I. Eulogy for James R. Webb (Finance)
II. Approval of the Agenda for the April 8, 2009 Meeting
III. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 4, 2009
IV. Report of the Faculty Senate President
V. University Curriculum Committee
VI. University Admissions and Standards Committee
VII. University Faculty Affairs Committee (First Reading)
VIII. Budget and Finance Committee
IX. Library Committee
X. Update on CSU Environmental Science Green Roof Project (Report No. 9, 2008-2009)
XI. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer
XII. Report of the President of the University
XIII. New Business
PRESENT: C. Alexander, Barrow, Beasley, Belovich, C. C. Bowen, Duffy, Goodell, Gordon-Pershey, Govea, Gross, Hansman, Hollinger, M. D. Jones, Kalafatis, S. Kaufman, Komar, Larson, Little, Mensforth, Mikelbank, Rashidi. G. Ray, E. E. Rogers, Rom, Sawicki, Silberger, M. Smith, Sterio, Tebeau, Vonderwell, Welfel, Weyman, Xu, Yu, Zhou.
Boyle, Droney, Heinrich, Markovic, Olson, M. J. Saunders, M. Schwartz, D. Stewart (for L. Patterson), Thornton, Vogelsang-Coombs.
ABSENT: Berlin Ray, W. Bowen, Cagan, Dixit, Dougherty (for H. Robertson), Meier, K. O’Neill, B. Ray, Shukla, Steinberg, Tukel, Visocky-O’Grady, J. Wilson.
Anagnostos, C. Bailey, Benmerzouga, Bonder, Q. Brooks, Drnek, Ghorashi, Hanniford, E. Hill, Legan-Turner, McLoughlin, Mearns, Nuru-Holm, L. E. Reed, Sadlek, Scherer, Sutton, R. Thompson.
ALSO PRESENT: Dyer, Engelking, Jeziorowski, Matthews, M. Wells.
Senate President Jerzy Sawicki called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Professor Alan Reichert delivered the Eulogy for the late James R. Webb. His remarks follow.
“I was asked last evening to give a Eulogy for James Webb so this may not be the most polished statement, but there are some random thoughts and antidotes that I would like to share with you.”
“While we are all unique, I think those who knew Jim well would agree that he was uniquely unique. He was a big man with big plans and a large ego. In addition to being a Professor of Finance, Jim had a wide range of intellectual interests from Japanese rock gardening to physics and chaos theory.”
“Speaking of chaos theory this reminds me of the first time I met Jim at his office at the University of Akron before coming to Cleveland State. I had trouble finding his office since it was located in the basement of a building some distance from the College of Business. I asked him why he located there and he simply indicated that being somewhat obscure made him more productive. It was this obsession with productivity that soon allowed him to rise out of academic obscurity and achieve a national reputation in the field of real estate finance. As to chaos theory, Jim actively practiced it every day in his office. The floor was his filing cabinet littered with student reports, exams, magazines and stacks of the Wall Street Journal from the floor to the ceiling. One needed to tread very carefully upon entering Jim’s office least one slip could start an avalanche. Jim apparently saw order instead of chaos since his office was never cleaned during the twenty years I knew him.”
“Several decades ago Jim helped found the American Real Estate Society commonly known as ARES where he served as Executive Director for many years. I remember discussing with Jim the Society’s future plans and he casually mentioned that he planned to start an ARES chapter on each of the continents around the globe. Now one could not always tell when Jim was joking so I played along and said that, ‘well after finishing with the continents, he should establish one on the moon.’ He gave me a kind of a distant look, grabbed a tablet and made some notes regarding the suggestion.”
“I am confident right now at this very moment, that Jim is hard at work establishing a new ARES chapter wherever he might be. I might also add that today there are active chapters in Europe, Asia, Pacific Rim, Latin America and Africa and soon, perhaps, on the moon. In my opinion, his lasting legacy will be his tireless efforts to establish the American Real Estate Society, which in addition to its international outreach, sponsors five academic journals.”
“As you can see, Jim loved being a professor. His resume indicates that he was a co-author on many real estate articles and he had a loyal student following, from undergraduates to doctoral students.”
“Jim and I are about the same age and not long ago I asked him when he planned to retire. He looked a little bewildered and said that he had never considered retiring and in his own words that he planned to die with his academic boots on. He predicted that one day he would be found slumped over his desk as he worked on a manuscript. As it turned out, while Jim passed on peacefully in the company of his devoted family, he certainly did die with his academic boots on. His intention after being in the hospital for many months was to return to teaching this summer. As I said, Jim loved being a professor right to the end.”
“Let me sum up with a quote by Daniel Burnham, the famous Chicago architect which captures the essence of my departed colleague. ‘Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably, themselves, will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work remembering that a noble logical diagram once recorded will never die but long after we are gone will be a living thing.’ ARES was truly Jim’s noble and logical diagram.”
Senate President Jerzy Sawicki asked everyone to please observe a moment of silence in memory of our departed colleague Professor James Webb.
Senate President Sawicki stated that the proposed Agenda is recommended by the Academic Steering Committee. The Eulogy for Professor James Webb was, of course, delivered by Dr. Alan Reichert. He suggested amending the Agenda to correctly identify Professor Reichert as the Eulogist. He then asked if there were any objections. There were no objections.
Acceptance of the Agenda for the April 8, 2009 meeting as amended was moved, seconded and approved.
Senate President Jerzy Sawicki reported that the March 4, 2009 Minutes were not yet ready for approval and will be presented for approval during the next Faculty Senate meeting on May 6, 2009.
Senate President Jerzy Sawicki stated that he had nothing to report today.
Dr. John Jeziorowski, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that the UCC had two items for Senate’s consideration this afternoon.
A. Proposal to Change the Name of the Operations Management and Business Statistics Department (OMS) to Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management (OSM) (Report No. 19, 2008-2009)
Dr. Jeziorowski noted that the first item is the approval of the proposal to change the name of the Department of Operations Management and Business Statistics to the Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management.
