ࡱ>   c /bjbjzz 7~]\~]\ '        8X  n"CnEnEnEnEnEnEnNpszEn En  Znj  CnCn.7^He3ѐ9`@/npn0n`T~s~~se~s e EnEnon~s> :  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE MAY 6, 2015 PRESENT: Berlin Ray, Boboc, W. Bowen, Delatte, Delgado, Ekelman, Elkins, Engelking, Fodor, Galletta, Genovese, Gross, Hampton, Henry, Hoffman, Holland, Holsinger, Holtzblatt, D. Jackson, Jayanti, Kalafatis, Karem, Kosteas, Krebs, Lazarus, Little, Lupton, Margolius, Marino, C. May, Mazumder, Niederriter, ONeill, Robichaud, Spicer, Sridhar, Talu, W. Wang, Wolf, Zingale. R. Berkman, Dumski, J. Ford, Halasah, Mageean, Sadlek, Sawicki, Yarbrough. ABSENT: Gorla, Inniss, S. Kaufman, Majette, Nawalaniec, Rashidi, Girish, Storrud-Barnes, Visocky. Artbauer, Boise, M. Bond, Bowling, C. Brown, E. Hill, Jadallah, Karlsson, LeVine, V. Lock, McHenry, Novy, Parry, D. Ramos, Spademan, G. Thornton, Triplett, B. White, Zachariah, J. Zhu. ALSO PRESENT: Medina-Rivera, A. F. Smith, Yin. Senate President Nigamanth Sridhar called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M. Eulogy for Sidney Kraus (Communication) Dr. Richard Perloff delivered the Eulogy for the late Professor Emeritus Sidney Kraus. Sidney Kraus a nationally-respected expert in political communication who, as a scholar, single-handedly pioneered the social scientific study of presidential debates and as academic practitioner harnessed his political acumen to spearhead the development of the communication department at 91Ʒ died in November 2014 in Evanston, Illinois. He was 87. Sid Kraus was a member of the communication faculty at Cleveland State from 1972 to 2004. Kraus transmorgrified himself from a capable student of the dramatic arts to a leading expert on presidential debates. He wrote or edited six academic books, beginning with his classic The Great Debates: Background, Perspective, Effects (1962) a landmark, innovative volume that examined the iconic Kennedy-Nixon debates through the prism of the social scientific perspective on mass communication. The book and Krauss other work on the debates, such as a 1979 edited volume on the Carter vs. Ford debates, transformed the study of presidential debates from an arm-chair journalistic enterprise to a bona fide scholarly area within the burgeoning field of political communication. Kraus and his Cleveland State colleague, Dennis K. Davis, authored The Effects of Mass Communication on Political Behavior, an early and substantive account of the role that the increasingly-ubiquitous media exerted on political behavior and the citizenry in a democratic society. After the first presidential debates in 1960, there was a 16year gap before debates were again held in 1976. During those years, Kraus lobbied for presidential debates as a critical feature of campaigns. He argued that the quality of American democracy would be enhanced by debates. When Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter agreed to debate in 1976, he was one of the few professors (arguably the only faculty member) to attend all four presidential and vice-presidential debates. He also played a leadership role in professional associations, serving as one of the first presidents of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion research in 1980. Kraus chaired the communication department at Cleveland State for 13 years and was twice elected president of Faculty Senate. He hired a number of communication faculty members with a social science focus and built the department, virtually from scratch, from a low-visible department to a respected academic major offering both social scientific and professional courses in different areas of the growing communication field. He was famous in the department and around campus for smoking a cigar. He loved to wield, puff, and then hold it as he spoke, in the manner of a big-time celebrity promising to make you a star or a politician thinking about how to negotiate a deal. During his years at Cleveland State, Kraus gained professional plaudits, but what he treasured over the long haul was the friendship and affection of his colleagues. Stanley Baran, a young faculty member at Cleveland State in the 1970s, recalled the way Kraus applied his unique personal charm to tasks large and small. Baran observed that, A major part of Sids legacy will be the dozens of department chairs, deans, vice-presidents, Fulbright scholars, journal editors, and research and teaching award winners, all who came from a little-known urban university without a masters, never mind a doctoral program, Cleveland State. Sid sought out and hired some of the disciplines best young people and through his friendship, caring, and mostly his example, he set them on the path toward significant and influential careers. How did he do this? By being Sid. By making them feel he wanted them at the same time he made them want to be with him. He will be missed. Dr. Sridhar asked for a moment of silence in memory of our colleague Dr. Sidney Kraus. Approval of the Agenda for the meeting of May 6, 2015 The Agenda was unanimously approved by voice vote. Report of the Faculty Senate President Dr. Sridhar thanked everyone on Senate and all of our colleagues who served on various university and college department committees. Faculty governance is what keeps the university running and he wanted to direct a particularly strong thank you to everyone that has served on these committees and contributed way more than most of are required particularly on the Senate standing committees. He said he knows that we had an inordinately large number of program reviews this year, So, for those who served on these committees as well, thank you very much. Dr. Sridhar reported that everyone may have been forwarded an email today about summer 2016 registration being closed. He said that he has been informed that it is not that the university is shutting down, there is a reorganization of courses partly inspired by the Republican National Convention in the summer. Dr. Sridhar noted that there has been a lot of work that has happened particularly the work the Student Success Committee has been doing in working with the Student Government. He stated that their efforts have paid off. We will have over 2,000 students at commencement this coming Saturday. He hopes we will have a strong faculty representation in showing our students and their families what this university is about. Dr. Sridhar commented that along those same lines, we are in the midst of administering finals and we are hoping that everyone will submit their grades on time. This has a strong impact on how well the students are doing, and financial aid, etc. Dr. Sridhar next addressed faculty searches. He noted that we have authorization for a number of searches across the University that should progress over the course of the next academic year. One of the reasons these authorizations came at the time they did was so that faculty and departments would have time to form search committees this semester and to write ads and get them in the press over the summer so that we can have a strong search during the academic year next year. He encouraged faculty to go back to their departments and whatever faculty can do in terms of search committees, we should work hard in doing that. Elections Following procedures for nominating candidates for election to the various committees of the Faculty Senate and other posts, members of Senate elected faculty to the following positions: University Faculty Affairs Committee Joshua Bagakas (Curriculum/Foundations), two-year term Raymond Henry (Computer & Information Science), two-year term Allyson Robichaud (Philosophy), two-year term Yan Xu (Chemistry), one-year term replacing Jeff Karem who will be on leave Minority Affairs Committee (two-year terms) Heba El Attar (Modern Languages) Meshack Owino (History) Budget and Finance Committee (two-year terms) William Bowen (Urban Studies) Stephen Duffy (Civil Engineering) Kelly Wrenhaven (Modern Languages) Board of Trustees (one-year term) Joel Lieske (Political Science) Board Recognition Committee Mark Holtzblatt (Accounting), one-year term George Ray (Communication), three-year term Ohio Faculty Council (two-year term) Mekki Bayachou (Chemistry) Copyright Review Committee (three-year term) John Jeziorowski (Health Sciences) Patent Review Committee (three-year term) John Jeziorowski (Health Sciences) Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel (three-year terms) Sucharita Adluri (Philosophy) Adrienne Gosselin (English) Michael Mauldin (Theatre & Dance) Bryan Pesta (Management) Report of the President of the University President Berkman said that like the past five years, this has been a pretty eventful year at 91Ʒ. He commented that he didnt know that there will even be a non-eventful year at 91Ʒ as so many things change so quickly and in so many directions that it is really a challenge to plot a path forward without understanding always what the ground is underneath you. President Berkman reinforced Dr. Sridhars call for faculty to participate in commencement. He noted that the last couple of years, we have had a wonderful turnout of faculty. It adds a different level to the commencement; it feels different for the students; it feels different from the stage. President