Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MARCH 4, 2009

I.      Eulogies
II.     Approval of the Agenda for the March 4, 2009 Meeting
  Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 4, 2009
  Report of the Faculty Senate President
   University Curriculum Committee
  University Faculty Affairs Committee
VII.   Budget and Finance Committee
VIII.  Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
IX.    Report of the President of the University
X.    New Business

PRESENT:   C. Alexander, Beasley, Belovich, Berlin Ray, C. C. Bowen, W. Bowen, Cagan, Dixit, Dougherty (for H. Robertson), Goodell, Gordon-Pershey, Govea, Hollinger, M. D. Jones, Kalafatis, Komar, Larson, Little, Madhavaram for Gross, Meier, Mensforth, Mikelbank, K. O’Neill, Rashidi, G. Ray, E. E. Rogers, Sawicki, Shukla, Silberger, M. Smith, Steinberg, Sterio,Tukel, Visocky-O’Grady, Welfel, Wyman, J. Wilson, Xu, Yu, Zhou.

Carlton, Ghorashi, Heinrich, Markovic, Nuru-Holm, M. J. Saunders, D. Stewart (for L. Patterson), Sutton.

ABSENT:   Barrow, Duffy, C. Hansman, S. Kaufman, B. Ray, Rom, Tebeau, Vonderwell.

Anagnostos, C. Bailey, Benmerzouga, Bonder, Boyle, Q. Brooks, Drnek, Droney, Hanniford, E. Hill, Legan-Turner, McLoughlin, Mearns, G. Olson, L. E. Reed, Sadlek, Scherer, M. Schwartz, Thornton, Vogelsang-Coombs.

ALSO PRESENT:   Dyer, Engelking, Jeziorowski.

Senate President Jerzy Sawicki called the meeting to order at 3:08 P.M.

I.  Eulogies

I.A. Eulogy for Kenneth M. Hoff (BGES)

Professor Paul Doerder delivered the Eulogy for the late Kenneth M. Hoff. His remarks follow.

“Professor Emeritus Kenneth M. Hoff passed away on December 22, 2008 at the age of 74. He retired from the BGES department in 1994 and for the last few years was a resident of the Westlake Village Retirement Community. Though he used a wheelchair since suffering a stroke nine years prior to his death, he lived independently and spent considerable time either with his daughters or with his books. His death was unexpected.”

“Ken Hoff was raised on the family sheep ranch on the Cannonball River near the tiny town of Carson in the grasslands of southwest North Dakota. He was one of six children, three of whom left the ranch to earn Ph.D. degrees. He was a rather short, stocky individual, and one would never have guessed that as a youth he held a state broad jump record that lasted 20 years and that he was locally renowned for making the heaviest bales of wool at sheep-shearing time.”

“Living on the northern border states all of his life, Ken Hoff was graduated from Carroll College in Helena Montana in 1961 and earned the Ph.D. in Zoology from Washington State University in 1966. He joined the Cleveland State University faculty that same year, and was promoted to Associate Professor in 1971 and to Professor in 1977. Though his doctoral research was on the comparative musculature of birds, his research at CSU focused almost entirely on neurobiology and the effects of tryptophan and other chemicals, including LSD, on the developing mouse brain. He was a long-time collaborator with Drs. Peter Baker and Cecile Goodrich and was an author on over 40 refereed publications and co-PI on several major grants. Ken Hoff was particularly good with his hands. Not only was he particularly adept at dissection, noted for both quickness and precision, he was also a maker of fine cherry cabinetry, proficient with both hand and power tools. It was a common joke in the Hoff household that he spent time in his shop to escape from living with seven women. Yes, Ken, and his wife Arlene who sadly died just as he retired, had six daughters, many of whom attended Cleveland State and most of whom live in greater Cleveland. Daughter Elaine Hoff may be known to many of you as a secretary in the Mathematics Department. Since most of the students in my Genetics course had Ken for General Biology, I often used the example of his six daughters to illustrate the laws of probability with respect to gender and birth order. When Ken retired, so did that example.”