At this point, Dr. Jeziorowski asked if there was any discussion or questions about this proposal.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed to change the name of the Operations Management and Business Statistics Department to the Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management and asked Senators to vote. The UCC proposal to change the name of the Operations Management and Business Statistics Department to the Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management was unanimously approved by voice vote.
B. Proposed 3+1+1 Program in Biomedical Engineering (Report No. 20, 2008-2009)
Dr. Jeziorowski stated that the second proposal is to approve the 3+1+1 Program in Biomedical Engineering with Bahcesehir University. He noted that Professor Joanne Belovich is in attendance to respond to any questions.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed a 3+1+1 Program in Biomedical Engineering and asked Senators to vote. The University Curriculum Committee’s proposed 3+1+1 Program in Biomedical Engineering with Bahcesehir University was unanimously approved by voice vote.
Dr. Michael Wells, chair of the University Admissions and Standards Committee, reported that the Committee has three items for Senate’s consideration.
A. Proposed Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College and the Levin College of Urban Affairs (Report No. 21, 2008-2009)
1. Associate of Applied Science in Environmental Health and Safety Technology (CCC) for Bachelor of Arts Degree in Urban Studies
2. Associate of Applied Science in Environmental Health and Safety Technology (CCC) for Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Studies
Dr. Wells reported that the first item are the proposed Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College and the University’s Levin College of Urban Affairs. One is for the transfer of the Associate of Applied Sciences and Environmental Health and Safety Technology from Tri C for the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Urban Studies with a concentration in Environmental Policy in the Levin College, and, two, the Associate of Applied Science in Environmental Health and Safety Technology at Tri C to the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Studies in the Levin College at Cleveland State.
Dr. Wells noted that representatives from the Levin College of Urban Affairs, Dr. Wendy Kellogg and Dr. Roberta Steinbacher, were present to respond to questions. Dr. Wells inquired if there were any questions about the proposals.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed two Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College and the Levin College of Urban Affairs and asked Senators to vote. The UCC’s proposed Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College and the Levin College of Urban Affairs were unanimously approved by voice vote.
B. Proposed Articulation Agreements with the College of Education and Human Services (Report No. 22, 2008-2009)
1. Medina Career Center
2. West Shore Career Center
Dr. Wells stated that the next item from the University Admissions and Standards Committee are the proposed Articulation Agreements with the College of Education and Human Services with one, the Medina Career Center, and two, the West Shore Career Center which would result in the wavier of a two credit hour requirement in the College of Education. He noted that representatives from the College of Education were present to respond to questions and asked if there were any questions.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed two Articulation Agreements with one, the College of Education and Human Services and the Medina Career Center, and two, the College of Education and Human Services and the West Shore Career Center and asked Senators to vote. The Admissions and Standards Committee’s proposed Articulation Agreements with the College of Education and Human Services and the Medina Career Center and the West Shore Career Center were approved unanimously by voice vote.
C. Proposed Revision to CSU S/U Grade Policy (Report No. 23, 2008-2009)
Dr. Wells reported that the last item from the University Admissions and Standards Committee is the proposed revision to the Cleveland State University Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Grade Policy requested by the University Registrar. This comes from the activity of students who registrar for S/U grades for courses for which S/U grades are only to be given and then change the grade from S/U to a regular grade, thus, negating the department’s requirement that the course only be graded S/U. The revision does not allow for the students to change the S/U to a regular grade in those particular courses and then makes the students harmless in the maximum number of courses that can be used for S/U. In other words, those courses were S/U as required and the only grade formula in which the students can still have the normal number of courses under the S/U grade policy excluding those S/U only courses. Dr. Wells noted that the Registrar did not feel comfortable in disallowing the change from S/U to a regular grade even though she knew these courses were intended for S/U only without the faculty legislating on the matter. Dr. Wells asked if there were any questions.
There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sawicki noted that the University Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed a revision to the CSU S/U Grade Policy and asked Senators to vote. The Admissions and Standards Committee’s proposed revision to the CSU Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Grade Policy was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Proposed Revision to the Bylaws 8.2.1 Article I. College Faculties
A) Membership and Bylaws (Report No. 24, 2008-2009)
Dr. Gary Dyer, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the Committee’s proposed revision to the Bylaws 8.2.1, Article I. College Faculties, A) Membership and Bylaws. He noted that this is the first reading of the proposed revision to the Bylaws. Two readings are needed because this is a change to the Bylaws. He noted that the proposed revisions are underscored on the material included with the meeting packets. He read the section of the Bylaws with the proposed additions.
“Each College except the College of Graduate Studies, shall have a College Faculty constituted as follows: the President of the University; the chief academic officer; the Dean, Associate Deans, and Assistant Deans of the College; and all persons assigned to the College with the faculty rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Clinical Assistant Professor, Instructor, and emeritus.”
Dr. Dyer noted that the two terms used, “Clinical Associate Professor” and “Clinical Assistant Professor” are keyed very carefully to the two categories of Bargaining Unit Faculty that are described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section 12.4.B. He then asked if there were any questions. There were no questions.
Update on the Budget (Report No. 25, 2008-2009)
Senator Joanne Belovich, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee reported that at the last meeting of the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC), Vice President Jack Boyle informed them of the bad news of the $8.5 million budget cut for next year’s budget. Two-thirds of that would come from the Provost’s budget and one-third from his side of the aisle. Today the committee asked Vice President Boyle for a little more detail on the breakdown within the units. Vice President Boyle said that he will try to get that information for the committee at its next meeting.
Senator Belovich stated that this is all the committee knows at this point. Vice President Boyle also showed the committee the resolution that was approved by the Board of Trustees talking about some of the priorities for the budget and trying to avoid layoffs at all costs which, of course, the faculty members are happy to hear about and agree with that as a priority.
Professor Sarah Matthews, chair of the Library Committee, commented that she was sure that she didn’t have to tell anyone what OhioLINK is, but just in case, OhioLINK now serves 84 member and participating institutions of the Union Catalog equipped with the State-wide patron initiative borrowing system, over 100 reference and research data bases, an electronic journal center, electronic books and digital media center. At this point, she noted that none of us could imagine the CSU Libraries without it. At its last meeting, the Library Committee concluded that the funding issues faced by OhioLINK in the current economy are significant enough to warrant inviting Mr. Tom Sanville to speak to the faculty about them. She noted that Mr. Sanville has been the Executive Director of OhioLINK since 1992 and there is no one better to speak to the issues and then to answer questions. So, without further ado...
