirds are undergraduate students.  He noted that he took the liberty of lumping Law students in with graduate students.  He referred to his chart of how full-time and part-time break out for us and then the graduate full and part-time students.  This fall we had 15,700 students and that is up.  Over 75% of our students get some sort of financial aid support.  That number is probably closer to 80% now.  If that is broken out, last year it was roughly $114 million.  $80 million of that was in Federal Loans.  As you work your way down through other slices of the pie, you will see the Federal Loans and the State Loans that are primarily to lower income families; he pointed out things funded by our operating budget – like graduate assistants, the scholars program, and the honors program.  Through Endowments we get about $520,000 and we get $2,340,000 in private money – a lot of private institutions earmark specific money for a specific student or cost. 

            Vice President Droney turned to some fall 2008 highlights.  He noted that we had two consecutive years of overall enrollment growth.  Prior to that we had three years of declining enrollment.  Headcount is up 1.5%; credit hours are up 2.5%.  All of the residential housing is full.  It is always nice to break barriers and the 10,000 total undergraduate students enrolled this year is the first time in five years.  We had a big spur of graduate students and reached an all-time high for six years in Graduate credit hours.   Headcount was declining and we are now pulling it back up growing roughly at a 2% annual rate.  On credit hours, there was a decline from 2003 to 2006 but we are pulling that back up and students are taking more credits as well.  So, with that background information, how did we end up?  Vice President Droney referred to his fall 07 – 08 Enrollment Performance Chart.  Referring to the top of the chart, he noted that if we took every application we received – undergraduate, graduate, and law – all of them and added them all together, we enrolled 4,060 in fall 07 and 4,080 in fall 08.  It is amazing how consistent it was year after year and pretty much within 20 students we had roughly the same enrollment.  If we break those big numbers on top out – for example, of 10,982 freshmen applicants – of that, 4,009 applications were received which was a 12% increase over the prior year.  However, we admitted 2% less.  Why was that?  The new admissions standards were implemented.  Incoming freshmen had to have all three pieces to qualify:  2.3 GPA, 16 or better ACT score and 13 out of 16 primary core courses from high school.  The prior fall, we only said that freshmen had to have two out of the three, and had we not invoked that third piece, we would have had another 364 admitted applicants.  So we did a significant thing.  The result was that freshmen were down 12% and we actually enrolled 1,097; however, very significant to that is the average GPA of incoming freshmen was 3.08/3.09 depending on how you want to round it.  So now if we look at the whole picture, all of the other pieces fit together.  We are doing transfers consistently very well.  Last year it looked very much the same; we had an 8% growth in transfers last year.  The year before that we had a growth in transfers.  We do very well in the undergraduate transfer market.  Again, we enrolled more transfers than we did freshmen.  In graduate it was a real barn buster during the last four to six weeks of sign-up.  All of a sudden out of the woodwork came all of these graduates.  Probably the economy had some influence on that.  On the graduate international side, we were down obviously.  There are a multitude of reasons there.  Overall, we felt pretty good and were able to sustain the same number of enrollments by adding the new admissions standards. 

            Vice President Droney turned to how each college did on enrollment.  There was some real headcount growth in Education and Science.  If you look at credit hours, that translates more direct to tuition dollars and the operating budget, etc.  If you look at it from the credit hour point of view, you can see the percentage growth by college.  He pointed out three colleges on his chart; Urban, Science and Education which all contributed at least 1,000 credit hours more than fall of 2007.  He stated that this is an unofficial report, but actually it is pretty accurate.  He can’t find any problems with it and neither can OBOR.

            Vice President Droney referred to another chart – Preliminary Headcounts at Ohio Public Colleges & Universities, 2007-2008 that showed how everybody did.  He noted that this is a subset out of a three page chart.  All he took out of the three page chart was main campuses so this is comparing Akron main campus to CSU; it does not include all of the regional campuses and it is not comparing Kent or Ohio State with all of their regional campus.  NEOUCOM added a pharmacy program which contributed to their increase in headcount of 14.9%.  Shawnee State and Central State, the two smaller ones, have big increases of 7.5% and 7.4% respectively.  Toledo had a big increase of 5.7% and   they have been marketing very aggressively.  Akron did very well with a 4.9% increase.  The big bad news is Bowling Green and they are down 4%; this is the third consecutive year that they have been down.  They are having some real problems.

