ࡱ> /2,-.c lbjbjzz 7~]\~]\cDDDDDXXX8|Xa":::;a=a=a=a=a=a=aFcez=aD=aDD::RaD:D:;a;aPkV:`t8R4'aha0aRpvfvfhkVvfDkV =a=a6avf> :  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF ACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 11, 2015 PRESENT: Berlin Ray, Boboc, W. Bowen, Delatte, Delgado, Ekelman, Elkins, Engelking, Fodor, Genovese, Hampton, Henry, Hoffman, Holland, Holsinger, Holtzblatt, D. Jackson, Kalafatis, Karem, S. Kaufman, Kosteas, Krebs, Lazarus, Little, Lupton, Margolius, Marino, C. May, Mazumder, Nawalaniec, Niederriter, K. ONeill, Robichaud, Shukla, Spicer, Sridhar, Talu, W. Wang, Wolf, Zingale. R. Berkman, Dumski, J. Ford, V. Lock, Mageean, McHenry, Sadlek, Sawicki, Yarbrough, J. Zhu. ABSENT: Galletta, Gorla, Gross, Inniss, Jayanti, Majette, Rashidi, Storrud-Barnes, Visocky-OGrady. Artbauer, Boise, M. Bond, Bowling, C. Brown, Halasah, E. Hill, Jadallah, Karlsson, LeVine, Mazzola, Novy, Parry, D. Ramos, Spademan, G. Thornton, Triplett, B. White, Zachariah. ALSO PRESENT: A. F. Smith, J. Yin. Senate President Nigamanth Sridhar called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M. Eulogy for Thomas W. Hungerford (Mathematics) Dr. John Holcomb delivered the Eulogy for Professor Emeritus Thomas W. Hungerford: Thomas Hungerford was born in Oak Park, Illinois in 1936. He moved with his family to St. Louis, Missouri at age 16, and graduated as valedictorian of his class at St. Louis University High School in 1954. He earned BA summa cum laude at the College of the Holy Cross in 1958 and a Ph.D. in mathematics under the supervision of Saunders Mac Lane at the University of Chicago in 1963. From 1963 to 1980 he taught at the University of Washington in Seattle and in 1980 he came to 91Ʒ as Professor and Math Department Chair. In the late 90s he retired from active service in the Mathematics Department, but kept an office in the Department for some years thereafter. In 2003 he and his wife moved to St. Louis, where he had an office at St. Louis University. Tom succumbed to an aggressive strain of leukemia on November 28, 2014. His seven years as Chair were important in emphasizing the teaching and research missions of the Mathematics Department. A hallmark of his Chairmanship was his strong advocacy on behalf of students. In the 90s, well after his terms as chair, Tom supported AAUPs bid to bargain for Faculty in contract negotiations with the 91Ʒ Administration. Later he was entrusted by AAUP to negotiate agreements concerning sabbatical leave and sick leave policy. Tom Hungerford is known throughout the mathematical community for his authorship of Algebra, published by Springer Verlag in 1974. I can walk into the office of almost every pure mathematician around the world and find a copy of this book. I once introduced a friend from another university to Tom, and he was so excited and nervous, you would think he was meeting a movie star! Tom was actually a prolific writer. His teaching at 91Ʒ centered on an advanced undergraduate course based on his own textbook Abstract Algebra: An Introduction, published by Cengage. I myself was privileged to work with Tom on his text for business mathematics. I learned a great deal from his exactness, his thoroughness, and his deep thinking of how students would read and use the material. Tom was a devoted husband and father. Within the last two years he was predeceased by his wife of a half century, Mary Alice Ryan Hungerford. Tom and Marys son Thomas J. Hungerford is completing a Masters degree program in addiction counseling at the Hazelden Foundation in Center City, Minnesota and their daughter Anne E. Hungerford is an associate professor of psychology at North Carolina State University in Wilmington, North Carolina. Tom Hungerford was a wonderful human being. He is missed by those of us who knew him well. Senate President Sridhar asked for a moment of silence in memory of our colleague Dr. Thomas Hungerford. Approval of the Agenda for the February 11, 2015 Meeting A motion was made to change the order of the Agenda so that the report from Stephanie McHenry which is currently XIII on the Agenda be moved up to IX. No other changes to the Agenda. The motion to move Item XIII, Administrative Program Prioritization, to Item number IX was approved unanimously by voice vote. Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of January 15, 2014 and November 5, 2014 Dr. Sridhar noted that we do have Minutes of the meeting of January 15, 2014 for approval. He noted that unfortunately the Minutes of the meeting of November 5, 2014 are not yet ready for approval. The Minutes of the meeting of January 15, 2014 were approved unanimously by voice vote. Report of the Faculty Senate President Senate President Sridhar stated that we have a long Agenda so he will keep his report very brief. He commented briefly on three items. Dr. Sridhar mentioned that there has not been many faculty searches on campus this year. He has talked with the Provost about searches and he is sure she will give us an update in her report. The other item about which he has been in almost constant communication with the Provost is program alternations in general, and in one particular proposal that is going on right now, we are using this as a good way of working out all of the kinks in our program alteration process. Lastly, he pointed out that at the recent Board of Trustees meeting, the Student Government representatives gave a presentation on a number of problem issues that they are dealing with on a daily basis. For example, the students pointed out that the current credit hour band which goes from 12 to 17 credits is limiting, 17 is not divisible by 3. If a student takes six courses, the student has to pay more. So, SGA requested that the credits be increased to 18. The Student Success Committee looked at that issue and endorsed the idea. The President will recommend to the Trustees to make this change. Dr. Sridhar noted another student issue concerns the library. The library closes too early so there will be a recommendation to keep the library open until Midnight to see what happens with its usage. Dr. Sridhar said that he cited these as examples of campus meetings and the campus communitys response to the students needs. Dr. Sridhar moved to the next item, election of a faculty member to the Senate Budget and Finance Committee. Election of one Faculty Representative to the Budget and Finance Committee Dr. Sridhar reported that Dr. Versa Vogelsang-Coombs had to step off of the committee for personal reasons. He noted that this term expires on August 31, 2015 so it is a short appointment. Because it is a short appointment, he asked Violet Lunder to look to at the elections that took place last year. The faculty member with the next highest number of votes, Senator William Bowen, has volunteered to fill this vacancy. Dr. Sridhar stated that he does have the ability to ask for additional nominations from the floor of Senate. He then asked if anyone else wanted to put their name forward for election to the Budget and Finance Committee to complete Dr. Vogelsang-Coombs unexpired term that expires this year. There were no additional nominations from the floor. Dr. Sridhar then asked for a motion to approve the election of Dr. Bowen to the Budget and Finance Committee by acclamation. It was moved and seconded. Dr. Bowen was elected to the Budget and Finance Committee to complete Dr. Vogelsang-Coombs term expiring on August 31, 2015. Report of the President of the University President Ronald Berkman stated that we have a challenging year in front of us. He noted that there are some important and significant positives that have happened and continue to happen within the University. The Carnegie Foundation has designated 91Ʒ as the Engaged University. He noted that a lot of people have participated in that and it was an acclamation really of who we are and, of course, an important part of our mission. There have been a number of such things that have gone on since he was last at Senate. . President Berkman next addressed the executive order signed by Governor Kasich on February 10 and its effect on the Universitys budget. He believes that he continues to bring people up to date on the issues involving the new SSI Formula and the fact that going into FY 2016 there will be a potential loss of about $4.3 million in a modification that was being made to the Formula. This modification in the SSI Formula will have a significant and disproportionate impact on 91Ʒ because it removes the risk factors from students who have transferred from community colleges to a four-year college while retaining the risk factors for students who started as an FTIC with risk factors or students who were at branch campuses or students who transferred from branch campuses to main campuses. So, the only cohort of students that would have lost their risk factors were these traditional community college transfers of which Cleveland State has a large number state-wide. He noted that the next large institution in terms of the percentage of transfers is Wright State and they were twenty-five percentage points below where we were in terms of the number of transfer students. Dr. Berkman noted that it was a significant debate and it is a quandary when you are sitting at the table with twelve other contestants and eleven of those contestants are winners in the new formula and the other two are losers in the new formula. Dr. Berkman credits his presidential colleagues and everyone who he talked with individually during this period for at least granting amnesty for a year in terms of the decision about SSI and voting unanimously to keep in place the current formula. This means that we will in fact gain a very few dollars in FY 2016, but they did not adopt that same formula or vote to extend the same formula to FY 2017. He noted that they voted to have another consultation which they have been having in Columbus and come back with a recommendation again to the Presidents about 2017. Dr. Berkman remarked that we lived to fight another day and we are going to have to keep fighting. Perhaps at this juncture, there are so many other fights and fires breaking out that it has kind of lost some of its glow in terms of its immediacy. As far as the other fires President Berkman said the number one challenge talked about at the recent IUC meeting in Columbus was Senate Bill 4 which appears to mandate not a five percent reduction in tuition that some had feared, a five percent reduction in the cost of attendance. So, you are talking about the difference between a five percent reduction on $8,700 tuition as opposed to a five percent reduction on an $18,000 and change cost of attendance. He noted that this was a surprise to everyone. The bill has no sponsors and was introduced exclusively and solely by the President of the Senate which indicates that the President of the Senate has absolute assurance that this bill will pass the Senate. The IUC is putting forth for Senate consideration an alternate plan similar to 91Ʒs rebate plan we believe that will reduce the time towards completion and in reducing time towards completion will have much greater and much more lasting savings for students than a five percent cost of attendance decrease. President Berkman stated that it is politics and for those who have been in the arena, it is a strange renewal of lots of different motives and lots of different motivations. President Berkman turned to Executive Audit. Dr. Berkman stated that this is something that emerged in just the last couple of days and we were informed that the Governor wanted all Presidents to come to an early morning press conference yesterday in Columbus where he signed his Executive Audit. Dr. Berkman commented that to his credit, the Governor at that point at that press conference in essence said lets give them one year to see if the colleges can get their act together. And, after that one year, if they have not gotten their act together, then I think he will support a reduction. In the meantime, some people may know that the Governors recommendation concerning tuition, which probably has a very