Presentation by Tom Sanville, Executive Director of OhioLINK
Issues Related to our Libraries (Report No. 26, 2008-2009)
Mr. Tom Sanville thanked everyone for the opportunity to talk to Faculty Senate. It is always good to get out and share what they are up to. He is here today because we are in kind of a unique territory, budgetarily, and he wanted to inform everyone about the bigger picture.
OhioLINK was created to address the fundamental problem in Ohio’s academic libraries which is the inability of those libraries individually to provide the necessary robust access to information that is required of their institutions especially in a world where it is becoming more information intensive. So OhioLINK was created as a collaborative effort to leap over the individual economic capabilities of any one library through collaborative efforts. Back in late 1992 they activated their central catalog with only their first six library catalogs and two index data-bases. They now have over 48 million books that everyone can physically borrow between institutions; they have over 12,000 electronic journals with millions of articles; 40,000 e-books; 140 reference data-bases; they are now up to about 20,000 thesis and dissertations from the graduate schools around the state; and this collection keeps growing and growing. He only mentions this because everyone has his own specific disciplinary needs and uses but it takes an incredibly broad array of resources to really fulfill all of the instructional and research needs of the full body of the OhioLINK academic community. He added that they really aren’t complete in any sense of the word but they have accomplished a lot.
Mr. Sanville noted that one of the facts that is often over-looked to do this requires a coordination and use of the estimated $222 million that Ohio academic library budgets provide for the State. OhioLINK funds only about $11.6 million so the vast resource, whether it be human or financial in terms of the purchase of physical books and materials and electronic resources, comes from the accumulation of the library budgets. Now the problem is that both of these are under great stress. This year alone, OhioLINK had budget reductions that totaled over $750,000 and the only reason why you and your students didn’t see any impact on the resources provided to you was because enough reserves had been saved up to carry them through this particular cycle but that won’t be the case in the next cycle. They are now expected to have the same reduced funding for at least the next two years if they are lucky. They routinely collect library budget information year to year and so far as libraries project what’s going to happen to their budgets next year, they are averaging a decrease of 2.5% with at least 80% of the libraries having flat or decreased budgets. In this statistic, one of the most distressing pieces is that the university libraries, which obviously have the biggest budgets and contribute the largest percentage of their content funding, are projected at minus 4.7%. Ten of the fourteen reporting universities are expecting a decrease so far and two more are flat so twelve out of fourteen will have no increase and ten of those fourteen will have a decrease.
Mr. Sanville asked, “Why is this important?” He stated that collectively the OhioLINK libraries provide this array of electronic resources certainly and this year invested $34.6 million. Of that $34.6 million, only $8.3 million comes from OhioLINK. The remainder, $26.4 million, comes from library budgets by allocating the acquisition budgets of the individual libraries. Of that $24.6 million, $21.1 million comes from the universities. So it is incredibly important that the health of library budgets be maintained if we are going to sustain what it is that we are doing. He noted that their group licenses are extremely effective in efficient use of library funds and basically they are simply taking the money that a library would spend anyway with a given publisher and they put it together and combine it with other library budget money, some OhioLINK money in many cases, and they then leverage that – instead of buying a couple hundred journals from a publisher and institution, they buy their complete run of 2,000. They leverage that to really expand the number of titles that they can bring in to all of their institutions on a regular basis. In so doing, they also then have the kind of purchasing power to control the costs of the increase. As many might know, the prices of journals, in particular, continue to rise up to 10% per year and they control their prices much more effectively as well as bringing a much broader array of resources to each campus.
Mr. Sanville commented, “Let’s look at Cleveland State in particular.” He noted that the CSU Library contributes $900,000 out of the $34.6 million which is about 2.6% of the total and by a real rough measure, be assured they are using at least 2.7% of the uses of that material. We are getting our fair share of the uses of that information including over 500 full text downloads. He stated that OhioLINK has never asked CSU to contribute significantly higher amounts for particular resources than it has or might individually and historically spend for those resources. CSU is just asked to contribute as part of the group purchase so that they can get more bang for the buck. Mr. Sanville gave an example: When they were collecting their inventories of print journal collections across the universities in the early 90s, Cleveland State had 16% which was the third lowest percentage of journal titles that each of our universities would buy. Now by taking the same type of investment as at that time, they provide the full array of a publishers run and, instead of CSU’s prices going up at 7% or 10% per year, they are only averaging a 3% increase.
Mr. Sanville commented, in terms of well is it worth it, did you need that expanded access? In the last two years for the electronic center publishers, the CSU users, faculty and students, downloaded from 75% of the titles in the electronic center and historically, you might have had at one point no more than 16% of those in print if you wanted to walk over to the library to use them. As he said, they are controlling their collective group license costs at about 3% per year, well below what can possibly be managed by an individual library where they are facing up to 10% price increases and of course they are buying much more per dollar spent. Unfortunately, the reduction in the OhioLINK central budget and the expected widespread reduction in library budgets won’t allow them to sustain their current array of resources, both those bought as a group and those which are selected individually by each library. Mr. Sanville reported that there is a global library effort to work with the publishers to reconcile the budget realities that not only do we face in Ohio but are facing nation-wide and world-wide. Even with some concessions by the publishing community to accommodate the harsh realities that we face, we still will not be able to sustain our portfolio. At this point, we are looking at a group portfolio value reduction of between five to ten percent depending on how you want to think about the future which is going to be between $1.7 million and $3.4 million in the next annual cycle, FY 10 and Calendar 10. And, given the fact that we have the university libraries which some are weaker than the average, we are headed deeper into that reduction than we are towards sustainability. There is also the prospect that things could get worse before they get better. He noted that when you think about it, there really is no good solution to reducing our portfolio because we basically, by definition, cover so many needs, whether it be a key data-base or abstract data-base discipline or whether it be key journals, we have really tried to address a wide range of core needs. Now, you could say, well let’s cut low use items – that’s one metric, but low use just might mean it’s a small discipline but the resources that we provide for that discipline are quite key. When we start laying out the various metrics that we might apply, they all have their pros and cons and there is no nice neat simple solution. Mr. Sanville said that they expect, somewhere along the line no matter how they do this with the libraries, whether it be through reduction of our group licenses or in combination with reduction with locally selected resources, there is going to be a reduction in access to data-bases, new journal issues, new books, new e-books, in some combination depending on how they can ultimately work out the best of any number of bad solutions.