            Senator Elise Rogers referred to the Student Body Chart showing 23% part-time graduate, 13% full-time graduate, 19% part-time undergraduate and 45% full-time undergraduate and commented that she is always very curious particularly because she comes from Adult Learning and Development.  She would hypothesize that we have a large number of returning adult students and she would ask what the breakdown is with regard to the average age because that tells us something about the student body.

            Vice President Droney responded that he had that question earlier and what they found with average age is that you just look at the undergraduates.  Provost Mary Jane Saunders stated that the average age in 2007 was 23 and it had been 24.  However, that age might have gone up this fall by one year.  It is hovering around 24 or 23 in undergraduates.  A Senator inquired what the average age is for graduates.  Vice President Droney replied that the average age for graduates is 26 and it has been 26 for several years.

            Senator Elise Rogers stated that the reason she drew attention to the average age was because it tells us something about characteristics associated about the perspective student and it tells us something in terms of marketing and retention.  Vice President Droney added that it also falls quite in line with the Chancellor’s initiatives at the State level.

            Vice President Droney stated that he wanted to bring up one last point.  If any one has an interest in these numbers, Institutional Research does a really super job and it is published on their web site.  They have a daily enrollment report posted as of the day before.  They have a lot more detail than he brought to Senate today.

            Senator Mittie Davis Jones commented that she recalled a story on public radio a while ago regarding the University of Akron and it was about an incentive program they have for faculty related to increasing enrollment.  She wondered if Vice President Droney was familiar with that at all.  Vice President Droney replied that he was not familiar with Akron’s incentive program. 

            Senator Jones noted that Akron does acknowledge the role of faculty as far as contributing to retention so it seemed that it was a way to make that a little more tangible in terms of acknowledgment.  Vice President Droney stated that the four components that have the most influence on enrollment are obviously recruiting and retention, a residual effect – if you have a big enrollment in one year, it benefits you next year as well – it has that roll-over impact; and fourth is graduation.  He went on to say that the graduation impact is going to have a big impact on the enrollment numbers.  You have one year where you have a lot more people graduating than in prior years, and it is kind of a three-year thing with us, but he hasn’t figured out quite why yet.  He noted that we are coming up on that.  We are projecting, in addition to a lot of other negative issues for this fall 2009, at least 200 more students will graduate this spring semester than would have the last two semesters.  It runs around 3,000 – 3,200 students per year.  We have that battle to keep the numbers the same in addition to the population numbers in Ohio which are going down rapidly.  Graduating high school students are going down rapidly; anywhere from 1% to 3% per year depending on the census that you read.  The only hard fact he has right now from the SAT folks is that there are 3.5% less test takers taking the SAT in Northeast Ohio than last fall.  V.P. Droney noted that we are predominately an ACT kind of State and he doesn’t have those facts in yet, but those kinds of facts are real facts.  There are fewer students graduating and there is a smaller market from where we get most of our students right now.  So a lot of things are being put into motion to offset that and new marketing campaigns are very aggressively targeting that.

            Along the lines of what Senator Mittie Davis Jones had raised earlier, Senator Elise Rogers stated that she is always curious of her competitors particularly the University of Akron and she would like to inquire of Vice President Droney what the University of Akron is doing that makes them appear to be very successful. Vice President Droney responded that this isn’t his feeling but generally what he is hearing is it is the big items – the big item is that they have completed their campus renovation.  It is beautiful. 

            Senator David Larson commented that it put them (Akron) in debt for years.  Vice President Droney added that both Cincinnati and Akron are in debt significantly because of it but it is a WOW factor for kids.  They have a few years on CSU; we are still a young university.  They have matured in a lot of areas that we are just climbing the ladder.  So there are a lot of issues around that.  But be very specific if you use that “C” word.  Who is our biggest competition?  Unquestionably, Akron, Kent and Toledo are our biggest competition.  What are the three biggest pluses we have when marketing?  First of all it’s faculty and the programs.  So the whole program – the offering – is good.  The value – we are exceptional there.  People view us as not cheap.  Value for the dollar spent is very good.  And, believe it or not, location.  When he first came to CSU eight years ago, everybody told him that location was a negative; no, location is a positive.  A lot of students want an urban environment; a metropolitan environment and that’s actually a very good plus for us.  In addition, we are situated along main highways, perfectly, and if you are going to commute you want to commute along the main arteries.

IX.       Report on Comprehensive Fund-Raising Campaign
            (Report No. 11, 2008-2009)

            Senate President Jerzy Sawicki noted that when he contacted Vice President Peter Anagnostos about giving a report to Faculty Senate on the Comprehensive Fund-Raising Campaign, he most graciously agreed.