Berkman hoped that everyone is aware that on Friday evening we will have a kick-off to commencement, our Radiance event. This is 91Ʒs major scholarship fundraiser that this will be our fourth year holding the event. We will again exceed the expectations in terms of what we will raise in Radiance and equally as important it will give us an opportunity to thank and honor one of Clevelands great citizens and that is Howard Ratner, the former CEO and Board chair of Ratner Forest City but more than that, really as much of a civic citizen and a philanthropist as we have in Cleveland. Dr. Berman said that Mr. Ratner has not been willing to accept any such recognition from any organization in twenty years so this is the first time that he will appear to accept an award from an institution. Dr. Berkman noted that Mr. Ratner has told him that he is doing it only for us. President Berkman commented that he hopes that many faculty or some faculty have had the chance to attend one or more of the fiftieth anniversary panels that we had. Radiance in essence will bring a close to our fiftieth anniversary celebration. It started with the homecoming parade and block party in which more than 5,000 students, friends, citizens, faculty, staff, etc. paraded down Euclid Avenue and into the space in front of the Business School. It will conclude with Radiance but the panels concluded with the panel two weeks ago that explored the term of Carl Stokes celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Carl Stokes first entry into a mayoral race in the City of Cleveland and a book published on his legacy called The River that Burned. Dr. Berkman commented that he didnt know is that the river had burned so many times; that this was not the first time that the river had ever burned but it was the first time for a series of reasons that it galvanized a kind of national attention and a national reaction that it did this particular time. Dr. Berkman noted that we have the two authors who were here and then we had four mayors, African-American Mayors from around the country, who participated in the panel on African-American Leadership. . President Berkman next talked about the challenges ahead and how he hopes that we can continue as a university to stay ahead of the curve. Ahead of the curve in enrollment although now enrollment has come home to roost as a challenge; ahead of the curve in terms of the financial stewardship from the university, and our Moodys and Standard and Poors ratings and he thinks at least ahead of the curve in many of the innovations that have been fashioned by the Student Success Committee and continue to be implemented. Dr. Berkman said that we have the most complex and uncertain legislative session that he has seen in his six years. In terms of the realities of the budget we currently have a budget built on the assumption that enrollment will decline by two percent with aggregating or including graduate enrollment, returning students and undergraduate enrollment. A decline of two percent in credit hours its not headcount a decline of two percent in credit hours follows a five percent decline in credit hours in the 2014-15 year. He noted that both of those leave the university on the revenue side short about $3.4 million. Some of this is our ability to really be able to offer and encourage students to take summer school courses. We have seen an incremental slide in summer school enrollment over four years. Once that slide begins, the deficit that you have to make up after summer becomes all the more extreme. So, you have that $3.4 million and then we have an increase in salaries and benefits although we still have one more contract to finish and of course the most significant contract was the AAUP contract of $3.4 million next year. Adding those two numbers together and we are looking at about $8 million revenue shortfall. He reported that we have kept a close eye on it and we have spent a lot of time on it and we have talked about a lot of contingencies. He said that although we did institute what he would call a soft freeze, we can define a soft freeze as the ratio of positions that got a waiver and were allowed to hire compared to the positions that stayed frozen was in favor of those who got a waiver. Dr. Berkman stated that it was a prudent thing for us to do at this juncture. President Berkman noted that in terms of challenges we are dealing with what he called and what is now commonly called around the State, the Senate challenge. The Senate challenge is that there is a bill singularly sponsored by the President of the Ohio Senate under consideration. That the bill is singularly sponsored by the President of the Senate indicates that this is a top priority of the President of the Senate which calls again for not a five percent cutback in tuition but a five percent cutback in the cost of attendance. He noted that for us that is a difference of approximately $9,000 in tuition and almost $19,000 in the cost of attendance. Everyone probably knows that we got authority from the House for a two percent tuition increase. The Governors budget contains only authority for a one-year two percent tuition increase and a budget freeze for year two a tuition freeze for year two. So, even the Governors budget does not contain a recommendation for two percent in the biennium. Also, the Senate has not yet presented its budget so likely we will go through a period in which we will not have certainty. He is not sure we even want certainty though considering what we are talking about here, but we wont have it probably until June. We have three political bodies on three completely different political tracks and right now there is neither a lot of communication nor a lot of coordination. Dr. Berkman stated that given this scenario and given the discussions that he knows have gone on in Planning and Budget Advisory Committee we are going to put together a group of faculty and a group of administration that will take a hard look at these challenges and how they are likely to unfold and conceivably multiply in the years ahead. Dr. Berkman stated that in that context, take a look at what kind of institutional adjustments, what kind of institutional changes, both on the administrative side and on the academic side that we are going to have to make to remain competitive in terms of enrollment and in term of our ability to graduate students. We have only received dollars for students who complete courses, not enroll in courses; students who complete courses and students who graduate. We have fought to avoid an adjustment in the formula which on top of the other things would be draconian for us. Dr. Berkman reported that the administration is going to consult with the leadership of the Faculty Senate and they are going to put together a group that will sort of chart out these challenges. Again, he knows that Tim Long, Associate Vice President for Finance and Budget, has lead a number of these discussions in PBAC, has been an architect really of our financial house and our financial structure. It really is an extension of what he understand the sentiment of PBAC was and he agrees with the sentiment that we do need to take a kind of longer view and a consensus view of how we, as an institution, adapt to this quickly changing environment. He underlined that the formula is a significant change and Ohio will be one of only two or three States in the country that has a formula completely driven by course completion and graduation. President Berkman noted that the first thing it should lead you to is that retention, while always important, is now probably the most critical game in town. Of course we need to bring students though the door. It is not any longer going to be sufficient to bring students to the campus although of course we have made every single effort, particularly on the freshmen side, and Dr. Jianping Zhu has made efforts on the graduate side, to try to maximize our enrollment because enrollments will get you course completions. But the real important ingredient is going to be retention. Again, the Student Success Committee has done a lot of important work on retention. It takes a while to implement; it takes a while to get adhesion; it takes a while to impact student behavior; it takes a while to make the kind of changes that we are making. We have done extraordinarily well on the graduation side. Dr. Berkman said that he feels a whole lot better going into this formula with a graduation rate a couple of ticks below the forty percent graduation rate than a couple of ticks above twenty-five percent. Dr. Berkman stated that we are going to put that together. It needs to begin soon in the summer. He hopes that we will have a time frame and a planning frame that will also allow us as we get the budget, as we anticipate the budget, to make, if we need to, some quick adjustments. We are by his measure, we are by no measure out of danger to seeing a significant deficient in the university budget this year. Of course the longer we have to wait to understand what that magnitude is, the less time we have to make any adjustments. Associate Vice President Long stated that the important point is that the membership on PBAC, the administration, represents the finance areas