“Ken was active in university service, serving on many departmental, college and University committees. From 1981 to 1984 Ken served as Interim chair of what was then the Department of Biology. At the time it was a growing department, with several new hires, including me, and I recall Ken being very supportive of our developing research programs. The Biology Department in the early 1980s also had a reputation as fractious, and I recall how those who were initially opposed to Ken as Interim Chair soon came to praise him for his fairness, especially regarding the normally contentious issue of recommendations for merit increases in salary. On a personal level, I am particularly grateful for the strong support Ken and the Department gave me when the new Dean, who lasted less than six months, displayed an appalling lack of understanding of the sciences in my tenure decision. Throughout his academic career Ken stood up to unfairness. After Ken stepped down as Interim Chair, he continued as Associate Chair responsible for scheduling, TA assignments, and other duties. He also served as Chair of what was then the PAC for promotion to Professor, and his reputation for conscientious service and fairness led to his being asked to serve on many other ad hoc committees and PACs. The BGES tradition of long, analytical, detailed letters supporting tenure and promotion decisions originated with Ken.”

“Professor Hoff was deeply committed to teaching. He was instrumental in designing the major curriculum, and he taught the zoology component of the introductory biology sequence for 25 years. He also wrote the laboratory manual long used in that sequence. On the advanced level he taught Comparative Anatomy, an elective for Biology Majors; it is both a tribute to his expertise and a lament over changing times that the course hasn’t been offered since he retired. Professor Hoff was known as a tough grader and a stickler for importance of detail in the practice of science. I’m sure many frustrated pre-med students later came to appreciate his wisdom on this subject, including one daughter who continued in the medical profession as a pathologist, and another who quickly changed her major to English!”

“Ken Hoff has been gone from the Department for almost 15 years, and given the inevitable changes over the years, fewer than half of the department remember the Professor in a white, short-sleeved shirt and tie occupying the 2nd office on the left after a left turn on the second floor of the Science Research Building. However, for his adoring daughters and grandchildren, Ken will be remembered in a special way because he had the foresight to prepare for them a detailed family history entitled "Recollections of Life on the Ranch". This special volume containing among other things photographs and his mother’s recipes will make him only slightly less missed.”

I.B. Eulogy for Clinton L. Warne (Economics)

Professor Sheldon Stein delivered the Eulogy for the late Clinton L. Warne. His remarks follow.

“Clinton Warne, professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State, passed away on January 25, 2009. He was 87 years old.”

“On behalf of the Department of Economics, I wish to extend our condolences to his wife Katharine, their three children Carolyn, Kate, and Clinton Jr., their spouses, their children and to the entire Warne family.”

“Clint came to Cleveland State in the fall of 1967 and retired in 1985. He was thus one of the first faculty members in the fledgling economics department at CSU. Prior to his service at Cleveland State, he also had held positions at a number of Colleges and Universities, such as the University of Kansas, Simpson College, Northwestern University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and the Ohio State University. He was a department chair at both Simpson College and Cleveland State.”

“His teaching and research encompassed such areas as the economics of transportation, consumer economics, and international trade. He was also a summer fellow at Harvard University in 1965.”

“Clint was born on September 12, 1921. His father was Colston Warne, who was not only a Professor of Economics at Amherst College but also the principle founder of Consumer’s Union. Clint is also the only member of the Cleveland State economics department to have a son or daughter go on to earn a doctorate in economics. Thus, the Warne tradition in economics spans three generations,. His maternal grandfather, Dr. Lee Cleveland Corbett, was instrumental in designing the National Botanical Gardens in Washington D.C. His sister was once chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents.”

“After service during world war two, he completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Colorado, earned a Master’s degree at Clark University, and then earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.”

“Clint’s career as an economist was mainly involved with consumer issues, like his father. He held numerous positions in the consumer movement.”

  • He was president of Consumers League of Cleveland for nearly 40 years.
  • He was president of the American Council on Consumer Interests in 1973.
  • He was president of the Ohio Consumers Association in 1972, 1973 and 1979.
  • He served the consumer panel in Mayor Ralph Perk’s administration in the City of Cleveland.
  • He was involved with the Consumer Credit Counseling Service from 1977-1998.
  • He was a Board Member of the Cleveland Consumer Action Coalition from 1973 on.
  • He was a member of the General Motors Consumer Arbitration Committee.
  • He was a member of the Shell Oil Advisory Committee.
  • He was a board member and president of the Consumers League of Ohio.
  • He was a member of the Consumer Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Board, during the term of Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman who broke the back of double-digit inflation, and who is now a member of President Obama’s economic team.