            Vice President Peter Anagnostos stated that he welcomed the opportunity to briefly introduce himself to Senate today and to tell everyone about our Comprehensive Fund-Raising Campaign.  He has been on the Cleveland State staff as Vice President for Advancement a little more than one year now and there are really two things he would like everyone to know about him.  One, he really likes being in a university setting and two, he really enjoys fund-raising.  Most people would not appreciate the fund-raising but would probably enjoy the university setting.  Fund-raising for him is really about telling a case or a story or something exciting happening and hopefully through philanthropy moving along a mission.  When he received the invitation to consider a position here at Cleveland State from President Schwartz, he really jumped at it because in his mind there is really nothing more exciting taking place in the City of Cleveland right now and in Northeast Ohio than what’s happening here at Cleveland State University.  So he wanted to say sincerely that he really does feel very, very fortunate to be at CSU.  He went on to say that he could have been sitting where the faculty are but for a woman who went on an earlier than expected maternity leave.  He was a graduate student studying near eastern languages and civilizations and had a background in journalism and when this grant writer at his graduate school delivered earlier than expected, they were stuck on someone writing a grant for a chair in genetic studies and someone said to him, “Do you think you can do that? And I said, maybe.”  It was funded and suddenly the world of development opened up to him and it really brings everything he likes about writing, university, commission, selling a little bit – it all kind of fit into place.

            Vice President Anagnostos stated, when you think about fund-raising, there are a number of things that are important but one of the things he wanted to touch upon today, not to make this a 101 seminar, is the case.  It’s critically important in fund-raising that you get the right case out to those who fund.  That’s the first thing they want to know: “What are you doing, why are you doing it and how will it make a difference?”  So, when he starting thinking about what’s our priority here, he concluded that our priority is to help Vice President Droney’s numbers by finding more dollars for scholarships; it’s working with faculty to hopefully increase the kind of funding that you need to do your work; it’s facilities.  You really have to strike on the right case.  The factors he was considering were:  one, campaigns are new to CSU.  We’ve never done a comprehensive campaign here, maybe a few mini bursts but nothing comprehensive.  It’s a commuter school and as a result, alumni support is shallow.  There is a real difference in universities where you have that residential base.  He said, “I sort of formed my sense of self here.   But, that didn’t really take here because of the commuter factor.  Locally, I knew it was a really crowded campaign market place and the last thing you want to hear someone tell you is to get in line because there are six or seven institutions ahead of you.”  Vice President Anagnostos noted that on a positive side, he felt that there was a real opportunity to highlight the impact of CSU in the community and in terms of what its future is to Cleveland.  So, he came up with the idea to build a case around the vision that CSU is Cleveland’s University and that we would present this value proposition to funders that would have significant benefit to our students, to regional employers, and to the economic revitalization of Cleveland.  In other words, we advance a case that suggests that the state of Cleveland depends on Cleveland State University.

            Vice President Anagnostos commented that with Jack Boyle as a partner or with President Schwartz as a partner or Provost Saunders, this case has been taken out to a lot of people and it really resonates well.  What Mike Droney said about all of the faculty and everyone’s role in helping with admissions, he can tell everyone that the same is true of advancement and development.  There is a really good feeling to conclude that the faculty at CSU and what we are doing here is really first rate all around.  He noted that there are two parts to this campaign.  One is that we would conduct a campaign that enhances those programs and activities within the university that address regional priorities or the priorities of those who hire our graduates, and, second, a campaign working in conjunction with Vice President Jack Boyle that attracts private support so that we can start turning our campus from commuter to residential and in turn seeing that transformation occur in downtown Cleveland – a much more youthful environment.  He went on to say that those two priorities really need to fit under the umbrella of the broad educational priorities that certainly Chancellor Fingerhut and others have for public higher education in the State of Ohio – thinking about increasing the number of degree holders, preparing students for the regional economy, keeping students in Northeast Ohio, and attracting them to Northeast Ohio.  So, when we are thinking about this case for support, again, we are taking all of this into account.  When we think of those two broad priorities and then the priorities of the Chancellor, how do those priorities funnel down into general fund-raising goals?   So, if the plan is to increase degree holders – one of the things everyone might have noticed in Mike Droney’s presentation of the pie chart of revenue, there was a dark blue area that represented gift revenue or endowment revenue going to financial support and it was very small.  One of the major priorities of this campaign, if we are going to attract students to CSU and to Cleveland, we are going to have to provide more funding.  This is something that he is very much focused on.  He says this over and over again – what makes our students who they are and where they come from.  He commented that students Erin Huber and Lee Ann Westfall do pretty well, and that’s really about faculty; that’s really about the excellence of faculty.  He added that he believes it is the faculty that really believes in the mission of the place.   So secondly, making sure that we understand through the Deans what the needs are of the faculty in the various departments and that is another very important part of this campaign.  Again, the little bit of a nod to Chancellor Fingerhut but certainly something that we all pay attention to is the Center of Excellence concept which here it is pretty broad.  We have a President with forty plus years of experience in education who really understands what a comprehensive university is so there is nothing narrow about the concept of funding for Centers of Excellence and we are paying very much attention to that.