and the operating areas of the university on that committee. The committee realized early on this academic year that we needed to go to the President with a recommendation and we all joined forces. Only on the academic side where folks have done a significant amount of work doing program prioritization, and restructuring things, and the 4 to 3 credit hour conversion exercise, that took an awful lot of work on the academic sides behalf. It is now time for the non-academic side to join that effort as well. The more we looked at it, the leadership of PBAC, the more we decided given the challenges we have with respect to the State conditions of the budget and our demographics enrollment, the only way forward intelligently on this would be to forge back together and that is what we are going to do starting this summer. He noted that those in the Budget Office usually pre-decide or agree by July 1 when we know the budget has passed the State; this year we are not going to have a chance to breathe because we are going to have to dive in and the Task Force is going to be formed on this issue. He stated that they welcome the support and help they are going to get from the faculty. They respect the membership of PBAC with their hard work and they are looking forward to going ahead. President Berkman noted that about a week or two weeks ago, the Brookings Institute, after a year of development, came out with a completely new model for how to rank universities; a model that did not depend on reputation, a model that did not depend on the number of votes in the library, a model that did not depend on your acceptance rate as opposed to your application rate; obviously, your selectivity, and by the way, in U.S. News and World Report, although he thinks it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, since we have been in it for five years in a row, forty percent of variable that weighs forty percent is the reputational value in U.S. News and World Report. So, even if you can do well in amassing two or three counter varying variables it is tough to overcome a forty percent rating for one variable. So, Brookings said rather than the reputation issue, lets use a complicated methodology in which we can measure by trying to control for differences across colleges and trying to control for differences in student bodies. Lets see if we can come up with a methodology that actually measures the value added that a college provides to individual students. Brookings published a ranking for every university that had to do with value added, that had to do with lifetime wages, that had to do with debt burden that the student left with. Dr. Berkman was pleased that 91Ʒ in this index came out third best in the State of Ohio, behind only the University of Cincinnati and Miami University. It reaffirms what all of us know that if you control all of these variables, and you try to understand the Cleveland State experience for our students on a level playing field and what their yield is, in a lifetime, you understand what their yield is by getting this education. The extraordinary job that Cleveland State does in equipping these students wouldnt get told. For the first time, Bookings is telling the story. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer Provost Deirdre Mageean stated that she wanted to thank faculty for their participation in the faculty survey on student engagement that was at fifty-seven percent which is actually a very decent participation rate for a survey that was the first time that faculty participated in. Provost Mageean turned to summer enrollment. She noted that we have suspended the enrollment for 2016. It is not really that the RNC (Republican National Convention) is not actually going to seriously impact summer classes. It is more that summer enrollment is sort of like the canary in the mind of enrollment transient general and for the last seven years, summer enrollment has been tiny. In part, this is attributable to finding that students cant use telegrams anymore for the summer but is also reflective of summer demographic trends. She noted that there is a real possibility summer enrollment reflects that we may not be offering the right kind of product during the right kind of time slot in the right kind of medium that students want today. So, we have taken this opportunity to temporarily suspend classes while we take a really hard look at summer with the kind of offerings and time slots that we offer them in and the kind of medium in which we offer them and work very closely and aggressively with the colleges on that. She thanked the colleges for responding to the administrations request to move students quickly off the wait list there were 200 plus students on the wait list and we have accommodated most of those students. A couple of additional sections have been added. She noted that this is what has been done for this year but we dont really want to repeat what happens this year next year so the administration has become innovative, aggressive, and entrepreneurial and will be talking to Senate a lot more about that in the weeks to come. She noted that not many students frankly were enrolled already in the summer classes. Even by the time you get to July or August, there are not many students enrolled for the next summer. It is of course, something they had the opportunity through the multi term registration but they will be held harmless having been turned away. . Provost Mageean commented that she does want to exhort faculty beyond getting their grades in which are extraordinarily important. For people who havent gotten their grades in on time, we are watching that very carefully this year and communicating directly with the colleges and departments. She noted that this is part of the contractual duty, the obligation of the institution, particularly to the students to get those grades in on time. She noted that most faculty do that but some people dont. It is part of ones obligation. Peoples jobs, really to get into graduate school and many other things, are dependent on getting those grades in in a timely manner. Provost Mageean turned to E-FAARs. She stated that IS&T along with Vice Provost William Morgan and others and she have really been taking a lot of time going through explaining the process around E-FAARs. She noted that she appreciates the work of Tommie Barclay, of IS&T, who has responded to each of the particular colleges issues around things that they needed because the forms are too complicated and they have done a good job in tweaking and amending and editing the forms. She reported that at the moment, about fifty percent of faculty have filled in their E-FAARS. She stressed that E-FAARS will be the basis for workloads, for merit awards, applications for professional leaves of absence, in other words, the bottom line is almost anything that is of importance to faculty in their department, college, or institution. So, it is imperative that the E-FAARS are completed. She added that she knows it is a bit of a burden the first time. It is front loaded, certainly in terms of effort but once that particular comes to pass, it becomes much easier to update it on an annual or regular basis. Provost Mageean commented that if that wasnt important enough, there are three colleges coming up for accreditation in 2016 three; Education, Business and Engineering. Complete and satisfactory completion of those E-FAARS is imperative for the data that will be used in the self-studies and it will be examined by the external reviewers. So those three colleges in particular, but indeed the whole university, needs to get to a one hundred percent completion of the E-FAARS. Senate President Sridhar stated that he had one additional item which he would like to include; that is about the Wolstein Center. He reported that Vice President Boyd Yarbrough and Assistant Vice President Clare Rahm came to Steering Committee two weeks ago to report on what is happening with the Wolstein Center. Steering decided that there wasnt enough information to bring a full report to Faculty Senate but the big change is that the University is no longer going to be using a management company to run the operations. The university operations will still have systems from the outside for booking shows and for ticketing and those sorts of things. The main thing that Steering wanted him to bring to Senate was that the Wolstein Center will stay in auxiliaries; it will not move into the operating budget of the university. Report of the Student Government Association SGA President Allie Dumski reported that this is her last time before Senate and she wanted to say thank you for listening to her over the last two years. She and the students of 91Ʒ really appreciate the work that they have been able to collaborate on and the help of the Faculty Senate, the Administration, and the Board of Trustees. She noted that they have been able to make progress on a lot of the initiatives and projects that SGA presented at the beginning of the year. She noted that she has an updated list of the status of everything that she will share with everyone. Ms. Dumski stated that her experience in SGA has been an incredible one and she commends the Faculty Senate for all of its work and