Mr. Sanville stated that the Library Committee along with Glenda Thornton, the Library Director, asked him to be here today to share this situation with Senate because if and when they have to take these reductions which will be noticeable, they wanted everyone to have some sense of what are the underlying economic reasons behind steps that no one wants to take but they may, in all likelihood be forced to take. OhioLINK is trying to serve many disciplines out there and each of you see only a very specific piece of that based on your needs but they have to deal with a much broader array of needs from undergraduate up through heavy research. So it becomes a no win situation for them in this circumstance and they are simply going to be trying to do as least harm as possible. He added that none of the options are attractive for them as providers of information or will they be for everyone as users of information at whatever level you or your students will need these.
Mr. Sanville said that not with standing these immediate problems with content, they will continue to look strategically at how we as a library community can improve the services that we offer. There is still a commitment and understanding of that and as a group, it is still the best mechanism available to provide maximum information to each campus across the State in the most efficient and effective manner possible. With individual library action, you just lose every year as costs and capabilities expand at a greater rate than you are able to absorb and take advantage of those. He stated that they are going to be taking a few steps backwards but they are far ahead of where they started back in 1992 and they will go forward again so that they can help Cleveland State and the other universities and colleges in the State achieve the goals that have been set for them. Mr. Sanville noted that he would be happy to entertain any questions if there are any.
Senator Brian Mikelbank asked, “With library budgets decreasing and the publishers’ prices increasing, has there been any organization among the other organizations like OhioLINK in other states that could apply a little pressure to the publishers?”
Mr. Sanville replied that yes, there are many consortium all over the world and in the United States in the state level and in other countries at the national level that act with the same similar objectives so we are all at work. He noted that there are organizations called International Coalition of Library Consortia. They put out a statement a couple of months ago that basically said, we are not kidding this time – the financial sky is falling. Pay attention; we have to do something about this. The ARL, Association of Research Libraries, piled on with a similar statement. The libraries are pretty well organized and trumpeting the situation on a global level and are trying to work with the publishers across all boundaries. He added that they are trying to get the message out there and see what they can manage. Even so, most of the publishers will want to concede, and say, okay, fine, maybe we will leave our prices flat for a year, but we are in worse circumstances than that so we are going to close the gap. That won’t necessarily change the fundamentals in the first place because there does have to be some fundamental rethinking of economics.
Senate President Sawicki thanked Mr. Sanville for a very informative report.
Senate President Jerzy Sawicki noted that during the September 2008 Senate meeting, two students from Environmental Science, Erin Huber and LeeAnn Westfall, described a very interesting Green Roof Project. Some Senators in the meantime have asked him about the progress of the Green Roof Project and he forwarded this question to Erin and LeeAnn and they kindly agreed to give an update to Senate today. Senate President Sawicki welcomed Erin Huber and LeeAnn Westfall to Senate today.
Ms. Erin Huber introduced herself and noted that she is an environmental science major here at Cleveland State and will be graduating this May if all of her professors pass her.
Ms. LeeAnn Westfall introduced herself and said that she is also an environmental science senior student here at Cleveland State and will hopefully graduate next year.
Ms. Huber reported that she and LeeAnn have been working really hard this semester doing a lot of networking in the community; they have been to Earth Day Coalitions, Black Tie events, meeting with some local schools and teachers in local elementary schools and science academies that want to be more involved with the educational aspect of our Green Roof once it is complete. Also, she and LeeAnn attended a Green Building Coalition event and were able to network a little bit last week. They also hosted a E for Us table that was sponsored by Career Services here so they were able to meet quite a few amazing people in the Cleveland community – Andrew Waterson, and a few other people who are very influential in the sustainability area in Cleveland.
Ms. Westfall reported that they had an article in the “Engage Magazine” and also in “The Cleveland Stater” and for the College of Science an article in their newsletter and they also have a website. Through University Advancement, they put out a mailer to all of the juniors and seniors of the past three years of Alumni and Faculty as well. They will have posters in four locations and they have had a display in the Recreation Center for about six months from which actually they have received large amounts of donations from people walking through the Recreation Center so that is a great display. They also recently had their photos taken for an article that will be in the CDC Magazine that will be coming out in May.
Ms. Huber reported on fundraising. She noted that many people think this is a newer project, but she and LeeAnn have been working on this project for two years now. They have done a lot of small fund raising events like CSU going Green in the fall, a lot of small scale bake sales, raising the roof events, spaghetti dinners, Earth Day last spring which was the first Earth Day on campus and which raised a lot of awareness about their project and they are also doing a Reggae on the Roof Event when the Roof is complete in the fall.
Ms. Westfall noted that recently they have applied for a $200,000 federal EPA grant which will be going towards the educational program that will be developed to educate the local high school students about green architecture and sustainability and also, with the help of Vice President Peter Anagnostos, they have applied for $125,000 grants from local foundations. President Michael Schwartz and Vice President Jack Boyle have encouraged support from these donors.
Ms. Huber reported on construction. She noted that they are looking at an early summer installation of the project even though they will still be continuing to raise funds to pay for the project. She and LeeAnn have also been working on getting materials donated and a few weeks ago they had a meeting with UniLock, who at first thought maybe they could just give us a discount on the pavers that are needed for the roof so that we can walk on it, but then they were convinced to donate all the pavers so we are saving around $40,000. And, they are not just donating regular pavers, they are donating pervious pavers and the importance of those on a Green Roof is that it allows water to filter through which is very important for many environmental reasons. In addition, she and LeeAnn are working on getting some solar lighting donated so that it will not need to be purchased. Also, they are working on donations for benches and plaques. The project went out for bid on March 12, 2009 and that bidding is for basically who will be installing the electrical work and the pavers. Students and volunteers will be installing the actual Green Roof modules.