“Clint was also a popular teacher and a popular speaker at schools, and at organizations such as the Rotary and Kiwanis. His speeches on such topics as deceptive packaging were very well received.”

“I would like to end on a couple of personal notes.”

“First, after I had presented my dissertation to the CSU economics department in my search for a position here, Clint came up to me and said, ‘see you in the fall.’ An excellent forecast for a member of a discipline which has not distinguished itself in prognostications of late.”

“Second, in the mid 80s a relative of mine was having trouble getting her GM dealer to fix her new car properly. I asked Clint for advice on what to do. He suggested that I send registered letters to”

  • The Office of Consumer Affairs of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio
  • The Better Business Bureau
  • Two other organizations dealing with consumer issues

“I soon received a very friendly phone call at my office from the owner of the dealership asking why I had taken such aggressive measures in trying to get the car repaired. I was also invited to come to the dealership to talk things over. Clint volunteered to come with me. The dealer did not attend the meeting. Instead, he sent his general manager. Clint identified himself and took copious notes as the general manager and I discussed the problem. The general manager looked very uncomfortable. The end result was, the car was repaired to my relative’s satisfaction.’

“A retired member of our economics department once said of Clint the following: ‘If you were stuck on a desolate road in the middle of the night, the one person that you would want to call to come to your rescue is Clint Warne.’

“Clint was an excellent father, husband, and colleague. He will be missed.’

Senate President Sawicki asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleagues Kenneth Hoff and Clinton Warne.

II.   Approval of the Agenda for the March 4, 2009 Meeting

Senate President Sawicki commented that everyone should have received a revised agenda via email. He noted that he has another revision at the last moment. President Michael Schwartz is out of town so there will be no President’s Report.

Acceptance of the revised Agenda for the March 4, 2009 meeting was then moved, seconded and approved.

III.   Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 4, 2009

Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 4, 2009 meeting was moved, seconded and approved.

IV.   Report of the Faculty Senate President

Senate President Jerzy Sawicki stated that he did not have anything specific to report except a short report he received from Senator Brian Ray, who attended the meeting of the Ohio Faculty Council on February 13, 2009. He stated that nothing special happened at this meeting. A resolution was approved supporting the successful bills. In the current state legislative session, two bills were introduced making illegal discrimination on the basis sexual orientation. Also at the request of the Ohio Board of Regents, the Ohio Faculty Council provided some feedback on proposals relating to plant and facilities. There was discussion during the meeting about the officers election for 2009-2010 and also they were given reports from campuses. As you may guess, the budget woes were the major topic but really nothing specific was reported from campuses related to the budget.

V.   University Curriculum Committee

Proposed Mathematics Minor in Statistics (Report No. 16, 2008-2009)

Dr. John Jeziorowski, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that he had one item for Senate’s consideration this afternoon. The UCC had previously unanimously approved the mathematics department’s proposed Minor in Statistics which was subsequently reviewed by the Steering Committee and placed on today’s agenda for Senate’s consideration. He noted that Professor John Holcomb was present from the Mathematics Department and he will respond to any specific questions with regard to the proposal.

There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a Mathematics Minor in Statistics and asked Senators to vote. The proposed Mathematics Minor in Statistics was approved unanimously by voice vote.

VI.  University Faculty Affairs Committee

Proposed Revision to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws, 8.1.5 A) Appointment of Department Chairpersons (Report No. 17, 2008-2009)

Dr. Gary Dyer, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that this is a proposed Revision to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws, 8.1.5 A) regarding the appointment of department chairpersons. He noted that this was brought to the attention of the Faculty Affairs Committee in that the current provisions regarding who participates in the chair selection process were not terribly well written and quite ambiguous. He asked members to turn to the proposed revisions and stated that they are marked pretty clearly. UFAC has defined participation by hanging everything on the term “department members”. So, in Section 8.1.5 A) 4) a) the proposed wording will read: "Normally, this advisory committee will be composed of members of the department." The phrase, "members of the department" was inserted replacing a more complex phrase. Professor Dyer noted that as UFAC wishes to revise it, the paragraph will say, "(1) For the purpose of the processes of chair selection and retention (see 8.1.5.A.5, below), ‘members’ of the department will mean only the department’s tenured or tenure-track faculty members. "For these purposes the department ‘faculty’ shall be understood to include only those faculty whose primary responsibility lies in the department in question, rather than in another department or academic unit (see Section 8.1.1(G))."