            Vice President Anagnostos continued stating that the idea of keeping students in and attracting them to Northeast Ohio, that really requires facilities.  Student life requires a Student Union and looking at Dean Jim Drnek and his group, they really know that better than anyone.  Also the Recreation Center and the new College of Education or the façade on the Law School really helps in a major way and one of our plans is to look at some of the key strategic facility related priorities and move those along.  Professor Michael Mauldin may be losing the Factory Theatre to termites at some point and the Allen Theatre becomes available, so what does it take to move a really dynamic theatre program into first rate space.  When you go into the Art Building, you can literally put your hand out through the wall and feel the sidewalk and that too may need the wrecking ball at some point. 

            Vice President Anagnostos wanted everyone to know about our operating principles.  Any profession has different types of people who get into it and for him, as he said, this is really first and foremost about representing externally a place, an institution and doing it for the right reasons, but his group believes that philanthropy requires engagement.  One of the things they have done over the past year is to put directors in development and sometimes a little deeper than that in each of the seven colleges.  Some really good people have been hired.  They report their progress to Vice President Anagnostos but they work for the Deans and obviously the institution and they are taking the cue from the Deans doing communication and events, personal and group meetings, and advancing.  Our operating principle says that philanthropy follows pride and we are really fortunate to have Rob Spademan on board as our head of Marketing.  He is doing a lot to pave the way for good philanthropy and then engagement must be synergistic.  If he is going out into the community asking for support, we want to make sure that we are delivering something back.  Here, graduating 2,000 or 3,000 students each year, if we can keep them in the community, that’s a pretty important economic factor to consider.

            Vice President Anagnostos reported on what has been done to date.  Staff have been recruited and the focus has been changed to the colleges.  It used to be sort of give to CSU and that was not resonating too well, so now there are the colleges and within the colleges there are departments and within the departments there are faculty members and people give to people.  A whole bunch of prospects have been qualified but we could use a lot more.  It’s not going to be easy.  They are going out beyond the natural prospect base which we really haven’t done here too well to people who don’t know about the university.  We are taking the story out to them and telling them why the state of Cleveland depends on Cleveland State.  Campaign materials are being drafted and he does make sure that the Deans see all of the materials before.  Today, he mentioned to someone on his staff that he would like to work at the college level to make sure that the colleges have material that they can call their own as well.  In addition, employers are being polled on strategic needs.  Lubrizol, a big company, of all of the graduates they hire, CSU tops the list of all of the universities in the country.  So we want to make sure that what we are doing here addresses the needs of the people who hire our students.

            Vice President Anagnostos reported that there are some target goals but they are a little tricky.  They are tricky because we are undergoing a Presidential transition right now and we always must have respect for the person who is going to follow President Schwartz so that person will be the person who really carries most of the fall.  But there are really three areas regardless of who the leader is.  You are going to be wanting support for your students, your faculty and certain community cultural endeavors.  He reported that they looked at a quiet phase goal of $100 million.  Many may have read about that in Cranes when our President announced the quiet phase and then the target goal of $150 million.  You might say to yourselves, okay in the context of billion dollar campaigns at the Ivy’s or Ohio State or any of these other places, but he would just echo what Mike Droney said which is Akron, 1870, CSU, 1964; we have a ways to go and we have to connect with our graduates, but that’s what we are here to do.  We are here to connect with our community, connect with our alumni, bring them back and make it meaningful.  Then, there are other things being done.  He just wanted to call everyone’s attention to these wonderful opportunities here.  He has talked to Dean James McLoughlin about the new Education building going up.  It is essentially paid for and there are some dollars that we would like to put into the pot, but if you take a $37 million building and you have the opportunity to name it for $10 million, that money and the other monies that go from the foyer to the classrooms on, that can go into what the College of Education needs for programs and for resources and we can do that in a number of areas:  Student Center, Main Classroom Building, the Recreation Center, etc.
Vice President Anagnostos went on to say that they are calling this the “Campaign for Cleveland.”