Ms. Westfall stated that once again, they need everyone’s support. They would really appreciate it if faculty could inform their students of the web site on the Green Roof Project and to show the brochures to their students, their peers, friends, and family. She added that they really want to start a tradition at CSU of class giving. They feel that this will really bring CSU together and create a community on campus. Their website is: csuohio.edu/rooftop.
Ms. Huber thanked everyone who believed in she and LeeAnn from the beginning – quite a few people – President Michael Schwartz, Vice President Jack Boyle, Vice President Peter Anagnostos, Dr. Wolin, Ed Schmittegen of the Architect’s Office and everyone who began believing in them from just being two crazy girls their first year here who wanted to build this crazy expensive project. It has come to life and it’s only because they had support from the faculty and would just like to say thank you.
Ms. Westfall added that Vice President Peter Anagnostos has been their mentor and their boss and she can honestly say that she and LeeAnn have learned more through this process than they would ever learn in a classroom and they believe that this truly is engaged learning. She believes that they are going to walk away with a lot more knowledge about how to be a young professional and she wanted to thank CSU for that.
Provost Mary Jane Saunders stated that it is wonderful to follow our students who care so much about the institution and what they are learning in the classroom and applying it. She reported that there is another student project going on too. There is another group of students who have started an organization called Students Helping Students (SHS) and they are collecting donations for our book funds for students and they are quite active as well in working with the students and building a tradition of philanthropy. The book fund, as we all know, is really a terrific thing and is really meaningful to other students as they go to buy their books and see the price tag of books today.
Provost Saunders commented that we started today with a Eulogy for Dr. Jim Webb and two of the particular slides that were shown, one was with a check for $2500 and another was with a donor that Jim helped us very much to cultivate and something that wasn’t in the Eulogy was that Jim was instrumental in getting a $1 million endowment from Paul Everson for a Distinguished Professorship in Real Estate. One of the slides was of Jim standing there with Paul and he also brought, in addition to that $2500 check, a $1 million check to the institution for Distinguished Professorship. So he was the consonant professor and not just in the classroom and in scholarship but also in caring about the institution and wanting to continue that tradition by getting a Professorship funded so that’s another memory of Jim.
Provost Saunders updated Senate on the Centers of Excellence that has been an ongoing topic this year. She reported that our Trustee, Bob Rawson, who is the Vice Chair of the Trustees this year and also the chair of the Committee on Academic Affairs, spoke directly to the Chancellor and the information back from the chancellor was that, yes, he recognizes that some of this has been delayed out of his office and that we, as an institution, still have no clear guidelines on the expectation for the State on what will compose the Centers of Excellence in size, scope, metrics, and expectations, so that deadline has been moved back once again and now the discussion with the trustees will take place in May of this year.
Provost Saunders reported that the other thing Bob Rawson talked about was of course the fact that we are in a transition in leadership. We will have a new President here and it is important for our new President to embrace the Centers of Excellence for the institution as they go forward and make it part of their platform in their vision for the institution. So that’s a little part of the mix too. Provost Saunders noted that we did not, however, want to lose some of the steam and some of the terrific input we’ve had all year in a very long process in sort of defining what CSU will be known for in its relationship with the economic development of the community. As everyone will recall, health was a theme, a Center of Excellence, a strategic direction for the institution that seemed to be embraced at all levels. The other proposed theme will be the Civic Life or Civic Engagement which was one that, with different constituencies, met some puzzlement or some questions or some asking to redefine it both to be more inclusive of the entire institution and something that people could get their hands around a little bit more. Provost Saunders noted that it was a good way to have those young women, Erin and LeeAnn talk about sustainability. What has happened is that the Board used terms around the Civic Engagement that they couldn’t quite get their hands around and asked us to go back and re-think that particular theme and see if in fact we could broaden it and define it a little better. So a combination of Deans working on this, input from the Strategic Planning Committee, discussion with the Academic Affairs Sub-committee of the Board and then finally, at the full Board last week they presented sort of an alternate theme for the institution to the Civic Engagement which is being distributed right now. Now this is in draft form and again, with this process, we want to make sure that as we go through it, it’s not just linear but that people have the chance to circle back and give input on different things. The proposed alternative to that was “Sustainable Communities” and the fact is that since we don’t really have yet a clear direction on what Centers of Excellence will be, we have decided to call these at this point in time, Signature Themes of the institution. If everyone looks at this, it encompasses a lot of what was under that Civic Engagement theme but also broadens it to include a lot more disciplines at the institution in a firmer way like Engineering and thinking about the infrastructure of the city, thinking about our Urban College as a convener for discussion about societal equity, looking at the arts as part of sustainable communities and contributing to that. If anyone read the paper this morning, President Schwartz was quoted on some of the new initiatives that are going along with the Allen Theater and our Theater Department in playing into sustainable communities. Provost Saunders stated that it is felt that this is an alternative to the one that was proposed, and to build on that, and the key word there is “creative solutions to complex problems” because that, of course, is what we pride ourselves on as being a university and as a university faculty we can be strategic thinkers and help to move communities forward and convene groups of people as full partners to discuss these things and help the region that we sit in and live in and serve to a renewal. She stated that she looks forward to input on this. Provost Saunders said that Connie Hollinger and her Strategic Planning Group would be happy to hear from everyone on this and that she would be happy to hear from everyone directly on this as well. She went on to say that this process is moving forward but this final definition and submission by the Board to the Chancellor has been postponed.
Provost Saunders noted that she wanted to continue to highlight some of our faculty accomplishments especially in the area of grant activity that brings money into our institution to support our academic and research activities. At the last Senate meeting, she had stopped with the major gift that Crystal Weyman received titled “Ohio Research Scholars Center of Research Excellence in Molecular Cardiovascular Innovation.” Provost Saunders then reported on other faculty awards.