Professor Dyer noted that for the rest of the section concerning the department chair’s selection, UFAC keeps using the phrase "department members" that they clearly earlier had defined simply as department tenured and tenure track faculty. Now for clarification sake, he stated that the current version, in all its ambiguity basically seems to suggest that, okay department faculty is minimally defined as tenured or tenure track members and, beyond this criteria in the department bylaws, govern eligibility to serve on selection committees, vote on chair acceptability and participate in the chair evaluation process. One thing that is, in a sense, being changed is it does seem to indicate that the tenured and tenure track faculty plus department bylaws can include somebody else. It was the opinion of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, and, in the Academic Steering Committee, the consensus was that this wasn’t in any case the best way to do it. The best way to do it would be to have one single standard and that single standard ought to be tenured and tenure track faculty only. Throughout the rest of the procedures, UFAC inserted the phrase, "all department members" having defined department members early as tenured and tenure track faculty only.

At this point, Professor Gary Dyer asked if there were any questions.

Senator Chieh-Chen Bowen noted that 8.1.5 4) a) and b) could not be true at the same time because a) says that only a department’s members are allowed to serve on this Search Advisory Committee. Then, b) says, it may include other people if you want.

Professor Dyer responded that he was assuming that section b) is understood to be a qualification of a). He then asked if Senator CC Bowen was asking a question about faculty members from other related disciplines and what the restrictions would be on those people. He said that he didn’t think that was actually discussed. He was assuming in context that it would mean faculty members from other disciplines who would also qualify as department faculty in their own disciplines, in other words, only tenured and tenure track.

Senator CC Bowen stated that in a) Professor Dyer is clearly revising to include only the department tenured and tenure track faculty.

Professor Dyer replied that normally the Advisory Committee will be composed of members of the department. Then, for purposes of chair selection and retention, department members means tenured and tenure track faculty and UFAC defined that. UFAC has already said that the Advisory Committee normally will be composed of members of the department but then that doesn’t contradict the abnormal thing in b) which is that you can also have a Search Advisory Committee which may abnormally include other faculty.

Senator CC Bowen stated that there is already the abnormal thing in c) and asked how many back doors Professor Dyer wants to open. Professor Dyer responded that the issue Senator CC Bowen raised was not addressed by UFAC.

Senator CC Bowen inquired if Professor Dyer shouldn’t consider that then.

Senator David Larson asked Professor Dyer if this is a change or if this is the current language. Professor Dyer responded that with regard to the issue that Senator CC Bowen raised, nothing is being changed as he understands it.

Senator Larson then noted that UFAC is just discontinuing the current language. Professor Dyer stated that the current language is simply being continued regarding the issue that Senator CC Bowen raised.

Senator CC Bowen noted that the language is not right after UFAC changed a), so right now, a) and b) are conflicting with each other and c) already addressed the back door.

Professor Dyer commented that normally the Advisory Committee is composed of members of the department then in the next paragraph, UFAC specifically defined members of the department. The change UFAC is proposing affects the definition of members of the department and doesn’t say anything about the abnormal circumstance given in b), although he was not sure that the change UFAC is making in 4) a) (1) is actually changing anything. It’s defining more carefully who are the members of the department in question who normally will compose the Advisory Committee and it’s not saying anything at all about those people in sections b) and c).

Senate Vice President James Wilson asked to clarify things. He noted that for some of the faculty, they were primarily concerned about who would vote for the chair. They believe the vote should be limited to tenured and tenure track departmental members only. The composition of the Search Committee could be a little bit more flexible and maybe represent a wider range of groups and consequently, normally may work as the default of b) and c) and then supplement that. So consequently, the really important role is e) which limits the actual selection of the departmental members to the tenure track so that we make sure that the tenure track people may be the central constructural component of the university.

Senator Larson stated that he doesn’t see that this revision is actually changing the current process and we have to leave open the possibility that for the Advisory Committee, you may have people from outside the department in cases where the department is less than fully competent of conducting its own procedures which unfortunately do exist on occasion.

Senator William Bowen stated that he does see it in the way that Senator CC Bowen does. It is just not logical to say only those faculty members whose primary responsibility lies in the department will be a member of this Search Advisory Committee in one paragraph and then in the next paragraph it says, "May also include other faculty members."