limited chance of being sustained, is a cap of two percent in the first year and a tuition freeze in the second year. Dr. Berkman noted that again, we have three legislative bodies all sort of jockeying for position around this tuition issue. So we thought that there would be a two percent grant of tuition authority for two years but there was a grant of two percent tuition authority for one year. He noted that this is significant and that of course is a significant loss of money. At this point, Dr. Berkman stated that he was going to read from the Executive Order without editorial comment. He said he thinks that everyone should regard this as an atmospheric in terms of some of the thoughts around higher education, that according to neutral people in Columbus, are incredibly strong throughout the House and the Senate. President Berkman reported that the Governor formed a Task Force and asked the Task Force to provide different recommendations that will then be sent to every Board of Trustees around the State with the admonition to those Boards to implement those recommendations that the Governor accepts. The domains that he is looking for in recommendations are the following: administrative stepping levels; bureaucracy and related costs; teaching loads for all professors; organization of departments with the view towards eliminating or reducing overhead; space utilization including space for commercializing innovations that derive from research; opportunities for shared services; energy savings; shared procurement and cost saving efficiencies; elimination of low enrollment and low-performing programs at the graduate and undergraduate level; asset utilization and opportunities for monetization; other potential sources of revenue that do not result in increased costs for students such as affinity agreements; commercialization opportunities; and intellectual property auctions; standard course refinements throughout the State for degree completions; the use of technology to reduce costs for students; best practices for Ohio community colleges that are located within the same regional campus as a university. Dr. Berkman stated that in essence he has just shared with Senate a compendium of issues that is circulating around in Columbus and obviously in other places about the state of higher education and the challenges that they see in higher education. President Berkman stated that this is going to be. Now we have two challenges. We have the challenge of where this will come out and what this will mean for 91Ʒ in particular. We also have the overall challenge of a temperament throughout Columbus that is not supportive of providing any more funding for higher education, and, indeed, as the tuition reduction indicates, is supportive of reducing funding for Ohio higher education. He noted that these are certainly the most significant challenges that the University has faced in a decade. He commented that the good news for us is that we have done a good amount of what is on this list so whatever comes out in the final product, we are going to be in a position to say that weve done this two years ago; weve looked at program prioritization; weve looked at cost efficiencies; weve looked at course scheduling; weve looked at the maximum number of credits towards degree. He said that he thinks the other good news for us is that they have recognized in Columbus that Cleveland State is ahead of the curve on lots of these issues. He noted that again, we will be in a better position wherever this lands than many of the other universities will be. President Berkman next commented about the budget and general recommendations of the Governor. Dr. Berkman commented that the day after you are elected for your second term, which on one hand allows you to be bold or bolder and on the other hand watches your fuel tank go down daily. He commented that this is the situation that we have. Although he has four more years, Mr. Kasich is in fact a lame-duck Governor and we have a conservative Ohio Senate and a conservative Ohio House of Representatives. The Governor has, to his credit for example, championed a dramatic increase in the severance tax and he said yesterday that he believes that corporations are coming into Ohio removing natural resources in Ohio and essentially compensating nothing back to the State for removing those resources. But, the Governor has not been able to get the legislature to pass a severance tax. Dr. Berkman said that again, it is going to be an interesting and challenging session. President Berkman gave a quick recap. He stated that although people have not read the press release, he told everyone about tuition; two percent in the first year and nothing in the second year; a suggested two percent increase in SSI. If you do the math, a two percent decrease in tuition is not offset by a two percent increase in SSI. So, there is a net loss here in both of these equations for us. There is an innovation fund of $20 million but it doesnt say what innovation is or its purpose to reward public institutions of higher education for innovative redesign proposals which result in cost savings for students; we should get $18 million of that. The only need-based program in the entire State of Ohio was increased by $1 million in a $4 or $5 billion budget - $1 million for needy students was put into the program; $4 million for a competency-based education and credits and career advising; although everybody is beating the drum that this is the new wave and that we need to get in front of it as competency-based awarding and blended and blended into learning. He noted that the only big item in the budget again is one that really hasnt been defined yet and that is there is a request by the Governor for $120 million in student debt relief. The student debt relief at least as we see it so far will be a program that will provide repayment of outstanding loans to students who train and graduate in high-demand fields in Ohio. If you go to the Ohio Means Jobs web site you will find the list of high-demand jobs in Ohio and who will commit to stay in Ohio four or five years. Similar to other debt relief programs for students who stay in Ohio and work in Ohio, it would provide the equal of one fifth of your outstanding college debt. He noted this is the only one that really has right now a little flesh to it and thats the outline of the budget. Dr. Berkman said that he can assure everyone that no one regards it as good news and that the chances of it passing as it is are next to none Senator William Bowen commented that the American universities grew to prominence on the basis of shared governance and academic freedom and that does not sound like these are principle to anybodys thinking. Dr. Berkman replied that no, they are not. He stated that he read the list to Senate and clearly they are. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer Provost Deirdre Mageean updated the Senate on where we are with faculty hiring this year. The good news is that so far this year we have had a semi freeze. We have fourteen tenure-track positions, eleven lecturer positions and twenty-six visiting. The visiting are a combination of renewals and repeats of this year and new visiting bringing we worked out some of the finer details of the program prioritization. So, we already are moving on those and in the next couple of weeks we will start replacing the positions to those programs that have ones in the program prioritization, certainly resignations and retirements and then we will start looking down on the twos. The goal is to start getting to those items as quickly as possible and some of those are already authorized to start fourteen tenure-track, eleven lecturers, and twenty-six visitors. Those that were already released were very sensitive to respond to urgent needs where our accreditation issues were paramount or are the case of some rapidly expanding programs where there simply were not enough faculty to address adjunct program teaching. We do of course have many more ones at least eight urgent tenure-track requests for consideration and eight urgent lecturer requests and eleven emergency visitor requests. Everyone can see that there are a lot of urgencies and we are dealing with those as quickly as we can. Provost Mageean stated that now that there is a little bit more time, they just finished the review of promotion and tenure dossiers they had thirty-two this year; twenty-six faculty tenure-track and six lecturers. This is, of course, an extraordinary amount of work that we have to deal with these dossiers. Each one truly is a curriculum vitae. It is of course the life that they spent with this university. These dossiers are the true sense of what is going on and the work that everybody is doing. Of course, there are those pros and cons that always come out but a lot of work by everybody getting their Provost Mageean said that she wanted to particularly thank the members of the UPRC (University Peer Review Committee). She noted that we had a somewhat higher than normal number of disputed cases this year. There are many committees that faculty serve on; some that she mentioned but this is an extraordinary effort as these are very important decisions peoples careers. . Provost Mageean next reported on external reviews. She noted that we have a large number this year in part because we have some big accreditation ones but also there being a little slippage in the time table for doing these. Again, this requires a lot of work, a lot of subsidy reports in some cases as in Nursing. She noted that accreditation has been going on the past couple of days and there is a huge amount of work and a lot of effort. And, Health Sciences, once again; these are very important and everyone may recall that in the program prioritization there were a couple of programs with fours and need some further consideration. These external reviews are helping us in our final deliberations. Finally, Provost Mageean mentioned that the students are aware of the big national survey of student engagement going on at the moment. The first of the questionnaires came to our students this week. She noted that this is a very important survey and we take the results very seriously. She asked everyone to help to make sure that we get a good response to those surveys. She added that this year for the first time, that survey will be followed up by a faculty survey on engagement and she knows that we havent had a survey but this is a very important survey. She noted that they sent out letters reminding everyone and she would appreciate a good response to that national survey as well. Most of us compare ourselves to what the university means to all of us. Senator Kathleen Little asked if the Provost could tell Senate when the pending programs for the program prioritization will get their feedback. Provost Mageean responded that certainly as these external reviews are coming in, in fact not promotion and tenure, which was all consuming in many ways so far, we are getting back together to resolve those so those should be done in the next two to four weeks. Report of the Student Government Association (Report No. 30, 2014-2015) Ms. Allie Dumski, President of the SGA, said that she would report on the points that have been brought up recently. She mentioned that on Friday, she delivered the State of the SGA address to start their official meeting where an update is given to the student body and to anyone else who wants to stop by. She is working on what they plan to do for the rest of this semester. She noted that they are very pleased to see so many members of the administration and faculty in attendance and she thanked those that attended very much. Ms. Dumski siad that today she would give an update on the academic projects that SGA has been working on. On the matter of textbooks she reported that faculty had one meeting so far to better this experience for students. Time limits to submit textbooks to the Book Store is important for students as they get more money back from the buyback program and can plan ahead for the next semester. She noted that