            Senator Joanne Goodell asked who the people in the College of Education are and what their role is.  Vice President Anagnostos replied that every college Director of Development and Alumni Relations has a role of communicating with Alumni and with the greater Cleveland community in a number of ways.  They are looking for funding opportunities and being very strategic in terms of who you are going out to see and then taking their cue from the Dean.  We just hired Mr. Chuck Schuler for Director of Development for the College of Education.  Mr. Schuler has a really good background in the kind of understanding of the resources that Education needs.  This is a big place and we always could use more.  We should never hold back on hiring more people as long as they are bringing in resources.  So, they are taking it one step at a time and making sure that the resources can be brought in for what has been budgeted so far.  If we can get to that point, then he will make another case to fill it out another level.  Their role is to raise money for the College of Education or any of the other colleges here and to do it in a way that the donor feels good about it.  You want the donor to feel really good that he/she has made a meaningful contribution to CSU.

            Senator Mittie Davis Jones commented that Mr. Anagnostos had used the term, “qualified donor” or “qualified Alumni” and asked what makes the donor qualified.  Vice President Anagnostos replied that it’s their propensity to give and their potential to give and that is what he meant by qualifying them.  He pointed out that it costs money to do fund-raising and his job is to make sure that we keep this around twelve cents on the dollar.  So if we bring in one dollar, he wants to spend around twelve cents.  If he goes out looking for donors and he doesn’t have any information about them and he is just fishing around, he is going to start spending too much money so Ms. Cindy Hunt helps us qualify the prospect pool so that we are not wasting a lot of time and that’s what he meant.

            Senator Mittie Davis Jones asked if there is some data base that tracts people.  Vice President Anagnostos responded that they do have a pretty standard kind of data base that tracks people.  There is nothing magic about it but they do have a good sense of who our donors are and who our potential donors are.  He added that what he brings to the job is that he has twenty-five plus years in this business both locally since 1991 and then prior to that in Boston.  He really has a good sense of the donor base and he has made a lot of friends along the way and feels like his job here is to just bring them to CSU and that’s what’s been missing in the past – just bring in new people and getting then acquainted with everyone and the President and the Provost and others.

            Senate President Jerzy Sawicki inquired if there is a time-table for this quiet phase or a time-table for the target phase.  Vice President Anagnostos said that they do have that but again the quiet phase is taking place right now and they are going out and meeting with individuals who are potential contributors.  He really wants to do that with President Schwartz because President Schwartz is an amazing individual and a lot of people respond to him in a very positive way.  President Schwartz is not going anywhere, but that role will be different after he retires.  We are trying to get to the $100 million number by the time President Michael Schwartz leaves.  Right now, we’ve reached about $46 million.  We have about $60 million to go and that’s pretty aggressive.  We are focusing on people who can make really substantial contributions and not spending too much time at the broader base of the pyramid, but at the top.  Then we really have to wait and see what the next President has in mind – that’s the only proper thing to do.

X.        Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders thanked Senate President Sawicki for inviting other members of the Vice Presidential staff to speak to the faculty because it is really important that everyone sees how hard these people are working on everyone’s behalf and on behalf of the students.  There’s a lot of effort that goes into a lot of things that are not just in the classroom that make an institution like CSU run.  Certainly the enrollment initiative in which everyone saw the turnaround which we absolutely needed by getting a plan for enrollment which is due to Mike Droney and his staff.  In addition, with Peter Anagnostos speaking today, everyone should have every confidence in the world that we’ve got the right person to lead us forward in fund-raising.

            Provost Saunders commented about Vice President Jack Boyle and stated that everyone sees while walking along the Streets here the unbelievable building campaign that is really moving along at this institution.  She stated that she doesn’t know how Jack Boyle does it with managing the other parts of the university that are under him too and then all the architects and the bonds and the building projects and the construction, etc.  It’s really great that they are here and that Jerzy invited them to speak to Faculty Senate.