Professor Gary Dyer disagreed with Senator William Bowen. He noted that it states, "departmental faculty" should be understood as faculty whose primary responsibility lies in the department in question and that refers back to the definition of the members of the department and does absolutely nothing about the way in which the wording here allows for what it’s defining as abnormal circumstances of members from other disciplines or special circumstances under c), etc. UFAC is restricting the definition of the members of the department who are the people who normally compose the Advisory Committee and UFAC is not really doing anything as he sees it that affects b), and c). A point has been made that there is a change in regard to e) in that only the tenured and tenure track faculty of the department would be voting. He stated that the change is actually a little more restrictive then the understanding of Senators CC Bowen and William Bowen.

Senator Yan Xu asked if Professor Dyer could define primary responsibility and what is the percentage of assignment for them to be counted as primary responsibility.

Professor Dyer asked Senate members to go back to Section 8.1.1 (G) which he included in the handout. The definition of "Primary Responsibility" that applies when the term is used in Personnel Actions: "The contract designation at the time of a faculty member’s original admission to faculty rank and status at CSU of the department, college, or academic unit as appropriate, which has primary responsibility for the making of recommendations for promotion, granting of tenure, and termination. Such primary responsibility can subsequently be transferred to another department, college, or academic unit with written consent of all parties concerned." Professor Dyer commented that it was understood that it means the departmental faculty have understood that those faculty, who by that particular criterion given there, have their primary responsibility in that department rather than in another department or academic unit. He went on to say that the UFAC discussed this a great deal and understood the primary responsibility as it has been defined, not vertically. In other words, if he is a member of the English Department and he becomes the Associate Dean, is his responsibility in the English Department or the Dean’s Office? It is understood horizontally that he is in the English Department. Or if he in fact transferred his primary responsibility to the History Department and even if he got tenure in the English Department, he has now been transferred to the History Department, and they would make the primary role of his decision on making full professor - it is understood horizontally. He said that he hoped that answered Senator’s Xu’s question.

Senator Yan Xu wondered, if Professor Dyer were the Dean of a College, does that mean that he voted twice? Can he vote in the Department and then as the Dean?

Senator David Larson noted that this is not about Deans; this is about joint appointments - people with appointments say in History and English. You vote in one or the other. One of those two would be your primary responsibility as usually set up in your first contract otherwise it is 51% this and 49% that. So, if you have a joint appointment in History and in Education or whatever, you only vote in one and that is determined by... It does not give the Dean the right to get involved in this twice. It has nothing to do with that.

Senator Xu commented that if the Dean has an appointment in the department, he can’t vote.

Professor Dyer noted that there is another issue here he wanted to mention just for Senate’s information. This is not something that UFAC is bringing to Senate. The Faculty Affairs Committee did send a letter recently to the Provost and copied all department chairs clarifying what we understood to be common law practice regarding the vertical issue. The question is for example, if I am an Associate Dean but my basic position would be in the English Department, do I get to vote on choosing the chair of the English Department? Basically, the rule would be that a tenured or tenure track faculty member fulfills two conditions: one is 50% or more administration and two, the primary responsibility is no longer particularly within the department but within some other office. In other words, if I become an Associate Dean, my primary responsibilities are down the hall. Then I would temporarily forfeit my right to participate as a department member in the department chair selection process and as soon as I cease to fulfill one of those two conditions, I instantly regain that right. If I become an Associate Dean, but for some reason I am only being compensated by course reductions and I am still a member of the bargaining unit, I retain my right to vote. If I become an Associate Dean and I become fully administration, I do not retain my right to vote. UFAC thought of this as something which they could declare common law in really simply the same way the Contract Implementation Committee will interpret things in the collective bargaining. UFAC drew a pretty clear line there that would be pretty practical as in the case of a Dean, Associate Dean, and Vice Provost as to what their participation would be. He hoped that he clarified things. He added that this is something that has no necessary relation to the issue being raised at Senate today but the knowledge might be useful.

Senator CC Bowen asked Professor Dyer to clarify the relationship between b) and c) - what can b) do that cannot be accomplished in c)? Professor Dyer responded that he is attempting to understand the intentions of the people who put the proposed revision together. He went on to say that a lot of these things have been here for a very long time. He noted that b) states, ‘The Search Advisory Committee may also include faculty members from one or more related professional fields or disciplines.’ and c) states, ‘To address special circumstances in the Department or to meet Affirmative Action guidelines, the Dean or the Affirmative Action Officer...’ Professor Dyer noted that c) is a more specific version of b). His assumption is that c) is one of the ways where what you need to do is to have other faculty members from other disciplines.