she urged the Senate to keep advocating for the best educational experience for students and to keep up the fight against the rising cost of textbooks. Ms. Dumski noted that Ms. Emily Halasah is here at Senate today. She will be taking over as President of SGA so everyone should feel free to contact her over the summer. She said that she is happy that Faculty Senate has appointed some faculty members to Student Government and she hopes that the two representative bodies can continue to work together. VIII. Budget and Finance Committee Senator David Elkins reported from the Senate Budget and Finance Committee: Good afternoon. I am here to deliver the Budget and Finance Advisory Committees annual Report. You have this report as part of the Faculty Senates routine year-ending material. I will leave it to you to read this document as your time and patience permits. Today, I will speak briefly on two items: Budget-related trend data and items for the next fiscal years Budget and Finance Advisory Committees agenda. First, budget-related trend analysis. At the April 7th Planning and Budget Advisory Committee meeting or PBAC, we were presented with extensive trend data from FY11 to FY14 with partial data for FY15. Members of the Faculty Senates Budget and Finance Advisory Committee were very pleased with the data provided by the Universitys Budget Office. It expresses its great appreciation to Associate Vice President Tim Long and Director Bonnie Kalnasy for their efforts in putting this material together. Coming so late in the academic year, we have only just begun to examine these data. I have presented some of this material to Steering and no doubt more analysis will be forthcoming. However, the detail involved and the explanatory time required is beyond my allotted time and your admirable tolerance for such things. Suffice it to say, the data will render some interesting findings. I do with to bring to your attention one item which leapt out among these data: universitys debt service. The universitys Debt Service has increased substantially. In FY11, Debt Service was about 4.5% or $9.5 million of the universitys actual overall expenditures. By FY14, Debt Service was over $18 million and greater than 8% of the universitys overall budget measured in Actual expenditures. In fact, in FY14 Debt Service was the largest single non-Academic unit Actual expenditure and it was the third largest expenditure item out of the total overall FY14 budget. It was greater than all but two colleges, Science and Health and CLASS, both at nearly $24 million. As the university moves forward with its preparation for the FY16 budget, debt service will remain a large component of the universitys obligations, undoubtedly rivaling the budgets of many of our academic colleges. Second, next years agenda. Next academic years Budget and Finance Advisory Committee already has a full plate. The committee will continue to pay attention to the lagging attempts on the part of the non-academic units to engage in program prioritization. Over the course of this academic year, the committee examined closely separate streams of enrollment and budget-related data and it is apparent that there is both a need and opportunity for the non-academic units to engage in this as yet shared administrative activity. In addition, the twin pressures of the universitys substantial debt service obligations coupled with the enrollment challenges posed by demographic change will require frequent monitoring. Finally, the substantial changes emerging from the universitys management of the Wolstein Center will warrant close scrutiny. Id like to end by thanking my colleagues who served with me on the Budget and Finance Advisory Committee for all of their help. They made this sometimes difficult task easier. Finally, it was an honor and privilege serving my university colleagues as chair of this committee. IX. University Curriculum Committee Senator Fred Smith, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee presented the UCCs proposals. Proposals for New and Modified Programs: Dr. Smith noted that the first group of proposals involve transitioning Computer Science from the Business College to the Engineering College. He noted that in order to do that, the MCIS program is divided into two tracks one of which remains in the Business College and the other moves to the Engineering College. He reported that there are also proposals that have to do with the undergraduate program in Computer Science to the Business College renaming the departments and establish procedures for faculty. Proposals to create a new information systems track in the MCIS program in the Business College; to move Computer Science faculty, an undergraduate program, and the Computer Science track of the MCIS program from Business to Engineering; to rename the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the College of Engineering to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; and to rename the department in the Business College the Department of Information Systems (Report No. 77, 2014-2015) OCAS: CIS IST Program Track Changes (graduate) OCAS: CS Department Move (undergraduate) OCAS: Relocation of Computer Science Program (undergraduate) OCAS: Curriculum change for FSCS (Computer Science) Program (undergraduate) OCAS: CIS Graduate Program Restructuring (graduate) OCAS: Relocation of Computer Science Program (MCIS, CS Track) (graduate) OCAS: Department Name Change Electrical and Computer Engineering to Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (undergraduate) Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Curriculum Committee is bringing forward a proposal to move the Computer Science programs from the College of Business to the College of Engineering. The programs would be housed in the newly renamed Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He added that the Information Systems programs will remain in the College of Business in the Department of Information Systems. Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The UCC proposal to create a new information systems track in the MCIS program in the Business College; to move Computer Science faculty, an undergraduate program, and the Computer Science track of the MCIS program from the Business College to the Engineering College; to rename the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the College of Engineering to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; and to rename the Department in the Business College, the Department of Information Systems, was approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposal to merge the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Sociology and Criminology OCAS: Merger SOCCRIM-ANT (undergraduate) (Report No. 78, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith stated that the next proposal is a proposal to merge the Department of Anthropology with the Department of Sociology and Criminology. He noted that in OCAS, which some people may have found it difficult to find, there is a chronological story of this proposal. he final proposal, which the CLASS faculty understands itself, have approved the proposal which is quoted by the Dean of CLASS. It specifies that certain resources be provided to merge the departments and Senate should expect commitments to provide that these resources be fulfilled. He added that the UCC understands that no program related reductions will result from this merger. In particular, a new as yet unnamed department will continue to offer undergraduate programs in Anthropology, Criminology and Sociology. The Department of Sociology and Criminology already has insufficient resources for advising and one of UCCs concerns is that there be sufficient resources to offer these programs and sufficient resources for student advising. Dr. Smith asked if there were any questions. Senator Barbara Hoffman asked, Should Senate vote today to approve this merger and when would it take place? Dr. Smith responded that the UCC understood that it would be effective on July 1, 2015. Dr. Barbara Hoffman stated that she would like confirmation and an understanding that we have been given about a visiting position in Biological Anthropology this would be a search to begin immediately by the Department of Anthropology so that the visiting person could begin in the fall of this year. She then asked, Is that correct? Dr. Smith responded that UCC couldnt answer that question but noted that the Provost just nodded yes. Senator James Marino asked about the outlook for getting a permanent Biological Anthropologist? Provost Mageean replied that it is subject to the same status as other requests. She noted that she handed out one round of the available funds for positions two years worth and the request from Anthropology is with the next slew of positions. But, as you know, everything is frozen for the moment. In terms of timing, there is a general reason why we should do that anyway even while keeping everybody busy along with the number of searches that are out there already. It will be part of the general consideration of positions which we will have the next time out. In the meantime, understanding that there is a critical need for the teaching to go over the budget in