SGA is still in favor of standardizing the cross sections but they do respect faculty rights and academic freedom. She noted that in the meantime, SGA will be working to identify Tutoring Centers where textbooks will be used and if anyone has additional or extra textbooks, she noted they have recommended and SGA would be grateful if those are donated to the Tutoring Centers in various departments. Ms. Dumski next said that she is excited to announce that with the help of the administration, the Library will have extended hours till midnight Sunday through Thursday for the rest of the semester. This is extremely helpful to the students; it definitely fulfills their need for a safe space to study on campus and they are excited to start utilizing that and studying and all of the fun stuff that happens in the library. Ms. Dumski reported that SGA had an opportunity to meet with the Student Success Committee of the Faculty Senate to discuss midterm grades. She noted that this was a very educational opportunity for student government although there is a side that they dont necessarily understand but this helps the students to come up with planning better and reasonably able to be accomplished with the help of the faculty. Ms. Dumski stated that SGA has been working with Dr. Karem on Student Evaluations and they are still working to possibly publicize those in the future. Ms. Dumski announced that on April 7, 2015, SGA will be hosting their first major affair. She noted that they invited the colleges and departments to participate and some have even decided to donate scholarships or book scholarships. She stated that this event is intended for students with undecided majors or those students who are wishing to change majors and is an educational opportunity for them to see what else is out there. Ms. Dumski reported that SGA had a very helpful meeting with Dr. Byron White and his team to discuss expectations and standards for internships earning credit. She noted that she brought this topic up a couple of months ago at Faculty Senate and they finally have some outcomes from that and they are excited to move forward to what comes from that conversation. She stated that it is encouraging to have faculty and administrators that are willing and open to hearing and investing in the needs of students. She noted that she has a list from Dr. Yarbrough, Dean of Student Affairs, of the different projects that SGA has presented throughout the year and the actions from each one. It is encouraging and SGA appreciates the support and guidance received from everyone and they are excited to continue to move forward with these projects. Finally, Ms. Dumski stated that it has been a very productive year for SGA so far at 91Ʒ on campus but beyond here, they have members that are very involved with higher education issues at the State level. She added that SGA will be traveling to Columbus and DC this spring to represent 91Ʒ and voice their opinions on different issues going on. Update on Administrative Program Prioritization (Administrative Efficiency Project Update) (Report No. 31, 2014-2015) Vice President Stephanie McHenry stated that her presentation is an update on the project that we have been discussing and said she will run through a couple of status points quickly and then move to a couple of numbers that Senate is interested in. Vice President McHenry noted on her PowerPoint Presentation that this is basically where we are on the different areas that were pointed out. She said that she would talk about a) 91Ʒ Budgets: 5-year look back; and b) Peer Data Comparison. She noted that c) Forecast (current structure); and d) Best Practices (pros and cons for 91Ʒ) ;are currently under review and they also have some ideas around 3) Potential short Term Cost Saving Projects, including Process Improvements and Budget Cuts that we heard a little bit about from President Berkman. Vice President McHenry referred to Short Term Initiatives which is part of this, and, as we study them, lets think about what is obvious to do: Electronic Purchasing is one of those and SciQuest which she will talk about in a little bit. In addition, Automated Hiring Packages are coming right along. We have a target and will probably look at that in March 2015 and then after we get Electronic Purchasing done, then we will take a look at Electronic Travel Expense Reporting & Payment. Vice President McHenry noted that she previously informed Senate that they talked at the Presidents Cabinet level about a couple of business process improvement opportunities one is around purchasing and the second is around hiring and they have taken the next steps to get those going. In terms of purchasing, they know that they need to put together a stakeholder group for review and improvements because that effects everybody. In putting that group together, Ms. McHenry noted that the reason that target completion is way out to March 2016 is because we wont get SciQuest done early and that is going to go all the way into November of this year. She reported that in terms of the Hiring Process, they do need to get on that a lot faster because they have already mapped out the different areas they want to look at. Again, they will assemble major stakeholders and then they will start to take a look at IS&T in April. Vice President McHenry next moved to the Financial and Operational Analysis Staffing chart that Faculty Senate wanted her to go back to get further information on. She noted that we were looking at the trends and headcount in terms of who is at the university among these sectors Academic, Academic Support, University Support and Senate asked her to go back and look at the salaries broken up in that same way which she intends to do today. She noted that she would just summarize. In terms of headcount, both Academic and University Support we are down by about 11% over that five year period (FY10 FY14) and then Academic Support was down by about 2.5% over the period. In terms of salaries, the Academic sector was down about 2.3%, Academic Support and University Support were up by 5.7% and 1.5% respectively. She noted that this compares to the overall staffing that was down about 10% headcount and about 1% salary. Vice President McHenry stated that the Academic Support sector includes departments like Student Affairs, Enrollment, Counseling, etc. She noted that again, they have been trying to have some discipline about looking for peer information as well. This is coming straight out of the IPEDS (Staff Categories (FTE) by Occupational Category) that we submit through IR and she noted that, as everyone can see on her presentation, we are smaller than our peers. V.P. McHenry stated that our peers that we selected were the Ohio publics and by just about every measure in terms of staff, FTE, we were a little bit smaller than our peers in every number, however, Cincinnati is approximately the same for faculty in Business and Finance faculty is at about 42% for both sets, both us and our peers. Senator Robert Krebs had a question about one category, Management that shows 249 that is a big number and asked, What does that entail? MS McHenry responded that she couldnt get into the grit of it. She noted that we should probably do that and added that she should have said this at the beginning; they are going to get really gritty about all of this by running it through the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee and get a report back to Senate or come back to Senate with that level of detail. She noted that what they were trying to show here is the direction and general comparisons to what our peers look like. An unidentified Senator commented that very broadly speaking, management includes anyone from an associate dean and above on the academic side and on the non-academic side, that would be the associate director. Vice PresidentP. McHenry moved to Operational Expenses (5 Year Actuals). She noted on the PowerPoint presentation that we were looking at salaries and now we are looking at operational expenses as they are reported through our audit. She stated that one point is that the proportionality has remained roughly the same throughout the period. Referring to her PowerPoint presentation, she noted that the blue is instruction and the orange in the middle is institutional support. She added that there was a similar trend for all of the categories and proportionality has remained roughly the same over the last five years. Senator Allyson Robichaud said that she was seeing just the instructional stuff and asked if she was missing the administrative side. Vice Presdient McHenry replied that what she was viewing was everything and referred to the left of the PowerPoint presentation listing: Instruction, Research, Public Service, Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, Operation & Maintenance of Plant, Scholarship and Fellowships, Auxiliary Enterprises, Depreciation & Amortization. Dr. Robichaud asked, Where is management in there? Vice President McHenry replied that it may be spread around because this is by function of the university. Dr. Robichaud commented that this doesnt really a helpful picture Vice President McHenry responded that if Dr. Robichaud was looking for how we are spending across these various functions from the operating perspective her chart is very useful. She said that she is not sure what data is really missing. She stated that this is how we report our data in our audit and financial and she didnt make these up. This is basically how we are required to report our expenditures. Senator Michael Kalafatis, referring to Faculty (& support) under Staff Category on the PowerPoint presentation page titled IPEDS 2014 asked what is the 697 under 91Ʒ and what is the 1,183 under Peer Institutions? He also asked what Faculty (& support) means. He then referred to Management showing 249 under 91Ʒ and 256 under Peer Institutions. Vice President McHenry replied that those are actually staffing numbers. Dr. Kalafatis again asked if Vice President McHenry could normalize those numbers for him 697 and 1,183t. She responded that we pick our peer institutions and noted that Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange could help explain. We basically pick a set of peer institutions and we report our data against their average. Dr. Kalafatis noted that we have 697 faculty and the peer institution has 1,183 average and in Management we are both the same. President Berkman commented that Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange could clarify this and said that he didnt believe that we picked our IPEDS peer review group IPEDS picks the peer review group and there are about twenty-five. Dr. Berkman noted that V.P. McHenry stated that we picked our peer institutions and the Ohio Publics and they are not they are a national cohort of peer institutions decided by IPEDS. Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange commented that the Ohio Publics are all public institutions in Ohio and that would be the peer group. Dr. Berkman added, That this is not the IPEDS peer group; it is mislabeled. Dr. LaGrange said that it is a custom analysis of the IPEDS they are using our institutional peers in Ohio. The IPEDS peer group is actually one that is called Urban Universities and that is much broader and takes a lot more groups. President Berkman stated that the peer institutions are going to include your Ohios, Miami of Ohio, Ohio State, Cincinnati, etc. Provost Mageean asked if there was a mean or medium this is a big difference. If there was a mean, Ohio State is going to pull that it is going to be skewed by Ohio State. An unidentified person stated that he would go back and break it down. He said what he wanted to show Senate was data from IPEDS 2010 to 2014. He noted that in 2013, the data collection process changed and so where someone was wondering about whether management was underrepresented, you will notice that in 2013 and 2014 the category was then professional and non-professional and those categories went away and then the data-makers were formed. He added that he was not sure if this was making sense, but maybe we need to promulgate it more. He said that he knows that we were trying to pare it down to show what we look like, but that definition was changed over the years with IPEDS. Dr. Kalafatis commented that under Management 91Ʒ faculty is 249 and Peer Institutions is 256 and 91Ʒ 697 and Peer Institutions 1,183 are faculty and asked if this is correct. He noted that he doesnt know the names of Management. Vice Provost LaGrange noted that she wanted to make a quick correction about the data and then turn the presentation back to Vice President McHenry. She stated that the data that was used to compile report number one was not from the Ohio publics, this was taken from the original report from IPEDS which was listed for urban universities of which there is probably eighteen. And on the second question it is not the means number in the various categories it is the medium. She said that having made those clarifications she will let Ms McHenry continue. Senator Bill Kosteas stated that all of the dollar figures are not constant dollars across and that 2% decline in spending on faculty is actually closer to 10% in real faculty inflation and second, can that be reconciled? Dr. Kosteas said if you reconcile that 2% or so decline in dollar terms with what looked like an increase, the faculty salaries or whatever that number was, it looked like a significant decrease in instruction. So, probably their instructional costs are going up and spending on instruction is going up at the same time that spending on faculty salaries has gone down. He asked if Senate can get a sense of how this can be reconciled. Vice President McHenry responded that in the instruction line there is more than just salaries. There is actually some of the costs associated with delivering instruction so that may be one reason. There may even be facilities type of costs that get allocated to the instruction. She noted that they could crunch that a little more and talk about it at PBAC, but that is not just salaries in that line. Senator Stephen Lazarus commented that Vice President McHenry might have already answered this in her last graph, but it just seems out of balance. We have faculty and support a little bit less than 700 and peer institutions are almost 1,200 so the peer institutions seem to be significantly larger and management seems to be about the same 249 and 256. He asked, Why is it that we have that many more percentage wise in management than faculty and support? Ms McHenry stated that it raises questions for us to look into. Provost Mageean suggested that clearly to understand this we have to get this down to a level of regularity. She has commented about the smallness of sizes in our departments and in our colleges. So Ohio State might have the same number of colleges we have and the same number of deans and the same number of associate deans and all of those things happen when you are a college, it is just that their departments are bigger than our colleges. She noted that she thinks that this is part of the explanation. Once you have a structure, once you have a college you have all of those things. Now, clearly that doesnt answer all of it but people might understand that this takes us a little in the wrong way. However, it does beg some further responses. Senator Theresa Nawalaniec stated that she was just wondering under what category does the Library fall on this grid. Vice President McHenry replied that she believes Student Services. Vice President McHenry continued with more academic data. The data we talked about in academic support in IPEDS data by category, everyone can see where we are compared to that same peer view. She went on to say that they are going to do sciQuest. She noted that this was one of the low-hanging fruit the electronic processing of purchasing. Basically, the university community will be able to shop like shopping in a manual. She expects that this will save us money as well. Our peer institutions have experienced that and we recommended it and we are the last university to do this. In this timeframe, we are going to try to go through a process that will include a lot of people hopefully to determine how to set this up for 91Ʒ. She stated that there will be a whole cycle of presentation this week and she wanted to let Senate know that they are going over things even as they continue to study Referring to the Amazon-like purchasing Senator Eileen Berlin Ray asked how much is that going to save us? Vice President McHenry replied that they are projecting at 0.75% of the eligible spending. That would be an annual savings of approximately $800,000 which is similar to what others have experienced. Others have quoted numbers a lot larger but she is saying that this is the minimum that we will save. And, if you take out the cost of implementing it, the savings will be about $600,000 at least. Dr. Berlin Ray said that she thought the last time Vice President McHenry spoke, that Senate said and in fact the Provost had said that the whole prioritization idea was that we have a pool of the academic as well as administrative resources and that we look at that and see where we can shift things, move things to help and the academic got fast-tracked. She noted that the administrative, the last time, Senate didnt get the information we wanted which is, Where is the money and not just in ordering in an Amazon-like environment. And now, she feels like Senate is still not getting what we want. She stated that she wants to know where the administrative money is and where that fits with the academic money and how we can make this university work for our students and our faculty who she thinks are kind of over-bound. Vice President McHenry stated that what needs to be done is to break out what our operating costs are among those different lines that we talked about. Secondly, on staffing and then simultaneously she is trying to actually implement things that will save us money. She added that she would love to hand over to Senate a check for $600,000 if we figure out how to save it. Dr. Berlin Ray said that she would like to see the administrative position lines and salaries. Associate Vice President for Finance and Technology Tim Long, in response to Dr. Berlin Rays question, commented that the members of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee sit on Planning and Budget Advisory Committee and at their last meeting they did exactly that. In other words, they are now embarking on a comprehensive review using PBAC as the vehicle to look at salary lines, administrative versus academic personnel for a four-year history and then where possible, make those kind of projections. PBAC figured that the logical vehicle to do that would be to work with the Senators that sit on PBAC as a communication point to the Faculty Senate. The Director of Budget and Financial Analysis and her people are in the process of putting that information together for David Elkins and the other Senators on PBAC. He added that PBAC will have something at their next meeting that will occur in March. He went on to say that this is the detail behind supporting the general data that is being presented at Senate today. He stated that PBAC is not anywhere near done but they are going to move fast on this and will probably be done by April to get all of that detail done as Senate requested. Senator Claire May stated that in Mr. Longs last presentation at Senate he had mentioned that the breakdown was academic and administrative sides and at that time Senate was under the assumption that everyone that worked in the colleges is categorized as academic. She then asked if that assumption is still holding or have we moved away from that. She added that this was a statement at Mr. Longs last presentation at Senate. She added that Mr. Long had said that everyone who works in the colleges is categorized as academic and that seemed odd to her. Vice President McHenry said that Professor May was correct. She stated that as everyone will recall, we got to this breakout when we tried to figure out how to take the budget cuts back in FY 12 and these were the categories that people wanted to make sure that we paid attention to in terms of breakouts. So, she is correct in that the colleges are in the academic sector. . Professor May asked, So as an individual college has directors and all kinds of administrative functions going on, when does that get looked at? Vice President McHenry replied that that would be in that sector. Professor May asked when does Senate get the line by line on those sorts of administrative expenses or are they going to stay in academic in which case we dont really get that information. Dr. Sridhar stated that the next slide, Staff Categories (FTE) by Occupational Category which talks about the job functions, if you put these two charts together, thats when Professor May would get the answer to her question. He noted that Faculty (& Support) 697 is faculty and support and the 870 number is the Academic Sector for FY 2014 on the previous chart Financial and Operational Analysis Staffing so if you subtract 697 from 870, thats all of the people that are doing administrative functions. Associate Vice President Long stated that Senate will have by the time of the break down, in a college you will see what is instructional, you will see what is administrative in a college but still classified as academic because it is an academic location. He added that Senate will see different job classifications of people that are employed in that college and not all of them obviously are instructors as a faculty member. That breakout will be in there and you will see it. Dr. Ekelman noted that what is happening is the information in these categories are spread throughout all of the other categories in the previous slide so it is hard to really pull that information out. She added that it might be useful to just have monetary figures for each one of those categories on the slide. She commented that it would be useful to have that information over a period of years faculty and support; instructional support; management those specific categories in constant dollars. University Curriculum Committee Dr. Fred Smith, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, reported that the UCC has fourteen items for Senates consideration. He noted that the first four are substantive program changes, there are three dormancies and then there are mostly technical changes to programs. Proposed Modifications to M.Ed. in Community Health Education (Report No. 32, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith first presented proposed Modification to the Master of Education in Community Health Education which is a proposal to rename the program as Master of Education in Community Health Promotion. He noted that the details are on the memo included in the meeting packets. Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC is proposing a Modification to the M.Ed. in Community Health Education to change the name and other changes. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Modifications to the M.Ed. in Community Health Education changing the name to the M.Ed. in Community Health Education in Community Health Promotion was approved unanimously by voice vote. Department of Modern Languages Name Change to Department of World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures (Report No. 33, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith next presented the UCCs proposal to change the name of the Department of Modern Languages to the Department of World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures. Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC has proposed changing the name of the Department of Modern Languages to the Department of World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures. There being no questions he called the vote. The proposal to change the name of the Department of Modern Languages to the Department of World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures was approved with one abstention. Proposed Music Therapy Program Changes (Report No. 34, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith next presented the UCCs proposed Music Therapy Program changes which involves substantial curriculum revisions as a step toward becoming a stand-alone program to be approved by the American Music Therapy Association. Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC has proposed changes to the Music Therapy Program. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Music Therapy Program changes were approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed changes in Educational Administration Graduate Program associated with 4-3 conversion and 2-3 conversion and elimination of courses from program (Report No. 35, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith moved to the next proposal of UCC. He noted that UCC proposed changes to the Masters of Educational Administration degree program, some of which are due to the 4 to 3 conversion and 2 to 3 conversion and also eliminating courses from the program reducing the number of credits required for the degree and licensure from 45 to 30. Dr. Sridhar noted that the UCC has proposed changes to the Educational Administration Graduate Program. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed changes in the Educational Administration Graduate Program were approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Smith noted that the next two proposals from the UCC are proposed Dormancies for the Post-baccalaureate Licensure in Health Education and M.Ed. Post-bac in School Health Education. The proposals are in connection with a revision of the Bachelors program in Health Education and Physical Education that UCC is currently reviewing. In the meantime, the College of Education is proposing dormancies for these two programs. Proposed Dormancy Post-baccalaureate Licensure in Health Education (Report No. 36, 2014-2015) Dormancy M.Ed. and Post-bac in School of Health Education (Report No. 37, 2014-2015) Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC is proposing dormancies in programs in the Health Education Post-bac Licensure and in the M.Ed. Post-bac in the School of Health Education. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The Proposed Dormancies of the Post-bacc Licensure in Health Education and M.Ed. and Post-bac in School Health Education were approved unanimously by voice vote. Dormancy Counseling, Specialization of Ph.D. in Urban Education (Report No. 38, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith noted that the proposed Dormancy is in the Counseling, Specialization of Ph.D. in Urban Education was a clean-up program because this specialization has been supplanted by the Doctoral Program in Counseling Psychology. Dr. Sridhar noted that the UCC is proposing Dormancy for the Counseling, Specialization of the Ph.D. in Urban Education. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Dormancy of the Counseling, Specialization of the Ph.D. in Urban Education was approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Smith stated that he is presenting the next five items from UCC together. He noted that all of these are program changes that are really technical. The first is the proposed addition of 0-credit Exit Evaluation to the Health Sciences Program, the second is proposed addition of elective options to the Biology Minor, the third item is correcting the catalog and restoring the limitation for the number of Field Placement and Independent Study credits in Psychology, the fourth is removal of one course from the chemistry major and replacing it with an elective course and fifth, replacing PSY 221 with PSY 101 in the Social Studies Education program. Senator Robert Krebs asked if there is such a thing as a BGES Minor, or does Dr. Smith mean the Biology Minor. Dr. Smith responded that he probably means that but he needs additional information; it is the Biology Minor but he will make sure that it is correct. Proposed addition of 0-credit HSC 499 (Exit Evaluation) to all BSHS Tracks (Report No. 39, 2014-2015) Proposed addition of elective options to Biology Minor (Report No. 40, 2014-2015) Restore to Catalog, adjusting for 4-3 conversion, a limitation on number of Credits from PSY 390 (Field Placement) and PSY 396 (Independent Study) that may be counted toward the required number of Psychology credits for the Psychology Major (Report No. 41, 2014-2015) Proposed Curriculum change in BS in Chemistry (Report No. 42, 2014-2015) Replace PSY 221 with PSY 101 in Social Studies Education Program (Report No. 43, 2014-2015) Senator Jeremy Genovese said that he had a question on Item L, replacing PSY 221 with PSY 101. He noted that he was under the impression that this was a reduction in the total number of credits that students require. They will be taking fewer PSY courses as a result of this change. He asked Dr. Smith if he did misunderstand or is this actually a replacement of fewer classes. Dr. Smith replied that it is substituting PSY 101 for PSY 221 in the Social Studies Education program. Dr. Genovese commented that the students are still taking the same number of PSY courses in order to meet their requirements for teaching. He added that his understanding is that what UCC is doing here, this to him is a requirement which allows students to teach Psychology at a high school level. The way it was explained to him originally was that it would involve actually ending up taking fewer PSY courses and he was concerned about that. Dr. Smith replied that since it is one course being replaced with another, the students are not taking fewer Psychology courses. Dr. Smith added that he was stunned to think that someone who is taking PSY 101 is now qualified to teach Psychology at the high school level. There being no further questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote on Items H through L. The following proposals were unanimously approved by voice vote: H. Proposed addition of 0-credit HSC 499 (Exit Evaluation) to all BSHS Tracks; I. Proposed addition of elective options to BGES Minor; J. Restore to Catalog a limitation on number of Credits from PSY 390 and PSY 396 that may be counted toward the required number of Psychology credits for the psychology Major; K. Proposed Curriculum change in BS in Chemistry; L. Replace PSY 221 with PSY 101 in Social Studies Education Program. Proposed program changes in Master of Occupational Therapy Program due to changes in practicum course (Report No. 44, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith stated that next, UC has a small change to the Master of Occupational Therapy Program which changes the relative number of service-learning courses and practicum experiences in response to Accreditation Requirements. Dr. Sridhar asked if there were any questions about the proposed changes to the MOT Program. There were no questions and Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed program changes in the Master of Occupational Therapy Program were approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed change in Gerontology Certificate Program (Report No. 45, 2014-2015 Dr. Smith presented the final proposal of the UCC, Proposed change in Gerontology Certificate Program which admits students to use a research project in some other program as a Capstone project for the Gerontology Certificate. Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC has proposed a change in the Gerontology Certificate Program and asked if there were any questions. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The Proposed change in the Gerontology Certificate Program was approved unanimously by voice vote. For Information: Approved new or modified GenEd courses and 4-3 conversions (Report No. 46, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith moved to the final item of the UCC Items for Information. He asked if there were any questions for UCC on these items. There were no questions on the For Information items and the items were received by Faculty Senate. FRN 346 approved as WAC PHL 101 New GenEd course 4-3 Conversion of HIS 356 Changes in number of credits and emphasized skills in HSC 440H (capstone course) 4-3 Conversion of courses in Educational Administration Changes in prerequisites for PSY 415 (capstone course) Sociology 375 (new WAC course) Admissions and Standards Committee Proposed change in Admissions Requirements for Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching Licensure Programs (Report No. 47, 2014-2015) Dr. Yin, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the first item: proposal changes in Admissions Requirements for Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching Licensure programs. He stated that all candidates must satisfy four requirements including: Standard test requirements; Entrance GPA; Proficiency in math and English at the college level; and a State required background check. Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed a change in Admissions Requirements for Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching Licensure Programs. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed change in Admissions Requirements for Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching Licensure Programs was approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed Admissions Requirement for the M.Ed. in Community Health Education Program (Report No. 32, 2014-2015) Dr. Yin next presented the second item: Proposed Admissions Requirement for the M.Ed. in Community Health Education Program. He noted that this proposal is also listed under UCC Item A. The proposal is a two year professional experience requirement for admission. Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed an Admissions Requirement for the M.Ed. in Community Health Education Program. There being no questions, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Admissions Requirement for the M.Ed. in Community Health Education Program was unanimously approved by voice vote. University Faculty Affairs Committee (Report No. 48, 2014-2015) Updates and Report on Blue Software Pilot Senator Jeff Karem, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that Vice Provost Teresa Lagrange gave a successful presentation on the Blue Pilot. The good news is that the governance is in an institutional functioning nature and that is to tell you that UFAC, Institutional Research, IS&T, Testing Services, SGA and the Provosts Office have all been key in working on the SEI basically on an equal basis. It took a significant amount of everyones time in a good way; and people and governance are working very smoothly and he is happy to report that because that sometimes is a concern. Dr. Karem reported that the paper system that we upgraded with a new set of questions and a new set of order forms has functioned more poorly than anticipated. He noted that he has made the Senate well aware of problems with paper and we dont have live means to be assisted in using of machines from 1999. He noted that he just wanted to give Senate some sobering news about the paper option. We at one point wondered whether or not having people use the Blue would be a safe choice for people who want their data. As it turns out, if you want your data, using Blue is the best thing possible right now. Using very good-faith assurances to our own Director of Testing Services that the machines that scan in particular sets of questions, which had not been changed since about 2000, that they can handle new questions. So the Senate developed new questions, Colleges have developed new questions and nobody has a problem with those questions so far those seem fine, and the machine has accepted the scan-tron forms so they have digested them fine. However, the software cannot support this because the software was made in 1999 for those specific questions. It was not designed to have new questions entered into it. He stated if we want access to the data from the fall for those who did the paper, there will be a reprogramming process that has to take place. We are working with various resources on campus to do that, but this program is not a long-term solution if