Senator David Larson called the question. The debate ended.

Senate President Sawicki stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee has proposed a revision to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws (8.0), Section 8.1.5 A) Appointment of Department Chairpersons. Senate President Sawicki asked members to vote. The proposed revision to the Personnel Policies and Bylaws (8.0), Section 8.1.5 A) Appointment of Department Chairpersons was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Senate President Sawicki noted that the Greenbook contemplates that the Faculty Senate Budget and Finance Committee should report at each Faculty Senate meeting on current and future budgetary matters. Due to the seriousness of the current and upcoming budget issues, it was proposed at the December Academic Steering Committee meeting that this Greenbook stipulation should be enforced. Therefore, today, we have the first report of the Budget and Finance Committee given by Senator Joanne Belovich, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee.

VII.  Budget and Finance Committee

Update of the Budget (Report No. 18, 2008-2009)

“Senator Joanne Belovich, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, reported that the members of the committee looked at the history of the committee and one of the items that seemed to come up regularly was to ask the administration what percentage of the budget was devoted to academic versus non-academic expenditures. She noted that Vice President Jack Boyle graciously came up with the data. In FY 08, about 48% of the university budget was devoted to instruction and department research and that has climbed gradually from 43% in FY 02. Now these numbers are real tricky; it all depends on how you define academic versus non-academic and it is not so easily broken down. Another way of looking at it, you could say that 67% of the budget in FY 08, climbing from 65% in FY 02, was devoted to instruction and department research if you include academic support which would be all of the Dean’s offices, all of the money for scholarship, etc. Ideally, we like to compare that to other institutions to see if we are within the norms but that information is not available at this time.”

“Senator Belovich commented that the other issue is the budget. As of the Budget and Finance Committee meeting two weeks ago, there is still a great deal of uncertainty with the budget for the University. Vice President Boyle was looking at a potential $8 million deficit for last year and hopefully the news will be better than that now, but that is not known. She noted that some of the general policies the administration is looking at are to find ways to avoid any layoffs and this is the number one goal. That is being done of course by restricting things like travel, non-emergency overtime, perhaps restricting some of the summer contracts of people who are working in units that are not really busy during the summer, and as far as anything else, the committee doesn’t really have a lot of information because as of that time, the committee didn’t have anything definite from the State of Ohio.”

VIII.  Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer

Provost Mary Jane Saunders first reminded everyone that the requests for applications for merit have gone out and the deadline for getting them into the Dean’s offices is March 12, 2009. Everybody in the bargaining unit is eligible this year and this is a change from the past. Everyone is encouraged to get their applications together and apply for merit. That will be honored next year in the FY 10 budget so it’s a good way to make sure that if you are doing a great job at the institution, that you are recognized.

Secondly, Provost Mary Jane Saunders commented on the budget. She noted that she is sorry to say that she has very little additional information. We had a preliminary budget from the Governor which was based on getting some money from the stimulus package. She noted that President Schwartz spoke about that at the last Senate meeting. The Governor has not yet run the budgets for the individual universities at this time. We know we have several things happening at the same time – we have zeroed out line items which everyone might have read about which happen to cross the entire State, and this is again, the Governor’s budget. We also have a new formula that will impact each of the units within the higher education budget, and remember that this new formula is not just behind in seats on the fifteenth day. It is an outcomes based formula which includes graduation rates, it includes numbers of students who pass with a D or better in classes so it is no longer the same thing as looking at the fifteen day numbers and submitting that bill to the State for our share of State Share of Instruction. It is an outcomes based formula and it is quite complex – the ones that have been proposed. Again, we have not yet seen which of the various iterations of that has been accepted by the Chancellor. Provost Saunders noted that we will get this all at the same time and she will let everyone know as soon as possible when they have any information whatsoever. She added that she is quite sure that it will be on the front page of the “Plain Dealer” so everyone will probably know when the administration knows.