Dr. Kirby Date – Ohio Lake Erie Commission for “Best Local Land Use Practices 2008/2009 Year” in the amount of $50,000
Dr. Lynn Deering – Ohio Arts Council for “CSU Dance Program” for $2,680
Dr. Thomas Bier – Fund for Our Economic Future for “Modeling Tax Growth Sharing for Northeast Ohio Phase II” for $80,000
Dr. Girish Shukla – National Science Foundation for “2008 RNA Meeting” for $7,205
Dr. Deborah Morin – Martha Holden Jennings Foundation for “Two-Tier Professional Development series for Administrator” for $28,200 and from the
Ohio Department of Education for “Education Policy Fellowship Program” for $10,000
Dr. Jennifer Madden – Far Eastside Detroit for “Master Planning and Development Project” in the amount of $77,415
Dr. Jennifer Alexander – Cleveland Foundation for “Symposium on Accountability and Performance Measurement” for $7,500
Drs. Judith Stahlman and Tachelle Banks – Ohio Department of Education for “Cleveland State University Highly Qualified Intervention Specialist Project” in the amount of $100,000
Provost Saunders noted that we continue to applaud the efforts of our faculty who are both recognized for scholarship and bringing in needed funding to keep projects going.
Provost Saunders said that the next Senate meeting will be President Schwartz’s last meeting with the Senate in the role of the President. That is not to say that he won’t return as an elected Senator after he returns to the faculty and she highly recommended him to those who have the ability to elect him to this body.
Provost Saunders commented that she has been thinking about reflecting on his tenure here. There has been an awful lot about the President as the builder and, of course, as you walk along the street, you see all of the new buildings going up and you think about those efforts he’s done to recreate the physical space of the institution. She noted that she has asked the Deans to reflect on the past eight years of President Schwartz’s leadership and start to think about some of the academic accomplishments of the institution under his leadership. In a very short period of time... She noted that she has a list that is so long, she could read it until five o’clock but she does want everyone to recognize the incredible input the President has had into CSU as an academic institution. She mentioned the following:
Provost Saunders commented that just hearing those students talk and the fact that in their experiences outside the classroom they are identifying engaged learning and seeing how important it is to them, remember that this took place under President Schwartz.
Provost Saunders noted that the last Senate meeting gets packed with agenda items and she didn’t want us to lose sight of our chance here to thank President Schwartz and to recognize his contributions so she ended on that note. Everyone applauded.
President Michael Schwartz commented that given our basketball fortunes this year, sales on clothing in the Bookstore were up 86%.
President Schwartz commented on this morning’s newspaper and Playhouse Square Foundation and the Cleveland Playhouse relationships. Those are two partnership conversations that are going on now. They are not deals. He wouldn’t want anybody to get the idea that they are finished; they are just beginning and these are conversations that will, he hopes, blossom into very important partnerships in both directions that will give our students opportunities that they would otherwise never be able to imagine with it – professionals in that business standing there and potentially all of their instructors and faculty members in first class facilities – that’s a very important thing for us to do for those students and for ourselves as a university. He wanted to make it clear that this is a university that can walk and chew gum at the same time. As we can pay attention to the STEM disciplines, and we are, that does not mean that the minds of the arts, the humanities, or the social sciences and keeping those things in balance in an environment that would tend to lean one way or the other is a legitimate and terribly important function for this body to pay attention to over the years. The Theater Arts program here is important to us but it is also a symbolic statement that this is a university that is a comprehensive institution and will not give that up.
President Schwartz noted that he recently stumbled across an article written by the former President of Wright State University, Paige Mulhollan, and he says in this very brief but interesting piece, “Typically in higher education there are two models that are understood as the kind of success models for institutions, one of which is the classic Liberal Arts College and the other is the major research institution.” He argues that this is silly. The world has changed too much to be bound by these two kinds of institutional models in terms of what’s good stuff. He argues that the engaged urban institution is the new model and certainly has its place along with the other kinds and those of us in these kinds of institutions need not have to worry about aping the others. We are our own model, our own system and we have our own concerns. The idea of sustainable communities as a theme for the institution is very important and doing it well is a critical issue for our own identity and understanding of our own future as an institution. So, while he can’t commend everything that Paige Mulhollan has ever written, the idea that he puts forth in that paper is certainly embracing.
President Schwartz reported that for next fall applications and admissions are well up and that’s good. How much of that is attributable to a bad economy is almost impossible to say. He does want to comment that commencement is on Saturday, May 16 and the Law School commencement is on Sunday, May 17 and he looks forward to seeing everyone there. At the morning commencement exercises the novelist Less Roberts will speak and that should be fun. The afternoon speaker is yet to be determined but this will be his (President Schwartz’s) last commencement as President. He is giving serious thought to making himself the speaker. He wanted to point out that the faculty staff campaign is on and a very large number was set - $250,000 and he thinks that we can make that. It is terribly important to the students that we do make it. The struggle is on for so many of them in so many different kinds of ways that whatever we can do this year to see to it that we can put at least some kind of net under those who struggle the hardest is appreciated. That’s important stuff and that’s the kind of people we are here anyway.
President Schwartz noted that yesterday they had a scholarship luncheon on campus for people who have received scholarships most recently, and the donors and some members of the families and two of our students spoke eloquently about what it meant to them to receive that kind of aid. One of them was a very young mother of four daughters who finally decided that it was time to go back to school and her husband said that there is no such thing as the right time, go. This university was able to provide her with a full scholarship for this coming year to come back here and pursue her dreams to become an English teacher in high school. That is the kind of student that we have here in the hundreds. Every one of them, he has learned over the eight years, as a student has a story, a wonderful story. The biggest thing that happened to me... President Schwartz said that he used to sit down in the cafeteria and eat with a student at random which would just scare the hell out of them and he would say as his opening line, “Tell me your life story.” and they did and they were amazing. The students here all have a story to tell and they never fail to amaze so we need to get behind them with this campaign to the extent that we can.
Finally, President Schwartz commented about the Wright Center. The Department of Development and some of us at the university have been having very cordial, friendly and constructive conversations and soon it will reach a resolution and he is hoping that this will happen before the end of this term and he is sure that it will go well.