you have to reprogram it every time you change the questions. He noted that as it turns out, the machines too have to be reprogrammed and we will need to contract with someone who has previously retired to do this. Programming the machines will also make it more difficult with supporting software because it has out of date computer codes. Dr. Karem commented that at the start of this process, a member of UFAC wisely compared this process to doing an engine tune up on a car while it is moving. It then became the case that we opened it up and found out that the transmission was broken yet the car was still moving. Then with a deeper dive, the best way to describe it is that they discovered the engine was made in someones basement using old parts so there isnt any way for us to really fix the old system in any credible way. So, it is good that Blue is working out well. He added that there are many advantages to it. Among other things, you can read the data. Before asking Vice President Teresa LaGrange to talk about whats working with Blue Dr. Karem said he wanted to take questions about the old paper system because he wants to make sure that people understand how bad it is. One of our tendencies is to feel that the status quo is fine; cant we make this work? No, is the answer to that actually just on the basis of just an equal standpoint and he would just say that it is not anyones fault. He noted that this is a particular set of software that was devised by no one who currently works at the university. He believes that one of the originators is deceased. So, everyone thought that we could customize this more easily than we could and as it turns out, we cant. Senator Barbara Hoffman said she is not sure if this could serve as an intermediary solution but she will propose it just in case. She reported that she has used paper during the fall but she also for one class that was meeting rather sporadically on campus, she also administered an online version, not going through the Blue system, but she recreated the questionnaire survey on Blackboard and Blackboard does generate a report. She asked if that would serve in the meantime until these other issues can be resolved. Dr. Karem responded that this is an innovative approach but the concern would be if we have alternative administration there might be concerns about data security or confidentiality or things of that nature. Dr. Hoffman stated that it is completely confidential on Blackboard and there is no way to trace students responses back to the original students responses. Dr. Karem inquired if Dr. Hoffman was talking about the Blackboard system which is a separate software package. Dr. Hoffman replied that she was talking about the Blackboard survey function. She thought this was just one solution. Dr. Karem noted that he will relay Dr. Hoffmans suggestion to UFAC tomorrow. Senator Norbert Delatte stated that if you are going to have numbers that you are going to compare with anything, your choices are the twelve, fourteen, fifteen year old averages that exist or whats in Blue and there are no other data for comparison. He added, So, if you want your results to have any comparison to anything thats going on anywhere else in the university, it seems like the only option is Blue. Dr. Karem replied that Dr. Delatte made a good point. He added, Just to remind us all, those particular means werent based on reality. They were fixed means with certain points of calculation so there was no I was under the illusion of wow, these means in CLASS really are very similar every year. I guess we just kind of produced the same level of response, but they were inputted as a norm when the system was developed and never updated. Provost Mageean asked if she has to reread all of the dossiers now. Dr. Karem replied that all of those were statistically sound. He added that the old system If you know someone who is going up for tenure, please get those to pilot Blue. He stated that Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange can explain more about that but it is easy, you just insert your name and your data will come back very quickly. He asked if there were any further questions about the system. There were no additional questions. Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange showed a PowerPoint overview of why we are considering this software and some of its advantages. In addition she wanted to share the results of the pilot they did in the fall and let everyone know what they are doing in the spring. She commented that she is eager to show what the faculty feedback report looks like because once people see the type of data and the type of feedback they can get by using the online software, they will be a lot more enthused about it. The primary reason why it is beneficial to use on-line software instead of paper is that it is easy for students to use; they can sign in directly to the evaluation and they dont have to go anyplace to log in. Once the evaluations are available, they will receive a link to it; they can use it on their smart phone, their tablet, and their PC. One of the features that students had also mentioned is flexibility and timing. They are not required to sit in class and finish within a certain timeframe. They can start it in class they can finish it at a later time. This allows students to be more thoughtful in their responses, particularly the open-ended questions. Vice Provost LaGrange stated that it is also ready confidentiality. She noted that one of the things that students used to be concerned about when she was teaching was the instructor might be able to interpret their handwriting. There is nothing on-line that can be interpreted against once the response is read. The only thing that an instructor sees is the aggregate data information in the report so there is great confidentiality. In terms of benefits to faculty, one of the things is the fact that in the paper evaluation process, the return, and therefore your opportunity to see the feedback can be very slow. With an on-lime evaluation process, what happens is you get a link to the evaluation report when its ready, which is two weeks after the evaluation is closed, and you can log into that report and you can immediately see the results. In addition people can also look at the response rates once the evaluation is released. What typically happens is the students will get three more reminders. Once the evaluation is released, we put together a timeline sent out to the faculty so they will know what day that occurs. Faculty can log in and check to see how many of their students have already done the evaluation. It gives faculty an opportunity to remind the students in your class so that the students do respond. Vice Provost LaGrange pointed out that faculty will more detailed information in these reports than in the old ones. For each of the questions, both the instructor questions and course questions, the faculty will see an analysis of each question in terms of the frequency distribution, in terms of the comparison to the department mean and college mean in terms of the statistical analysis of the distribution of each of those questions. There is also an opportunity for on-line feedback in the reports and when she shows everyone the example, faculty will see that students do take advantage of that. What it is, is basically on each page of the survey they will see a text box at the bottom of the page that they can type into to. Actually, given the nature of how students function now days, it is actually a lot easier for them to input things through a text box than it is to write them all out. So, faculty have the opportunity for more detailed responses there. Provost LaGrange noted that the final thing for the faculty is the fact that these responses are in an interactive data-base. In addition to the detailed responses in their reports, faculty can ask for some custom analysis. If faculty want to see comparisons of a certain course type or students at a certain grade level or anything like that that is contained in aggregate form in the report, faculty can follow up on any of the past analysis. Dr. LaGrange reported that this will be handled by Tom Geaghan, the Director of Institutional Research, who is the data manager. Vice Provost LaGrange stated that the University will be saving a substantial amount of paper. She was planning to have handouts for everyone today at Senate but she didnt think it made any sense to talk about the benefits of having software and saving paper and then hand out a bunch of papers to everyone to shred. The Testing Center estimates that we use about 85,000 sheets of paper annually for the current paper evaluation process. By not doing those paper evaluations, that is a savings to the university. She noted that there are also staff resources that are tied up in the evaluation process and this is a little bit ambiguous from her standpoint because she will have to say that her staff has spent an awful lot of time on getting this implemented. She is under the impression that once in place and all of the courses have been rolled out, faculty wont be spending huge amounts of time; their time will be spent on an automated process. Faculty wont need to copy and distribute and then scan and then hand them out. So, there is additional savings there. There are problems in trying to get last falls papers scanned into the system. She noted that they have developed an action plan which requires many people with some arcane and antiquated skills that may or may not be successful, but they hope that they will be able to get this done. Vice Provost LaGrange noted that she would like to share with Senate the initial results for fall. During fall as everyone knows, they only did a very small pilot and werent sure what they would encounter. It did turn out that there were some data issues that they needed to deal with so it is good that the pilot was small. They were therefore soliciting volunteers from each college on an opted in basis and they ended up with 264 courses signed up. Dr. LaGrange noted that the response rates were 52% overall; sixteen courses had a 100% response rate; there was some variation by college engineering probably not surprising because of the nature of the students, 85%; the lowest was Undergraduate Studies, the ASC course which those who have ever taught it, the students dont get a grade and they try to avoid doing anything in and that includes paper evaluations. The response rate varied tremendously by college. She pointed to her PowerPoint presentation chart that showed the number of courses that were signed up in each college and then what the response rates were for each one. Undergraduate Studies is at the bottom and Engineering has the highest response rate. She referred to another chart showing the response rates in relationship to headcount of students who took the course how many responded. She noted that there were two courses in that college. The only really metric we have for comparison on this, given what we had to work with on the paper evaluations, is that Nursing had accurate college level response rates of 32% and in these evaluations it was over 40% - it was 46%. That suggests that students were more responsive and more of them completed the evaluations. Vice Provost LaGrange reported that what they are doing this spring is an opt-out initiative with three colleges. The School of Nursing was entirely on line the last semester; this semester they have Education, CLASS and the School of Nursing again all on line. They are just about ready to release the information to the departments so that they can verify the courses and instructors. Vice Provost LaGrange noted that one of the issues they are dealing with and one of the reasons they are not doing it all at once is that PeopleSoft here is a little bit idiosyncratic and to have this calm instructor or course isnt necessarily true sometimes so there is a lot of hands on manual verification of courses that has to go into this. You get Education because it is complicated in terms of its flex scheduling; we get CLASS because it is