Provost Saunders noted that she has talked with both the Deans and the Academic Administrators and talked about what our philosophy is about the budget reductions on the academic side and she has shared these with the other Vice Presidents and the President. The core academic mission must remain our top priority. Retention activities are important to the future fiscal stability of the university. Cuts should not be across the board but alternatively no one is immune from sharing the pain. As much as possible, we must protect our current employees, our family, from layoffs. We should be considering some academic year appointments for staff as a possibility, mirroring the faculty appointments and student enrollments. We want to continue to work along the responsibilities of the centered management model of the colleges and examine the productivity and growth of units for permanent based funding. Decisions from the unit heads about areas or activities to protect or cut should be respected within the constraints of a target budget. Finally, frills go first – some things like the current budget for travel. We have already anticipated taking cuts there. This is not the faculty development; that’s a different account. She hopes that everyone understands that this is not going to be pleasant for anybody in the institution but using this set of principles, she hopes will guide us through this time and we will remain a healthy and happy and vibrant institution.

Provost Saunders reported that the self-study for accreditation is moving along and she thanks everyone who is participating. We are now in what’s called phase two which means we are collecting the data from across the campus. A Steering Committee has been named of fourteen faculty and administrators and students and they have met monthly since September 2008 to guide the process. We have a core team of three that meets weekly and is planning the process and will do a lot of the writing of the accreditation report and nearly one hundred faculty, staff and administrators are currently involved in collecting the data. She assured the Senate that the self-study is moving along very well.

Provost Saunders commented on an email everyone should have received a few days ago which people may not have opened because it had some headline like, “administrative update” and probably people thought that this had nothing to do with them. She noted that this email was information from IS&T that PeopleSoft 9 will be implemented very soon. An enormous loading of PeopleSoft 9 will take place during spring break week to try to give the least amount of disruption to the academic process. So everyone should go back and read that email or ask department chairs, who should have copies of handouts, about it. You will see what is available to do that week and what is not available. For instance, Blackboard is available for use by someone with a current account but it is not available for uploading a new course. The ever popular myTime is available but the also popular My Pay is not available. She noted that there are subtleties like that which everyone needs to look at and go through. IS&T has done a wonderful job; we have hired no outside consultants to do this – it has all been done in-house which is a monumental effort by the IS&T staff. Hopefully, the update will all go well that week. She commented that she finds herself knocking on wood an awful lot lately. Hopefully that will all go well and we will be up and running without a lot of disruption.

Provost Saunders commented that especially since the President isn’t here today, what we are referring to for the next two months is the farewell tour. Everyone knows how much Mike Schwartz has done for this institution – it just boggles the mind. Every time we hear a student talk at an event, you realize the things that his leadership put in place so directly impacted our students here at the institution and what a wonderful job he’s done. She asked everyone to save the day, May 6th, the Wednesday of the last week of classes. There will be a university party for the President and there are a team of folks including some faculty working on planning that party and it will be sort of like the spring picnic. They have decided on a tropical party theme, so dust off those Hawaiian shirts and wear anything that looks festive. They have talked about sending a memo to dress down but she suggested that we call it dressing up for the party and pulling out the fun tropical beach look and getting together to celebrate the President’s term in office here. Provost Saunders noted that there will also be a more formal recognition of the President on the evening of June 23, 2009 in the Allen Theater that will be a community and university celebration and everyone will be getting information about that as well.

Provost Saunders stated that one thing she really likes to do at Senate meetings is to recognize significant awards that have come into the institution by the hard work of the faculty. She had a pretty long list because she was not at the last Senate meeting. She noted that she will start on the list and draw a line if she needs to break it up into a couple of meetings. Provost Saunders said that we have some really significant achievements of the faculty at the institution. Provost Saunders then read some of them.

Dr. Dennis Kowalski – Martha Holden Jennings Foundation for “21st Century Skills Transformation” for $45,000

Dr. Barsanjit Mazumder – NIH for “Translational Silencing in Monocytes Role of L13a” for $265,000 out of a total award of $1.3 million

Dr. Subra Saha – Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland for Research, Social Interactions, and Local Economic performance in the amount of $25,000

Dr. Lih-Ching Wang – Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China for “Confucius Institute” for $100,000

Drs. Alan Riga and John Turner – Ohio Department of Development for “Rapid Rehabilitation and Return to Function for Amputee Soldiers” in the amount of $324,000

Dr. Zhiqiang Gao – NASA for the “Study of the Application of Modern Theories of Interface, Control, and Ergonomics to Space Exploration Activities” in the amount of $345,000

Dr. Greg Sadlek – Cleveland Foundation for “Turkish Theater Artist Residency” for $112,000