Anthropology, we will put a visitor position in that by the beginning of the next semester A person to be in the classroom by the beginning of next semester. Dr. Hoffman commented, Thats a visiting assistant professor. Provost Mageean stated that Dr. Hoffman was correct. Dr. Hoffman had one additional question. We had been given to understand that as soon as the current years retirements took place, the lines from that round of retirements would form the basis for the next round of tenure-track hiring. Provost Mageean said that Dr. Hoffman was correct. Positions that are still coming in are the ones that currently constitute the money that is awaiting a decision for the next round of retirements. She noted that Associate Vice President Tim Long can explain better how these financial things fall but in essence there are a number of positions, about $1 million worth which are expected from the retirements that come in and that is the pool that we are holding at the moment. So given that all faculty departments are going to be very busy just conducting the searches that we released already in the last year and given the budgetary situation, we are holding for the moment or sitting on that next round of monies, positions, whatever you want to call it, that has to be deliberated by the combination of retirements and departures from the university. Dr. Sridhar commented that the question really is that the discussions we have had about these things, the tenure-track position in Anthropology will be in the next series of faculty positions that are released whenever they are. Provost Mageean remarked that it will be an eligible position, yes, adding that there are no guarantees in life. In the budget situation, we have been having a little bit of all of the positions that are being requested for the next round. She went on to say that she cant guarantee and that this is true for all positions that are requested. She said that they are not thinking of Anthropology. She just cant give Dr. Hoffman assurances that she cannot give to anybody else in any other department where they are experiencing heavy retirements or departures. Dr. Hoffman stated that faculty have been given to understand that it would be a high priority. Provost Mageean replied, No. She stated that it will be examined with all of the requests and it will be prioritized based upon teaching needs, etc. Dr. Sridhar asked So the visiting position that Provost Mageean is authorizing, is that going to last until there is a full-time person in that place, or is that a one-year thing? Provost Mageean replied that until they sit down with all of the positions, she cannot give guarantees on anything. But, the goal is, if there is a need, or there appears to be to teach these students and no one else can teach them, and there is clearly a need to have someone in the classroom, and there is a significant number of majors and a fairly large group of majors, and there is a need that physical Anthropology taught, then yes, the goal is certainly not to have that vacant and we will put a visitor in that place until such time it can be filled on that basis. Senator Beth Ekelman commented that she wanted to make it clear on what the Senate is voting on that there are multiple proposals within this packet and the proposal she is thinking is we are voting to support that. What UCC supports is the Task Force merger proposal. The most current one is dated April 21, 2015. Dr. Smith replied that the UCC and Steering understand themselves to recommend a Task Force report as amended on April 21, 2015 that it is the Task Force report supported by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Dr. Sridhar stated that with those clarifications, the UCC brings forward a proposal for the merger of the Department of Anthropology, the Departments of Sociology and Criminology. He added that the April 21, 2015 date is the proposal Senate is considering. He then asked if there are any last questions before Senate votes. Dr. Ekelman asked if we want to be specific that we are not supporting the original proposal just to be clear. Dr. Sridhar responded that the item before the Senate is the proposal dated April 21, 2015 authored by the Task Force that was sponsored by faculty from the two departments Anthropology and Sociology and Criminology. That proposal has been given full support by the Dean of CLASS and that is the one that Senate is voting on. We are not looking at a different proposal. Senator William Bowen asked if the proposed merger is consistent with the wishes of the members of both departments? Dr. Sridhar responded that the proposal, as he understands it, has been developed by faculty in the two departments who have support from both departments. He added, if that is not the case, then somebody from one of these departments should say something now. Dr. Marino commented that some of our colleagues may go, There has been a great deal of narrative of this. He thinks that they did finally agree to consensus between members of the two departments and the members of those two departments are the primary authors of the proposal in front of Senate today. Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed merger of the departments of Anthropology and Sociology and Criminology was approved by voice vote with three abstentions. Proposal to propose (to OBOR) the creation of an Arabic Major OCAS: Arabic Major Proposal (undergraduate) (Report No. 79, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith presented the proposal to put to OBOR for the creation of an Arabic Major. Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC brings forward a proposal to propose to OBOR for the creation of an Arabic Major. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposal to propose to OBOR the creation of an Arabic major was approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Smith next introduced two Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College one Articulation Agreement with the Department of Health Sciences and one with the College of Business. He noted that these Articulation Agreements were designed to optimize transfer of students credits for students transferring from Tri-C to 91Ʒ. Proposal to add three Cuyahoga Community College programs (Diagnostic Medical Sonography with a concentration in General Sonography; Sport and Exercise Studies; Veterinary Technology) to an existing Articulation Agreement for the BSHS OCAS: HSC BSHS Tri-C 2+2 revision (undergraduate) (Report No. 80, 2014-2015) Proposal for an Articulation Agreement with Cuyahoga Community College for the College of Business OCAS: Tri-C Articulation College of Business (undergraduate) (Report No. 81, 2014-2015) Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC is bringing forward two Articulation proposals, one with the Department of Health Sciences and one with the College of Business both with Cuyahoga Community College. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Articulation Agreements with Cuyahoga Community College with the Department of Health Sciences and the College of Business were approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Smith next moved to the UCCs proposed program modifications for the Doctor of Engineering program, for the Master of Education in Health Professions Education program, for the Master of Public Health program, and for the Accounting undergraduate program. Proposal to modify the Doctor of Engineering program OCAS: Doctor of Engineering Excess 895 Credits (graduate) (Report No. 82, 2014-2015) Proposal to make various changes to the curriculum of the Master of Education in Health Professions Education OCAS: MEHPE proposed curriculum changes (graduate) (Report No. 83, 2014-2015) Proposal to substitute a required research methods course for an elective in the MPH program OCAS: HSC MPH New course + Program change (graduate) (Report No. 84, 2014-2015) Proposal to remove ACT 333 (Intermediate Accounting III) as a required course from the Accounting major and to substitute a 300- or 400-level business course OCAS: ACT 333 remove prerequisite (undergraduate) (Report No. 85, 2014-2015) Dr. Sridhar stated that the UCC is bringing forward four program modification proposals: one for the Doctor of Engineering program, one in the Master of Health Professions Education program, one in the Master of Public Health program, and finally, a change in the Accounting major in the Business College. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The four proposed program modifications for the Doctor of Engineering program, the Master of Health Professions Education program, the Master of Public Health program and the Accounting major in the Business College were approved unanimously by voice vote. For Information: Implementation of procedures; approved new or modified GenEd courses; and 4-3 Conversions: (Report No. 86, 2014-2015) Dr. Smith presented 13 informational items: Clarification that in GenEd 08, a student may not get capstone credit for a transfer course, and has never been able to do so. Automate the practice, currently functioning by petition, of permitting various GenEd 08 courses to satisfy requirements for similar GenEd 98 categories (other than WAC) Modify the syllabus guidance posted on the Faculty Senate website to include the correct statement concerning the Office of Disability Services that should appear on any syllabus that includes this information. Proposals reviewed by the UCC that were referred to the Admissions and Standards Committee, and that are on the Admissions and Standards part of the agenda: Proposal for 3+3 Articulation Agreement between the Law College and Lake Erie College that will permit certain Lake Erie College students to enroll in the Law College without bachelor's degrees, to complete the first-year law curriculum; and to earn bachelors degrees upon completing the first-year law curriculum. Proposal to modify the admission criteria for the Doctor of Engineering Program OCAS: Doctor of Engineering revisions admission requirements, flexible credits, and Nano biotechnology track (graduate) Raise the admission standards for the CS track of the MCIS program to be consistent with the admission standards of other Engineering College Masters programs (see A.1. above). Conditionally approved MLA 375/HIS 388/REL 475 on the Quran as GenEd (WAC) (This is a single course offered by three departments). (Approval conditional on completion of certain GenEd paperwork.) Conditionally approved ARB 475 as WAC (this is an Arabic version of the Quran course described in 5 above.) (Approval conditional on completion of certain GenEd paperwork.) OCAS: Modern Languages New Course ARB 475 WAC (undergraduate; GenEd) Approved three English courses as WAC ENG333, ENG 335, ENG 360 OCAS: ENG 333 for WAC addition (undergraduate); OCAS: ENG 335 for WAC additions (undergraduate); OCAS: ENG 360 for WAC additions (Undergraduate) Approved a Political Science course as WAC OCAS: PSC 327 WAC proposal (undergraduate) Approved BUS 201 as a Quantitative Literacy Intensive course for GenEd OCAS: BUS 201 Quantitative Literacy Course Request (undergraduate) Approved a Communications course as a course that will partially satisfy the Social Science breadth-of-knowledge requirement, with Critical Thinking and Information Literacy as emphasized skill areas OCAS: COM 227, Principles of Social Media resubmit (undergraduate; GenEd) Conditionally approved NUR 101 as an Introduction to University Life course for GenEd OCAS: NUR 101; Introduction to University Life: Pre-Nursing (Undergraduate) Conditionally approved NUR 301H as a WAC course for GenEd OCAS: NUR 310H WAC New course (undergraduate) Proposal A.1 above includes 4-3 conversions of courses for the IS track of the MCIS program Dr. Smith asked if there were any questions about any of the For Information items. Dr. Hoffman referred to point number 2 that is now permitting GenEd 08 to satisfy requirements for similar GenEd 98 because it says GenEd 08 on the Agenda. Dr. Smith noted that was a type-o on the Agenda. He added that apparently there are still a significant number of students who are operating under the previous GenEd. Faculty Senate received all of the For Information items. University Admissions and Standards Committee Dr. Jordan Yin, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, brought four items for the Senates consideration. Proposed 3+3 Articulation Agreement between 91Ʒ/College of Law and Lake Erie College (Report No. 87, 2014-2015) The first item is a proposed 3+3 Articulation Agreement between the College of Law and Lake Erie College. This proposal would permit the C-M College of Law to admit certain students with qualifications at Lake Erie College after their third year and admit them in essence as dual degree students during their senior year to complete their first year of law school then receive their Bachelors degree from their home institution and then continue on in the Law School program. This is in response to recent changes by the Ohio Bars report which have authorized for this kind of legal education. Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committees proposal is to create a 3+3 Articulation Agreement between the College of Law and Lake Erie College. Senator Orhan Talu asked, During that fourth year, what will be the status of the students here. Will they be graduate students or undergraduate students? Dr. Yin replied that they will be students in the College of Law. Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee has proposed a 3+3 Articulation Agreement between the College of Law and Lake Erie College. There being no further questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed 3+3 Agreement between Lake Erie College and C-M College of Law was approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Yin explained that Items B and D are proposed changes in admissions standards. Item B is a change in the Admissions Standards for the Doctor of Engineering Program having to do with some test scores English Language Competency and some other transfer issues. He noted that Items B and D are both related to UCC proposals and they also involve curricular changes. Item D is also an admissions requirement change. In the MCIS track reorganizations, there will be a different admission standard in the College of Engineering for their Computer Science program and this is sort of a triple affirmation from the College of Business that there will not be a change in their admission standards and that the relocated program to the College of Engineering would in fact maintain the College of Businesss current admission standards. Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee is bringing forth new admission standards for the Doctor of Engineering program having to do with test scores and for the MCIS program, particularly the Computer Science program moving to the College of Engineering. He called the vote. The Admissions and Standards Committees proposed change in Admission Standards for the Doctor of Engineering Program (Item B) and the Admission Requirements for the MCIS tracks in Information Systems, Computer Science program (Item D) were approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed change in Admissions Standards for Doctor of Engineering Program (Report No. 88, 2014-2015) Approved unanimously by voice vote (see above). Proposed changes to Academic reassessment Policy (Report No. 89, 2014-2015) Dr. Yin presented the committees fourth item, a proposal from the Registrar to amend the Academic Reassessment Policy. He noted that there are several elements of this proposal for significant changes. This is another that has possibly a large number of students and directly relates to important things like degree completion, retention and overall success and giving students a fair and balanced opportunity to complete their degrees. The first provision lowers the number of credit hours for re-enrollment from 16 to 15 and this is now divided by three which follows the 4 to 3 conversion. The second is to require that students seeking reassessment have to declare a major or a program, something that was not previously a requirement. The third proposal increases the op-out time from one to two calendar years or twenty-four months. He noted that there seems to be some indication that for the Registrar that extending the time period would be a good idea. There are many cases of students who are dismissed prior to their reassessment that engage in corrective course work at the community college level and one year doesnt really seem to be the right time to get them back on track if they decide to try to deal with some of their deficiencies. The fourth one is probably the most significant. It lifts the number of credit hours by the student and in terms of when they may apply for reassessment. Currently students cannot apply for reassessment until after they had completed ninety credit hours. This provision lifts that limit where a student with one hundred credit hours could not be reassessed. Again, in certain instances, students engaged in other credit seeking activities at community colleges come back and are over the limit, sometimes on purpose, sometimes inadvertently. So this basically lifts the limit of the number of credit hours that a student may have and still seek reassessment in that a student may only request that thirty hours of those possibly reassessed grades be included. Dr. Yin stated that these are the four most important elements of the proposal that tighten it up a little bit and expand the opportunity and we hope create a more fruitful return to the university for those seeking reassessment. Senator Robert Krebs inquired if the two-year limit is only for active reassessment or is that any time a student is dismissed from the university. Dr. Yin replied that that two-year clock would start whenever the student does not re-enroll for classes in a semester whether they are dismissed or simply chose not to come back. So assessment does not need to follow a dismissal or period of probation. Dr. Krebs asked, But they can come back in two years unless they skipped a semester. Dr. Yin stated that once they start not coming back, they are not for reassessment after they have stopped or opt out for two calendar years. President Berkman sked why students would not be eligible for reassessment if they just opt out for two calendar years. If there are certain times when a student would not be able to attend for a semester