President Schwartz thanked everyone very much; he said that he appreciates everyone’s courtesy. He added that he would be happy to respond to any questions.
Everyone applauded President Michael Schwartz.
At this point, Senate President Jerzy Sawicki asked if there was any new business.
Senator Rodger Govea stated that if at all possible, he would like an update on the Presidential Search. His understanding is that, contrary to assurances that we received from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, there will not be any campus visits by the candidates for President and asked if that was true.
Senate President Sawicki responded that he can only report what he knows. The Academic Steering Committee issued a letter to Ronald Weinberg, Chairman of the Presidential Search Committee, encouraging him to bring candidates to the faculty with open forums and open meetings and potential feedback from the faculty on the Presidential candidates. He also had a number of conversations with Ronald Weinberg who responded immediately to the letter and he strongly indicated that due to the confidentiality issues he is not willing to organize open forums. However, he understands that the Presidential candidates should meet with representatives of the colleges. There will be a special meeting of the Academic Steering Committee tomorrow in which the committee will discuss this option which means every college will select a representative and seven Senators, plus himself, will possibly meet the finalists for President. This is the option that was proposed to him and this is the only option.
Senator David Larson stated that in his opinion this is tokenism and it will have no substantial impact whatsoever on the choice of the finalist. It is not only the tradition at this school that finalists are brought in, it should be the fact at a university in which, if a President comes in without enthusiastic support by the faculty, that President is facing an uphill battle from the beginning and he doesn’t think that this university needs this at this critical time. He is very sorry to hear that Mr. Weinberg has gone back on his promise to this body that there would be open hearings, and, for himself, he is one of the representatives of a college, he is not going to participate in a token meeting. Someone else from his college may wish to do so, but he is not willing to do that.
Senate President Sawicki replied that Chairman Weinberg did not promise open meetings during the Senate meeting. He did not address this issue.
Senator Govea commented that it is unfortunate that we don’t have the minutes from that particular meeting but he believes that he asked Mr. Weinberg that very question and Mr. Weinberg said at that time that there would be... What Mr. Weinberg said to this body and what he said subsequently in an interview with The Cleveland Stater – in that interview he is fully confident that Mr. Weinberg did say that such meetings would take place in late spring. It was along the lines of, yes, there will be an opportunity. He said that he didn’t know if the term “open forum” was ever agreed to but it seems that coupled with the statement made to The Cleveland Stater, he didn’t see it as anything other than a promise that the Cleveland State community would have the opportunity to be part of the search process. Senator Govea added that he does appreciate the efforts of the Steering Committee and the Senate President bringing about... He is not upset at the Steering Committee or the faculty representatives. His understanding is that they have been quite diligent in this and he thanked them for that.
Senator Andrew Gross stated that his recollection was that along with Senators Larson and Govea, Chairman Weinberg said that we will have two kinds of candidates and that didn’t seem to sit well – some who are open about it and some who do not wish to reveal their intent to their own institution. So this duality, as he senses it, is not working too well in this setting and he wondered what the Senate President’s views were.
Senate President Sawicki responded that he expressed his opinion in a letter to Mr. Weinberg on behalf of the Steering Committee. He said that there are supposed to be meetings with the faculty and feedback from the faculty was to be obtained, and in his discussions with Chairman Weinberg, he also shared his opinion about the confidentiality issue in order to get an excellent candidate to the table. He knows and he was informed that in a number of schools in Ohio, candidates were brought in without meeting faculty; for example, Ohio State University’s last President. So he understands the position of Chairman Weinberg but also, as a faculty member, he fully supports the Senate’s point of view. His goal is to discuss this issue tomorrow in the special meeting of the Steering Committee.
Professor Gary Dyer commented that as he understood what Mr. Weinberg said it was his sense that confidentiality overruled all of the other considerations; in other words, when he was talking before Senate, and when people asked questions about input, he responded but confidentiality is it and that rather than being just one consideration, in effect confidentiality overruled all of the other considerations. He noted that Senate President Sawicki had said that Mr. Weinberg pointed out precedents of other presidential searches where confidentiality in effect was also the thing that overruled all of the other considerations; there are precedents for that. He went on to say that when he heard what Mr. Weinberg had said, he thought that this is not the way it works in the academic world. Professor Dyer then asked if Mr. Weinberg was able to come up with other precedents and other examples.
Senate President Sawicki replied that at Ohio State the presidential candidate did not meet with the faculty. It was just brought to the table and the Board of Trustees and the presidential search committee. This happens at many schools.
Senator Mark Tebeau commented that as he recalled, Mr. Weinberg’s position was this: if you name names to the public too early, you might lose a candidate because the idea is when two candidates come to the campus and there would be a selection and one would be the loser, that kind of public search would somehow be stained and that would be an impediment to getting them to put their names in the hat. What he is trying to understand here, however, is there one candidate or two candidates that they are interviewing. If there is only one candidate, then he sees no reason whatsoever for that person not to meet with the faculty because that kind of public meeting will build the ability of that president if he/she were selected. At this point, if you are only bringing one candidate, it is clear there is a strong preference to govern and lead the university post-selection. It seems to him that those are the issues that we should be concerned about as the Faculty Senate. He would absolutely love if it was an open search but it was clear from that meeting with Mr. Weinberg that this wasn’t going to be the case. Since we don’t have an open search, it does seem to be important that unless, again this issue with bringing people to the table, if they only have one candidate, he sees no reason why we can’t strongly recommend it as a... Senator Tebeau said that this is the critical point here. Without a little bit of risk on the candidate’s part, he doesn’t see why they shouldn’t reap the reward.
Senate President Sawicki stated that as he understands it, there is more than one candidate.
Senator Tebeau asked if there would then be more than one meeting with the faculty representatives. Senate President Sawicki replied that maybe there will be one meeting but with more candidates.
Senator Mittie Davis Jones stated that as an Academic Steering Committee member, she would assume they could probably discuss this tomorrow, but she was just curious as to whether or not any conditions had been set upon this meeting that will be held with the seven or eight Senators; that is, are they going to be sworn to some sort of confidentiality as a result of going to this meeting such that other faculty members or the rest of the world would not be privy to what is discussed at that meeting? It seems that once that many people are brought into the process, it is going to get out anyway and it just seems to her that it may as well be everybody from the beginning.