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders stated that she only has a couple of items to give a continual update on where we are going toward that mission differentiation and Centers of Excellence document that’s going to be submitted by the Board of Trustees to the Chancellor at the end of the year.  She noted that she already gave Senate a kind of timetable of things going on with that.  She reported that last week they had a one and one-half day Roundtable with outside moderators coming to us from the Higher Education Learning Alliance and there were lots of faculty who participated.  At the last Senate meeting, representatives were elected from Senate; there were representatives from Graduate Council, Strategic Planning, the Task Force and then other members from all of the colleges.  She noted that it went very well.  The names of the people who participated in the Roundtable are listed on the Provost’s Home Page.  She noted that we are moving along between taking down recommendations of the Provost’s Task Force, chaired by Barbara Margolius, that was available for everyone to see and starting to fine-tune that and make progress toward really defining what we mean by the Centers of Excellence and really are these the ones that we want to start with for this institution.  Provost Saunders commented that pretty much by consensus, if talking to anyone participating in that Roundtable, there was a strong endorsement of Health being a Center of Excellence and Civic Life being a Center of Excellence for the institution.  The discussions were very thorough and thoughtful of all of the participants in the room. 

            Provost Saunders reported that one of the things that was discussed about the Centers of Excellence was the structure and there was a feeling of starting with a neculating hub and having a core of faculty that have already demonstrated excellence.  It was referred to in other conversations as the Center of the Danish as opposed to the Center of the Donut.  We got onto a food theme pretty quickly in the room so everyone will see that coming out in the report being distributed.

            Provost Saunders stated that what happens next is that the scribe of that event will send back to all of the participants what they wrote up as happening and checking for accuracy and factual information.  That then will go back to the participants and then she will widely distribute it but she doesn’t really expect that to happen until the first of the year.

            Provost Saunders commented that Senate President Sawicki asked about where the Chancellor is.  She noted that when the Chancellor had booked those two particular dates to come to CSU, he really wasn’t aware that he had booked election eve.  We had some great plans for him to spend election eve with our students looking at election returns and at the radio station and being driven around in our engaged learning jeep, etc., but it has now been postponed at the Chancellor’s request and we are looking at different dates in January and February.  She does know that when he sent us sample schedules of participation at other universities of what his day looked like, he really wants to spend a lot of the day with faculty groups and with student groups.  So, when she starts doing the outlines of that, she will certainly be in contact with everyone to help plan that.

            Provost Mary Jane Saunders reported that the next thing happening in our march to understanding Centers of Excellence, is that with SPUR IV, we are four years past from the report from the Strategic Planning Committee.  SPUR IV will take place next week on November 13 starting at noon with a lunch and then running through the afternoon and ending with a social.  Senator Connie Hollinger and her group are organizing that and the title of it is, “Pathways to Excellence” and many invitations have been sent out.  If anyone at Senate has received one, she would love to have them RSVP that they are coming.  Provost Saunders noted that last year’s event was on Engaged Learning and she will have an update on where that particular event led.  She encouraged everyone to participate in the SPUR IV.

            Provost Saunders noted that she wanted to congratulate the faculty who were recently recognized at the Convocation for Distinguished Teaching, Service and Research.  Everyone knows that David Forte of Law received the award for Distinguished Teaching along with Elliott Ingersoll of Education and Human Services.  The Distinguished Award for Service went to Sheldon Gelman from the Law School and Barbara Margolius from the College of Science.  The Distinguished Faculty Award for Research went to Angelin Chang in Music and John Oprea in Mathematics.  She stated that we really want to continue to recognize these terrific faculty.  The Dr. Jennie S. Hwang Award for Faculty Excellence went to Barbara Margolius.  Provost Saunders congratulated all those terrific faculty.

            Finally, Provost Saunders reported that most everyone knows that Barbara Margolius has decided to step down after becoming our founding director of the Honors Program.  There will be a reception for her that everyone is invited to.  It’s an easy day to remember because it will follow the next meeting of the Faculty Senate on December 3, 2008.  She hoped that the Senate will have a very short meeting and join them across the street in Parker Hannifin Hall in thanking Barbara Margolius at that time for building one of the really excellent corner stones at this institution now.  It will be held in Elements (the Restaurant) in the Administration Center building.  She asked everyone to please put that on their calendars and to come over to join them.

            Provost Saunders stated that President Michael Schwartz sends his regrets that he was not able to attend Senate today.

XI.       Report of the President of the University

            Senate President Jerzy Sawicki noted that President Schwartz is off the campus today so there will be no Report of the President of the University.

XII.     New Business

            There being no further business, Senate President Jerzy Sawicki asked for a motion to adjourn.  It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M.

                                               
                                                            Heidi H. Meier
                                                            Faculty Senate Secretary

/vel

[Top of Page]