and then wanted to come back, this prohibits them from coming back. Dr. Yin replied that this does not prohibit them from returning to the university. Dr. Krebs stated this is about getting grades reassessed. Dr. Yin stated that the proposal was not about admissions. Dr. Yin stated that reassessment is a process whereby students who have a number of low grades including the students other transcript, at other schools is called Freshmen Forgiveness, or its called Fresh Start; we dont have a particular name in mind. Our Registrar simply calls it Academic Reassessment. The proposal will allow students to go through a process where D and F Grades are functionally removed from a students record, but in certain cases, they remain on a students transcript. The benefit of this is that it puts students in an academic position in terms of their grade point to continue to admission from pre-majors to majors and to continue on towards graduation. It does require that in some cases it may be remitted to the university on whether they are progressing after a period when they stopped on their own volition, and they still have to meet all of our graduation requirements. He noted that in some cases, we have students who have earned Ds in classes in the early 80s, and left and went into the work force, raised children, who are now coming back and want to finish degrees and meet all of our graduation standards except for the decision made years earlier to properly raise their child. That is one of the functions this policy serves and our policy is perhaps of comparative information and it will be two appended pages and perhaps a little more generous than our fellow Ohio institutions but we have a different student body. There being no further questions, Dr. Sridhar stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee is bringing forth a new revised Academic Reassessment Policy and asked Senators to vote. The proposed changes to the Academic Reassessment Policy were approved unanimously by voice vote. Requirements for restructuring of Computer Science Programs (MCIS tracks in Information Systems and Technology [Business], and Computer Science [Engineering]) (Report No. 90, 2014-2015) Approved unanimously by voice vote (see above). University Faculty Affairs Committee Dr. Jeff Karem, chair, University Faculty Affairs Committee, reported that his goal was to have a set of presentations that do not involve student evaluations but he will say thank you to all the various parts of the university that worked with UFAC this year SGA, Institutional Research, the Provosts Office, IS&T. He added that it takes a village to redo the student evaluation process and we are well on our way. But, no year of UFAC would be complete without some Bylaws changes. He said he is sure that next years UFAC will have some more as well. He stated that UFAC does have three action items here today. Proposed Bylaws Revisions to Clarify the Voting Rights of College Lecturers (Report No. 91, 2014-2015) Dr. Karem noted that the first item comes out of a series of inquiries UFAC received this year about participation rights of College Lecturers and various aspects of faculty governance. Dr. Karem gave a brief history. He noted that in the last round of Greenbook revisions, we changed definitions of college faculty to include all full-time contingent faculty, not just tenure-track, but lecturers, political writing faculty, legal faculty, etc., and it was UFACs assumption at the time that this covered rights sufficiently in the Greenbook. As it turns out there were a few places where there was specific language that specified only tenure-track faculty. Actually, a number of administrators and faculty were surprised by this and it was simply because there was a footnote and probably we should have deleted the footnote. Dr. Karem reported that the first set of Bylaws changes specifies the Appointment and the Review of Chairs and Deans. The faculty were eligible to participate in that process. For all faculty, we are defined as college faculty under the Faculty Senate Bylaws. So, if you are part of your college faculty as a tenure-track faculty member, as a lecturer, or any other such designation visitors are excluded, emeritus are excluded those people are not full time faculty. So this clarifies a full range. Dr. Karem stated that the second Bylaws change relates to the same Item A. This revision to our Bylaws will clarify that when we say college lecturers, college associate lecturers, all this described category of faculty ranging from tenure-track to other contingent full-time faculty, UFAC defined them as members of college faculty in our last Bylaws revisions which means that one of the things for example relates to service on the University Admissions and Standards Committee. It has come to UFACs attention that there have been conflicting or confused interpretations about how those governance rights then trickle down to other layers in the university. Most college Bylaws specify that lecturers participate in college governance, etc. which is part of the AAUP Contract. UFAC thought it would make sense to simply clarify that if we feel that people can participate in the university level of governance, and you can chair the University Admissions and Standards Committee, that those governance rights should extend down to every level so we cascade from the top down because otherwise we have the strange situation where you would chair a university committee but maybe you couldnt vote on whether to change the name of a course in your department. Technically, that could be possible under some interpretations of the Bylaws so UFAC is proposing this just to clarify those governance rights. Dr. Karem noted that those two things packaged together are the Bylaws revisions. He asked if there were any questions. Dr. Hoffman commented that one concern she has about the way the proposed revisions are worded is that in the language of our new contract a lot of these categories have had to have union protection. They are not bargaining unit members and until they become bargaining unit members, they are in rather vulnerable positions with respect to their contracts that expose them to risks that most of us in the bargaining unit do not have. If we are going to make all categories of full-time faculty participants in faculty governance, should we not also offer them status within the department unit? Dr. Karem responded that UFAC isnt in a position to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement. He would say that from the AAUP standpoint, we would love to have people in the bargaining unit earlier but that is not what we negotiated. Regarding the issue of protection of vulnerability, UFAC discussed this extensively and he will try to summarize UFACs discussion briefly here. The fact is that most of these processes in particular say chairs and deans vote and at least these are anonymous so your vulnerability is covered in that respect so that ensures protection. He noted that he tends to get worried when people say we are protecting them by not having them vote. He knows that is not the intention of what Dr. Hoffman is saying, but he does think that being able to vote and participate is the best guarantee of protection. The fact is that someones status as a tenured faculty member doesnt guarantee a good citizenship either. So, we just sort of have to trust that more participation is going to be better for the university and if there are issues of individual problems, then the next chair of UFAC can handle them. He noted that he was told that his contract wont be renewed if he doesnt vote for the chair but it is anonymous and you need to send it to me so we can deal with that if that happens. Dr. Hoffman commented that a lot of votes are not anonymous and it is entirely possible and in fact has occurred that a lot of lecturers have been subjected to enormous pressure from administrators to help certain decisions get made in the ways the administrators hope that they get made. Dr. Karem replied that depending on what academic unit you are in. There are tenure-track faculty members who move forward in different ways. He added that his chair said that if he didnt do X, Y would happen so if we come to that, a current event could happen regardless of how you create your Bylaws. The solution is for people to come forward that feel that that has happened. Dr. Krebs commented that the simple goal here is to be one faculty that have a career here and the expectation for them would be fully participating in the department. So we cant be telling them that they cant participate but then judge them on participation. In a way, though they are not bargaining unit members, there has been no evidence that there has been any more problems with college lecturers than there are with any assistant professors who also are not guaranteed a lifetime job. Dr. Ekelman said she would also suggest that departments maybe look at their voting procedures and encourage paper ballots in very sensitive issues. She added that it is never a perfect system but that does help. There were no further questions Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is proposing Bylaws changes with two separate revisions both having