Senate President Sawicki responded that he understood Senator Jones’ point and he is, in this case, the messenger. All participating Senators will have to sign, not confidentiality so much, but the pledge letter.
Senator Stephen Duffy asked Senate President Sawicki, “What was the intent before Senate President Sawicki sent his letter?” Senate President Sawicki replied that the intent was to bring candidates to the faculty. Senator Duffy asked Senate President Sawicki if there was any intent of the Board of Trustees to bring the candidates in before he wrote the letter. Senate President Sawicki replied that he was not aware of this and he cannot comment.
Senator Chieh-Chen Bowen commented that this process is like an arranged marriage that the bride does not get to meet the groom until the wedding night. “Arranged marriage was a common practice where I came from a long time ago, but I certainly did not expect to experience it in the United States.” Senate President Sawicki noted that some arranged marriages are very successful. He commented that he would not go into such a marriage, but ... To conclude this discussion, he would propose that Senator Bowen talk with the other representatives of her college and express her point of view and tomorrow the Steering Committee will discuss this. He added that this is all they can do.
Senator Allan Silberger commented that Senate President Sawicki ought to be able to have a full and open discussion with the chairman of the board and then he can flesh out all of these considerations on a confidential basis.
Senator Mittie Davis Jones asked if it was appropriate to make a motion. She would like to go forward with some sense of how the Senators here feel rather than the Steering Committee members trying to decide tomorrow with a straw vote, etc. as to whether or not this is how we should proceed or not to accept the alternative as represented.
Senate President Sawicki asked Senator Jones if she would like to formulate the motion.
Motion Regarding the Presidential Search (Report No. 27, 2008-2009)
Senator Mittie Davis Jones proposed a motion regarding the Presidential Search as follows:
“That the Senate Academic Steering Committee represents the faculty in coming up with a procedure to meet with the presidential candidates. As prescribed by the President of the Presidential Search Committee, Senators who represent each of the seven colleges in addition to the President of the Faculty Senate would meet with the presidential candidates.”
Senate President Sawicki noted that the motion is that the seven Senators who represent each college and the Senate President would meet the presidential candidates. He asked for a second to the motion. Senator Andrew Gross seconded the motion.
Senator David Larson commented that as far as he is concerned that means that we are approving of a procedure that has been rammed down our throats and which he thoroughly disapproves of. If we are going to have a motion, he would have preferred that we condemn this procedure; therefore, he is speaking against the motion. This motion amounts to the Senate’s ratifying the procedure but he has the sense that most of the Senators are not happy or comfortable with the procedure. If it is going to occur, he would rather it occur because the president of the search committee insists that this is the only representation we have. Senator Larson stated that he doesn’t want it to go forward personally; it is not a good idea for the Senate to ratify it because that says that we accept this as a procedure and it is a violation not only of democratic process but the past tradition and our constituents are going to be very unhappy that we have approved a procedure which does not allow them any opportunity to meet with these candidates. He went on to say that if we must do it, we must do it but he certainly can’t support a motion that ratifies it.
Senator Rodger Govea spoke against the motion as well. He doesn’t see any need for the Senate to be collaborators in this. If they want to execute a queue, then let them do it. If this is how they want to impose it, fine, but he doesn’t want it to give anyone the illusion that there was actually any genuine faculty or student participation in the process so he urged Senators to vote against the motion.
Senator Mark Tebeau also urged Senators to vote against the motion. It is great that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee will meet with the candidates, if that’s what the Board wishes, but he does think that voting no will say to the Board that we really do care about this. And probably all we can do ultimately is to tell them that we really do care and they can ignore us, but there is something valuable in that action and it can be nothing more than that.
Senator Joanne Belovich suggested Senators vote in favor of the motion. She reported that she and Senate President Sawicki did meet several times with the chair to try to negotiate and Senate President Sawicki was able to negotiate this compromise. Basically the Board does have the power to really decide the policy so they can just say, forget it, you get no input then. She stated that we are losing our compromise. Secondly, look at it from the point of view of those three presidential candidates who are coming who hopefully are top notch candidates. She doesn’t know who they are but hopefully we have some top notch candidates who don’t want to risk their own careers or current positions when they are brought to campus so she respects the Board’s judgment in saying, we don’t want to lose one of these top candidates. She said that she would rather go with the compromise.
Senator Elice Rodgers stated that she is of the opinion and believes that if you are a top candidate, you will take the risk to come to the table to meet who it is that you will do business with. She noted that as Senator Chieh-Chen Bowen put forward, this is an arranged marriage and the notion is that we are being asked to accept the terms of a contract that has not been presented to us. She felt that if we want to promote an emancipatory liberatory process, then everyone should say that we want to have a voice in the process. Senator Rodgers stated that if she were President, she would want to start off with a good partnership to indicate that she is serious about those with whom she will potentially be working. Progress involves risk so she would think that a Presidential candidate who is not afraid to come to the table to meet with all parties with whom he or she will be dealing with will be sending a message – that’s just her opinion.
Senator Andrew Gross stated that if you have the legal mind, then vote for it. If you have the ethical or moral and political mind, then vote against it.
Senator Larson noted that the motion is, if you vote in favor of it, you are voting that the Senate approves of or accepts this procedure. If you vote against it, you are saying that the Senate does not accept this procedure.
Senator Govea added that if the motion is not approved, then the Senate has taken actually no action.
Senate President Sawicki stated that the following motion regarding the Presidential Search is offered by Senator Mittie Davis Jones:
“That the Senate Academic Steering Committee represents the faculty in coming up with a procedure to meet with the presidential candidates. As prescribed by the President of the Presidential Search Committee, Senators who represent each of the seven colleges in addition to the President of the Faculty Senate would meet with the presidential candidates.”
Senate President Sawicki then asked members to vote. The motion failed.
There being no further business, Senate President Jerzy Sawicki asked for a motion to adjourn. It was moved, seconded and the meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.
Heidi H. Meier
Faculty Senate Secretary