complicated in the nature of the diversity of its disciplines. Dr. LaGrange stated that all of the other colleges, however, faculty will certainly be invited to opt-in and in those three colleges, it is an opt-out basis; you can use Blue which you will automatically be assigned into or you can opt out and take your chances with the paper. Dr. LaGrange noted that they are planning on meeting with each of the other colleges over the next few weeks and talk to them briefly about the evaluation process and giving them the opportunity for individuals to opt-in but not the full college in the process. At this point Vice Provost LaGrange showed what the faculty feedback report looks like. She noted that for each question on the evaluation what this shows is that for each question, these are the instructor items. For the instructor items, each question in turn, you have the instructor for this course; their response is the top bar; the department comparison is the second bar and then the college comparison is the third bar. As everyone can see by the length of the different colored bars, the instructor in this particular case had a higher response (these are more positive responses actually) than college and department comparisons. So, you go through that for each of the instructor questions and you get this comparison with the department and the college. Then, for each of the instructor questions, again, you have the same questions only now you get the statistics for each one so you are getting the total number of responses; you are getting the mean, the median and the standard deviation and then there is the distribution and at the end, the response categories in the little blue section. She pointed out that on the chart on the next page and the next one up, strongly agree, was almost universal for this class although there were a couple of students that agreed. The ones that dont have any number meant that they all strongly agree. Dr. LaGrange stated that with the instructor questions, the same way. She noted that then what you get, you get for all of the instructor questions as a group, what you get is the distribution of the response macros. She noted that in the case she was pointing to, the responses were very positive for the instructor as everyone can see all the way across. She pointed to the open end questions. She stated that students fill in answers to the preceding questions and they can comment and say whatever they want. Dr. Robichaud asked, Will the idiosyncratic PeopleSoft requiring manually recited courses happen every semester overlap as a result? Vice Provost LaGrange replied that where they have been working with the Registrar, there are a couple of fields in particular that were problematic and they worked with IS&T and the Registrar to identify a method of entering that data to make sure that it is a little bit more accurate and reliable and what they will need to do. For this semester, they are still stuck with the current state of affairs but at the time they go fully on line with the whole campus involved, their assumption is that some of those data will be cleaned up. She added that it wont be one hundred percent; people will still sit there but it certainly will be a lot better so we should have a much lower level of manual correction. Dr. Robichaud asked if that will mean every semester chairs will get a copy of everything from their courses and have to go through it and make sure that it is accurate or not? Vice Provost LaGrange said no. They dont expect that faculty will have to go through the list of courses every single time Professor Lazarus asked if there had been complaints by faculty at other schools that have used this for a while, in particular the responses where the students have the opportunity to write or type something. He said some people have expressed apprehension that because the students are not doing this in a classroom, that they will take more of the attitude that people have on social media to be particularly vicious or profane. Vice Provost LaGrange replied that it is possible. Dr. Karem commented that this issue arose at Rutgers and was particularly sensitive because at Rutgers the qualitative comments are available for everyone to see so that it becomes much more of a socially kind of flaming environment. He noted that this is one of the issues that UFAC is considering in terms of sharing of data and things of that nature. His instinct based on what Dr. Robichaud is saying is that he has not heard systematic complaints from other universities. All of them have problems, but it does seem like in some specific high intensity environments if everything is posted it becomes a running competition for people to track it and give you problems. So it bodes to avoid that kind of sharing of data. Report on NEOMED Partnership (Report No. 49, 2014-2015) Associate Vice Provost for Health Affairs, Sonja Harris-Haywood, thanked Senate for the opportunity to speak to everyone today on the NEOMED-91Ʒ Partnership. She started her PowerPoint presentation by giving an overview. She reported that the partnership is a six-year education program. It was established in response to the Ohio Board of Regents directive of 2008-2017 to add 91Ʒ to NEOMEDs three school consortium. Prior to 91Ʒ coming on board, NEOMEDs affiliations were Kent, Akron and Youngstown. She noted that given this change in adding 91Ʒ, they also looked ahead to produce some State funding that allowed us to have 35 seats per class for 91Ʒ students at NEOMED which was very different in what is happening in other consortium institutions. She stated that the goal of the program is to have 50% of the medical student education to occur on 91Ʒs campus and from the beginning of the program to house our students here on the Cleveland State campus and they will be housed in a new facility that is scheduled to open in June 2015. The goal of the program is to train a diverse primary care workforce for the greater Cleveland communities. They were charged to try to enhance health care of underserved populations in the great Cleveland communities and to partner with the greater Cleveland communities to eliminate health and healthcare disparities. She noted that was one of the things they found when they decided to embark on this partnership that was missing here in Cleveland. Currently, the program recruits students from the greater Cleveland area who desire to train in Cleveland and practice primary care in Clevelands underserved communities. Associate Vice Provost Harris-Haywood said that the curriculum educates students to care for underserved urban communities by incorporating Community Engagement, Inter-professional Education and team-based care into 60% of the six-year curriculum. She gave a snapshot of the curriculum. For the first two years of the curriculum, 100% of that time is spent on 91Ʒs campus. These are students who are juniors at Cleveland State and who are seeking a Bachelors degree program. But they also can be students who have completed their Bachelors degrees or other degrees and are changing their careers and seeking to go into medicine but are actually post-bacs. Once the students get to years 2-4 the students are at the medical school. Dr. Bowen inquired, At what point do these students take the MCAT? Vice Provost Harris-Haywood replied that they take the MCAT anywhere from their second semester or while they are in their first year at Cleveland State through the mid-point of their fourth semester which is their second year at Cleveland State. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood noted that the name for the curriculum which they are most pleased with is they are training students to practice primary care and will partner with the Greater Cleveland communities to have community classrooms for these students to train, along with health care for the under-served populations. We are currently in eight community classrooms: Central, Clark-Fulton, Downtown, Fairfax, Goodrich/Kirkland, Hough, North Broadway, Stockyards. They are also engaged with the Cleveland Department of Public Health along with the Metro Health Medical System and Saint Vincent Charity Healthcare System. She noted that they are also very heavily engaged in inter-professional education. The goal of the program is to train these students to be able to practice in the future. The future of medicine is going to be team-based, inter-professional care. She stated that they are working now on developing programs more or less in inter-professional education. She added that the nice thing about NEOMED and 91Ʒ coming together is that NEOMED is bringing a pharmacy and medicine while we at 91Ʒ have established Nursing, OT, PT, Speech & Hearing in Health Sciences and Physicians Assistants bringing those disciplines together. NEOMED funded 25% of the building cost and as she previously stated they have all disciplines represented medicine, pharmacy from NEOMED, and then nursing from 91Ʒ and then Health Sciences (OT, PT, Speech & Hearing). The facility right now will house a Speech and Hearing Clinic, Audiology labs, Nursing/Medicine Simulation labs, the 91Ʒ Health and Wellness Services Department will be moved over and NEOMED will have a pharmacy simulation lab. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood noted that they spent a lot of time in intrusive advising because they are taking students from the community. The requirements are not such that we can eliminate those students that may not have that stellar GPA or standardized testing score that is needed for most medical students. We will admit students with a 3.0 and they may have a GRE of 159 and an entering MCAT of 21 or if they are an active student, we will look at 2.2 3.4 as the criteria that we use. So we are taking medical students that may need a little bit more assistance and being able to demonstrate their assigned aptitude. However, she can say that these students are socially and emotionally ready to pursue careers in the medical professions. We spend a lot of time tutoring sciences, MCAT preparation, USMLE 1 and 2 preparation, mentoring, financial support and scholarships. She went on to say that over the years we have been fortunate right now to have $450,000 in scholarships and by the end of the year we should be up to about $750,000. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood noted that in 2014 we had 97 applicants: 56 females, 41 males, 50 Whites, 18 Asians, 23 Blacks, two Hispanics; 57 of the applicants were Ohio residents and 58 attended Ohio colleges. She reported that this year we ended up getting almost 125 applicants so we are growing and people are getting to know who we are and they are applying to the program. We have 106 to 108 students in the 91Ʒ and NEOMED phases; 68 of them are in the 91Ʒ phase, 28% are under-represented minorities and 30 eligible for promotion to NEOMED in August 2016. We already know that 16 of those 30 have met the MCAT requirements and they will be promoted to NEOMED in the fall. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood stated that 38 students in the NEOMED phase, or 80%, have attended an undergraduate school in Ohio. So again, we are seeing that this is a popular program for our state students. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood offered early evidence that we are making this work with the student population? She noted that in their pilot year, they had three partnership post-bac students in NEOMEDs class of 2017, our current Medical student number two. Their average GPA admissions to the partnership is 3.54. When they left us, their GPA went up to 3.99 and this is a 0.44 increase in their GPA. Their average MCAT score was 27 with a range of 26 to 28. She went on to say that last year, we sent up 18 students, 12 of which were post-bacs in NEOMEDs class of 2018, Medical student number one. Their average GPA coming in was 3.39. At promotion to NEOMED their GPA went up to 3.80 which again is another increase of 0.41 in their GPA but the average MCAT score was higher, 28 with a range of 23 to 34. Dr. Yin asked if the grade point for native Cleveland State students is different from the grade point for post-bac students. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood responded that they have not been able yet to look at the data for the Cleveland State students because we dont yet have a large enough number of them. At the end of this year, the class will be promoting and we will be able to take that data and pull it together and have some information on it which is why this data mostly reflects post-bacs. However, a lot of the post-bacs in the program are Cleveland State graduates who have returned to Cleveland State to pursue degrees in medicine. She noted that we do have some issues. Greater than fifty percent of our students are working full-time and that creates an issue in terms of how they are able to keep focused on their school work. We are constantly adjusting the curriculum to meet trends in medical education for those students in our system that have just changed. Also, our partners are constantly adjusting their curriculum to meet the needs of what is going to happen when this group graduates from NEOMED. So, the curriculum is in flux. As we work to incorporate new MCAT expectations as we are enhancing and redesigning to best prepare students for graduate study, a lot of time is spent trying to work with the changing pieces. There is always someone trying to secure clinical sites for teaching. And, we are constantly looking to partners in Cleveland and other cities to provide clinical sites for our students to train. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood noted that they also found that the rescind of the 18 students from the program this year, there were some transitional challenges and some of our students struggled but the good news is that it is only four of the 18 that went on to NEOMED that we had to pull back and rely upon additional resources on the Cleveland State campus to be sure of their success. She noted that right now, everybody is in good academic standing and ready to be promoted. We did find that when we looked at what was going on at NEOMED, our students seemed to struggle a little bit more so we are trying now to adjust the curriculum to meet that need and to try to enhance their education down here so they are well prepared when they get to NEOMED. Dr. Karem asked if there is a component to do the education where public health is a concept as far as the classes. He noted that we have read about all of the controversies about vaccinations and things like that and everything Vice Provost Harris-Haywood is sketching seems to be really intended on this issue. He said that he was just curious; that is not really a medical subject per se except that it is taught as part of the package or is that something that we are supposed to cover at 91Ʒ along with those other issues. Vice Provost Harris-Haywood replied that we are covering at 91Ʒ so we have a strong relationship with Urban Studies here and we actually teach two of our required classes and then one of the classes that we teach out of the partnership focuses on urban health and we have colleagues from all over the city that come and work with our students around public health issues. She noted that then we get into the required capstone and to get more involved in public health so that they can get a certificate in NEOMED that grants them with an urban health primary care focus. She added that the other thing they noticed is that a lot of our students are coming out of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District and because we get to touch them very early on in the pipeline programming, they are getting over exposed to that area and once they come to us because it is one that they can embrace, a little bit easier than they can do the sciences, they tend to just take off in the public health area and that has been a wonderful surprise for us. So they are gaining knowledge and we are not jamming it down their throats; they are bringing these issues to us. Dr. Sridhar noted that Vice Provost Harris-Haywood had pointed out in her presentation the student success issues and resources supporting these students and completing programs for these students that do need additional help and asked, How much of those kinds of student success initiatives are taking place on campus? For example, we have a number of things going on in the STEM area the last decade or so that weve had lots of grant money and other supportive activities that we already have, are we utilizing those to their full potential and, at the same time, are these new student services that we are creating feeding back enhancement? Vice Provost Harris replied that there is very little communication so we actually sat down and went over again where we are in terms of resources needed, what we are able to offer, what this office is able to offer, and we do piggy back on a lot of what is being done but what the data has also shown us, there are some things that are happening that we would not have known about if we didnt have these students on campus trying to move towards this particular profession. So, what we have been doing is integrating and making sure that the tax payers resources that we have already used and need additional funding that the program is getting is not only going to be available for the students in the partnership moving towards medicine, but we are looking more fully at the students going into all of our professions. Open Question Time Dr. Sridhar asked if there were any questions. There were no questions. New Business Senate President Sridhar asked if there was any new business. There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 5:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debbie K. Jackson Faculty Senate Secretary /vel Edited by: William Becker, University Archivist     PAGE  PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE MEETING PAGE OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 11, 2015 .:;?@ABKLX]_irz    " # > ? E G d f r u   & hh4Ch.hoh_Ch[2hU h0|hH h5 hy&5 hUG5h!h.5CJaJh!hU 5CJaJh!h5CJaJh!h!5CJaJ h!5;-.@ABC   6 ; [ gd^gdU `^``gd[2 `^``gdhu `^``gdU $a$gd& ' P X b p  ! # 5 6 C D Y Z [ \ ^    - 0 Jj½½hlht6hlh !66hlh.6hlh9= h !65 hL5hUGh8h&l=h?l h5h_Ch.h8h[2hoh0|h !6hU h:[ ] ^ . / STQRcd"#gdL`gd !6gd !6 & F^`gd !6`gdArtgd$%&8"#]^_a[ekxʭʨʨϊ~zzzzhlhH h%h. h.5h& h(F#5h%/uhc5h%/uh&5 h&5 h%/u5 h& Th& Th%/uh(F#hM h& T5 hc5 hUG5hLhL5 h !6h !6h9=h !6h.hlh.6hlhc6/%&^_`a  `gd%gd.^gd(F#`gd&gd(F#gd%/u & F^`gd%/ugdc`gd(F#gd& T & F^`gdUGKLZi 901]$1p   !!!"8"@"O"n"s"##_#c###$$j$p$ܾؾh9= hc5 h &5 hL5 h.hFyh &hFyh%hrhH hE?"hsnhlh.hy&I ##$$%%''('//44::@@EEgI^gdH `gdH gdL ^`gdsngdc & F^`gdLgdLp$$$$$$$$%E%f%%%%%%%%%%%%&&&&&&&1&2&''#'$':'>'?''''''''''(4(7(<(K((((((())))>)C)++++!,$,6,W,,,,ļhhh\Jhyhh9chrh &hb?hy&hH hL5 hFyhsnh$+h9=hsnh1IdJ,,,,,--J.M..../V/y//////00000P0^0j0v00000111 22\2]22 333031363;34444x55555626666677q9u999 :R:W::::<<1<J<d<hthihIhp{h*xqhhH hH]Ohm;|hh &hhhy&h\JOd<>>o???"@%@(@)@@@ A A&A)AvAyAAAABBBBBB]DDDEEEEEEEFDFrFFFF GGTGYGfGwG}GGGGGIIfIgIIIJJMK_KKLLLMONOPPPPQQ/Q9QTQhLh;hd0$h?hT?h8^h*0hhihlhy&h0%hlhINgIhIUQVQRRRRRCXDX*\+\^^aaccccee`gdCgdX`gd =[gdd0$ & F^`gdLgdL`gdH TQUQVQWQ'R)R-R3RVRRRRRRRRRRR#S%S&SASLSSSTTTUUUUUU'V,W.WNWOW~WWWXXm`mn־ҾκҾҾҶڶh9=h]hhO[hNhLh hIh@&h Hh(ahChhr hX5 hc5 hL5 hd0$h{hXFe"i#ijjklllmmnnrrbscssssttvvxx`gdHOgdO[`gdY; & F^`gdc`gdArt`gdCn*nqntnnno*ooo%p;ppppppprrrrasbscshs}ssssssssstUtZtttbuouuuuuuuuuu%v&vEvJvfvtvyvvvvvvvvvvv䯫䯷hHh:hHOhm hO[5 hA5 hY;5 hH5 h{lz5 hc5hG. hXhg{h hg{h(ahIh]hhO[Cvvvvvvvw ww!w-wPwUw|wwwwwwwwwwxxxx@RST{Ûϛ{%'?KlmGJߟ:>OQSTˡ̡UX ABChh.@heUhOSh8$"h&(h+hBZh?hb'/h@T h|_h{lmhI h_'h?L;<$%STBCѨҨͪΪζ϶I`gdHOCQզئUZcep*.ШѨҨ>?LXbʩ(.̪ͪΪѪ$i̬Ϭ)+ %®Ǯh&!7hnh"hPhIhM"h&h.@hEhheUR#%48O^ܰݰ:ZxZ|Cb,KŴɴݴBpu%(/N]aeͶζжݶط߸޹2Żƽʽ/Ƚ hHhxhHhxhEbhPh3ehvQh1hI h0VhSrh{[h[h"h&!7hSHIJ߹Žƽ¿ÿĿ;VWlm`gde8^8gdc & Fgdc @^`@gddGgddG & F^`gdcgdc`gdHO/4Wm¿ÿVWXYZ /Fv~#%KZh$&,1>?K[yѺͶͶͺͲͲͺ㲶کڲ㲶hM h85h8h7rhg*o hehe he5 hdGhdGheh9= hdG5 hc5hxhHhdG hHhdG hHhx hHh~A()ghz{ ^`gd7rgdc`gd8`gd7rgdc`gdegde & Fgdclxz{34{$3wy12;}>DPkÿû h3hwZhhI hwZhvh]yhMh3hg*ohj h3nf5 hMhM hM5 hc5 h7rhMh3nfhHhMD341223gdO`gdwZ^gd3`gd3gd3gdc`gdMgdM & Fgdc9:wx !"#*C56#-5ghiT)*1ؽؽh[R h[R5 hQ5 h15 hz(hMhz(h1 htht h5 hwZhhthQhhg*ohvhhwZ hwZ5 hO5 hc5>9: 67g ^`gd1 ^`gdtgdO`gdgdwZ & FgdcghSTl*a)*/0`gd[R & FgdOgd[R & F^`gdOgdO & FgdO^gd1`gd1gd11c|~ @ce./0C2EHNS`bnyCOno!F3ENQV]_`aÿÿûÿÿÿÿÿhahu"h9=h Vh'TPhO hO5 h{lz5 hM5 hQ5h\/ h\/5 hO5 h[Rh[RhQhhh[RhI EBCnopqGH$%`gd'TP^gdOgdO & F^`gdOgdO`gdj^gd\/`gd\/gd\/abpt[m  1 p4?efquFGHWX,PRV$(So!hhho hFho}hMhn2hpsh8hHnh>h!hah'TPhu"h VL_`agWXz}~sw{MYd    * . u z                 ' *     Z [ _ i '3Bh8Uhv*)hq;hMh`eho<hBX_hXQho hYhlhhhFho}LabXY  *+;<A"B"##''H/I/223`gd8U`gd'TPBDPQ% )*+FHR_ijqj:;<A^clm|9Z;>On{ XbqshMl-hvhLhej6hTh8Uh`eh>|hOho ho<hv*)h!P8:Y[\_adh2O 0!1!i!j!"&"."4"@"A"""""""<#@#$ %-%%%1&2&)'/''''''''(((M(x(((()$),))))) *++}+++,h: h+h h'h<hQ(hqhA~hEShej6hTh!hMl-hiChLM,R,V,[,k,s,,,,,,, --?-B-N-O-Q-R-V-n.....,/4/G/H/I/M/#0$0B0P0o0u0f122222222J3K3333"4=4M4r44444555)5X55555556ĽĴhH hO5 hOhQEhQEh \hHh-h#EhQ(hvhFh!ho5hZThqh h: h+G33558888<<[?\?@BABCCjHkH+J,JMNNNQQgd2gdl & F^`gdO`gdl^gdO`gd'TP666+66666773767Z7^77777`888888o:z::;;;;I<b<<<<<<<P=>[?\?a?e?????S@o@@@AAAAAABBB'B(B/B=B>B?B@BABEBSBʾƺҶֶhIhi>h#xth@=h9Xthnh!h0\?h2hE-hhG(k hl5 hO5hHhQEh \hlGSBWBeBBBBBBCCDDDDDDDDDaEEEEErFtF GGGGGGGGH6HWH]HeHgHCIDIhIiI*J+JAKKLMNNLNMNNNNOOOOOPQQQQQQ[R{RRļԸh.h7huqh hS!h,hZhN^h<huQh|XhT huEhhRGh2hi>hIh0GRRRRRpTTTTTUCUFUWWdWWWWX1XuXXXXXXYYYKZZZZ[[[K[[[[[\ \A\\\\\E]G]]^ ^ ^^F^t^u^}^^^^^^^B_g_```A`ȼȸȸh7h yh6&h0hAh!Mhxh)\Mh-hh@hGy.hz.h ]BhQgh<huqh5h7h.EQTT[[ ^ ^``dd/g0gijjj}j~jjjjjYkZkwkgdgdAgdO^gdgd & F^`gdO`gdlA`V``a!aWb d-d^ddddd&e1e@epeeeeffffg.g]gsgghh)h@h`hQi]iiiiiii j>jgjhjijjj}j~jjjjjj.k6k8kSkYkZk[kvkwkzkkk¾hY;h)hh0hMhLh8hO h5 hh h5 hO5hh-h@ hbThM@h6h&UhQL h6&hz.Awkxkykzkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkl lclllh]hgds &`#$gdBgdkkkkkkkkkkkkkkllll l l l>lYlZl[lcldlelllllh8hLhUhY;0JmHnHuhH hH0JjhH0JUh&jh&UhOlllllllgd5 01h:ps/ =!"#$% s2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 4@4 sHeader  !.)@. s Page Number4 4 sFooter  !@@"@ &l= List Paragraph ^6U 16 Q( Hyperlink >*B*phcHBH ps Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/QN psBalloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] d  & p$,d<TQbnv)C/1aB,6SBRA`kl[  gIex;Ig3Qwkll !!!8@0(  B S  ? d l ]^oo1s9s~~>@QS3;=Acccccccccccddry2Ykhj;C00f7j7cccccccccdd33333333"#^`kk$3HW6c6cYcYczczccccccccccd d ddddd"#^`kk$3HW6c6cYcYczczccccccccccccccXdXdYd[dzdddd@9fVI f*[<Ajk-/Xz`<@KXr,55! V-!YS) B!/$P( vn0n*+oZhp8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.0^`0o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.88^8`o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHhp^p`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHhP^P`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh ^ `OJQJo(hH8^8`5o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.vnp2JhPB!/YS)xNT{ q;o cO}2dt*3ep @T 1V h Lo /@/F/0h011B1:m1[2,3ar3p4f405o5 !6ej67&!78r9 :<<!<o<F^=&l= >M]>T?0\? ]B@CC4Cf=CiC2DE#EQEzEE"FvRF H4H9CH(I XJr\J\JzkJuKL LXL(zLL!MMN'M}-M)\M NN{|m;|>|%}o}F" &L#M"-. !\GP a 2qNLZ0|@=n9=_K4&8$Xo^O`?@#LNlnhu/`eO#%?OSl&_fYnpq&!U-.Sr wi>m+I pt{c>p_p8_?l" Jr^rbNQYnRGI`y?VKD^(Tq3 Q(BT]@gjSW )28`A!*0w   yF0$+s:/`bet)Hl!!\FyRq&F_lf A\/I `0<+G{[ow}+28KK~BlQDO%n],ISmc|_p{\3;I#sZ"EZi[t&. n2[]\]3d-v9v-8Qg(u"#P%a%S!aN4+'%78M@ E;!)uEaq?&(V8Cwdl8?HYfkma6UGhz7: 3DUy&.XY(Iz.14OPZT?uH @HQN^~:C.D.:]PwZZu5vM.hNvsy17!)lhwGz\_uV_4H&md{cM Vx;S5+iOGYG.h:T#mFbjhr8?Qk) cDFPl<@v6&\]^ey$ il~MQV&_Cc|$2.@k&&=O$#cc@dh@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial9. ")Segoe UI?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"qhYgYY5.5.!244c4c3QHP ?2!xx MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTViolet E Lunderh                  Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTNormalViolet E Lunder7Microsoft Office Word@*g@8@P,2@dB85.՜.+,0 hp  91Ʒ4c MINUTES OF THE MEETING Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#%&'()*+014Root Entry F@v83@1TablefWordDocument 7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8$MsoDataStorei8`t8UWYGBXUEAB==2i8`t8Item PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q