Dr. Serreta Archer – Ohio Board of Regents for “Student Achievement in Research and Scholarship (STARS) Program” in the amount of $41,000

Dr. Vijaya Konangi – NASA/Shared Service Center for “Simulation and Performance Analysis for CNS: Phase II” in the amount of $188,000

Dr. Pete Clapham – NOAA through Bowling Green State University for “Cleveland State University Sampling in Central Basin of Lake Erie: Summer 2009” for $17,000

Dr. Norbert Delatte – Chesapeake Bay Trust through University of Maryland, Baltimore County for “Pervious Concrete: Technology Demonstration and Information Needs” for a total award of $18,000

Dr. Surendra Tewari – NASA Glenn Research Center for “Development of Acoustics, Tomography and Radiography Science and Facilities Operations” for $333,000 and from NASA for “Planar Optical Diagnostics for Flow Field Measurements and Optical systems Build Up” in the amount of $332,000

Dr. Aimin Zhou – Diabetes Association of Greater Cleveland for “The role of Rnase L in Diabetes” in the amount of $47,000

Dr. Robert Abelman – Gannett Foundation for “WKYC and Cleveland State: Creating the next Generation of new Media Broadcast Specialists” for $20,000

Dr. Bibo Li – NIH for “Characterization of Trypanosome Telomere Complex” for a total award of $1,180,000

Dr. John Schupp – Ohio Board of Regents for “Supportive Education for Returning Veterans” in the amount of $95,000

Dr. Crystal Weyman – Ohio Research Scholars Program for “Ohio Research Scholars Center of Research Excellence in Molecular Cardiovascular Innovation” for $900,000

Provost Mary Jane Saunders indicated that she would stop at this point and continue reporting on these awards at the next meeting. They are marvelous awards and we really appreciate all of the work of the University faculty in getting these awards.

At this point, Provost Saunders indicated that she would respond to questions.

Senator Elice Rogers stated that she was curious about the status of the Presidential Search. Provost Saunders responded that as far as she knows, according to the very detailed report from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Ronald Weinberg, at the last Senate meeting he talked about the number of people that the search firm and the search committee have been talking to and to the best of her knowledge, they are narrowing those down now and talking to candidates that remain interested in the presidency here. Provost Saunders added that she was very encouraged by what she is hearing about the quality of the candidates and their interest in Cleveland and she feels quite confident that there will be a wonderful President selected. So, some of her anxiety is going away as she is learning more about the candidates because she thinks there will be a terrific person here next year for us and she feels good about it. She went on to say that she is not a candidate in case anyone was thinking about it.

Senator Yan Xu asked Provost Saunders about enrollment. Provost Saunders replied that enrollment right now is just about flat. It goes up a percent or two but again remember that we used to – everyone should be tired of the President and her talking about our fifteen day numbers, whatever. Some of that will continue to impact our formula funding but some other factors will be part of that funding also. So, keeping our student credit hours up is still very important to the institution. It is about flat for this year. There are areas in which there has been growth and there are areas in which there has been a decline. Provost Saunders stated that she has permission to get on the IR site and look at the actual enrollments to date in every college. She assumed that this is open to faculty as well so if anyone is interested in looking at the virtually daily report, that could be arranged.

IX.  Report of the President of the University

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

At this point Senate President Sawicki asked if there was any new business.

X.  New Business

Professor Connie Hollinger asked to make an announcement. She wanted to extend an invitation to everyone, if they have not already received the invitation, to join in the celebration of the Maryjoyce Green Legacy Fund Inaugural Party. It is no frills. Actually the base funding has come from community and personal friends and the whole intent of this event on Sunday, March 8, 2009 at 2:00 P.M. in Fenn Tower is to insure the financial support of all of the efforts and the programs that Mareyjoyce Green has implemented and worked to maintain for the last 42 years on this campus. The President’s Advisory Committee on the Role and Status of Women, the Dean of CLASS, the Office of the Vice President for Institutional Diversity, and John A. Flower have all come together on the Advisory Committee. The majority of funds have really come from members of the community. It would be great if everyone could join them at 2:00 P.M. on Sunday, March 8, 2009.

There being no further business, Senate President Jerzy Sawicki asked for a motion to adjourn. It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.

Heidi H. Meier
Faculty Senate Secretary


[Top of Page]