to do with voting rights of college lecturers, essentially expanding rights to all kinds of faculty. He then called the vote. The proposed Bylaws revisions to clarify the voting rights of college lecturers was approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed Absentee Policy for Faculty Senators (Report No. 92, 2014-2015) Dr. Karem moved to the second Bylaws change which came as a request from the Academic Steering Committee. He stated that there have occasionally been issues with attendance by Senators. He stated that we did not individually know this but when Violet Lunder checks with Senate officers or with him and with other people and asks if a certain person is here and he hasnt seen that person, etc., there has been a need for an attendance policy. UFAC proposed something fairly mild but formative for college faculty caucuses. Even if a member provides a twenty-four hour notice for not attending a Senate meeting he/she will be considered to have an unexcused absence which will be reported by the Faculty Senate Secretary. If a member accumulates two unexcused absences during an academic year, the Faculty Senate Secretary will inform the caucus of the college representatives on Senate. At that point, if the caucus says we would like to be represented by an absentee, that actually seems to represent our feeling in faculty governance, we are not going to impose anything. But, this would then allow them to make use of the replacement procedures under 3344-13-02 (B)(4) of this existing language to replace a senator if somebody is for example on leave of absence. UFAC is opening that up so college caucuses can make use of that if they have Senators who are absent from meetings. Dr. Karem went on to say that he knows that this is not a glamorous thing but faculty governance wont survive if faculty wont participate. Senator Eileen Berlin Ray reported that her college had somebody today who had an emergency root canal and did not give twenty-four hour notice. Or, there is a crisis that doesnt have the twenty-four hour notice. She asked if this is going to be an unexcused absence. Dr. Karem replied that under this policy, he supposes, but the faculty member could just then let his/her caucus know of the absence if the college is concerned Here is why my absence occurred. Dr. Karem noted that the point is to have a flow of information. There is no concrete action triggered on behalf of the Senate. It is simply that the caucus is notified and that will make sure that people are aware of Senators not attending. Dr. Marino commented that he doesnt think, in the case Dr. Berlin Ray mentioned, that there is any nature of extreme value. Dr. Berlin Ray noted that things happen. Dr. Sridhar said that again, in the case that was mentioned, the faculty member did let him (Dr. Sridhar) know that he wouldnt be at Senate. But, the proposed policy at least gives them an option. Senator Norbert Delatte noted that there are some cases in some caucuses where over the course of two years, a faculty member had attended zero or one or two meetings over that period of time and that is what UFAC is trying to address. There being no further discussion, Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is recommending an Attendance Policy for Faculty Senators and called for the vote. The UFACs proposed Faculty Senate Attendance policy was approved unanimously by voice vote. Proposed Graduate College Bylaws Revisions (Report No. 93, 2014-2015) Dr. Karem stated that the last item of UFAC is proposed Graduate College Bylaws revisions. He reported that these have already been approved by the Graduate Council and by Graduate College faculty. This gets back to some of the pro forma in cases they simply discovered that there was something deeply wrong with the Bylaws but in this case there is not. He noted that these are essentially updates to policies and procedures related to graduate faculty status and basically puts into the Bylaws these different standards that were already approved previously. Dr. Karem noted that we have experts from the Graduate College present at Senate today to respond to any questions. Dr. Hoffman noted that on the ballot for evaluating these Bylaws there was no provision for asking questions about the need of any of them so she will propose a question here. She referred to Article 8.4.2 B) Level I and Level II. For membership levels, it stipulates, externally-recognized publication or creative activity appropriate to discipline is only for disciplines in which peer-reviewed journal articles and peer-reviewed books are not a widely accepted form of scholarship. She asked what about those disciplines where all of those things are a widely accepted form of scholarship? But, so are films, photographs, photographic essays and other items like that. She said she is afraid that this wording excludes some disciplines that have media publication; digital humanities is another one. Dr. Karem responded that he would gladly defer to those in the Graduate School. Dr. Marino responded that the idea he believes was again, in that case, Graduate Council would go for portfolio as appropriate. He noted that in his department (English) someone coming in with a digital humanities project we hope would have working and traditional venues handy in digital humanities. He added that the real issue here was to make it possible for those disciplines where peer review doesnt happen at all. There are no peer review poetry journals worth a dam and any poets who are only submitting to peer review journals, well they are going to add that thing for their career. However we didnt want to create loopholes that people could use to obviate any requirement for peer review consumption. Dr. Hoffman suggested that they alter the wording to make it clear that in those disciplines where multi-media publications are as respected as their review publications, those members will qualify. Dr. Sridhar pointed out that there was a meeting of the graduate faculty where this was presented and the e-vote was essentially following that meeting so there was in fact and opportunity to voice concerns. This has been voted on by the entire graduate faculty and has been approved by Vice Provost Bill Morgan and other people. He noted that he doesnt have the numbers but he doesnt think that there is an opportunity now to make a change to this document. He stated that if Dr. Hoffman wanted to make a change, it has to be proposed to Graduate Council and has to go through the review process again. There was a Graduate faculty meeting where this was presented. Dr. Hoffman asked why is Faculty Senate being asked to vote on Graduate Faculty Bylaws revisions? Dr. Sridhar replied that just like any college has Bylaws and any college, when they change Bylaws, it is reviewed by UFAC and then brought to Senate. So, if there are changes that need to be proposed, they need to go back to the college and be changed there. This is not a change that UFAC can make for the college Bylaws. If there is a change that needs to get registered, then it has to be referred back to the college and then has to come back to UFAC. Dr. Hoffman asked how that is done? Dr. Karem stated for example, if the Graduate Council unanimously voted to say that only faculty members from Pittsburgh were eligible for Graduate Faculty status, if you come to UFAC, we probably would send it back. To speak a little more broadly to the concern here, those folks that have more experience with Graduate faculty status can speak to this. His understanding is that if we have a basis to present a portfolio or an opportunity for appeal, there are ways in which you can make your case for exception. Senator Nicholas Zingale stated that as he understands the question, it is an argument being made on a vote that this body is to vote on and those that might feel as though the wording is incorrect are free to vote no. If there is a majority that vote no on it, we kick it back and we would go back into the process. He went on to say that if the majority voted yes but it needed to be amended and something needed to be changed on it then there is a process for that as well. For him, going back into Graduate Council with a difficult proposal and Graduate Council would be looking it, but with that, Dr. Hoffman raised a important issue and something that should be thought of. There being no further discussion, Dr. Sridhar noted that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is bringing forward changes to the Bylaws of the Graduate College and asked Senators to vote. The University Faculty Affairs Committees proposed revisions to the Graduate Faculty Bylaws were approved with one nay. Dr. Sridhar stated that we have Annual Reports from various committees He hoped that everyone had a chance to review these reports. He asked iIf anyone would like to ask questions. Annual Reports Admissions and Standards Committee (Report No. 94, 2014-2015) Student Life Committee (Report No. 95, 2014-2015) Committee on Athletics (Report No. 96, 2014-2015) Minority Affairs Committee (Report No. 97, 2014-2015) Library Committee (Report No. 98, 2014-2015) Academic Technology Committee (Report No. 99, 2014-2015) University Petitions Committee (Report No. 100, 2014-2015) Electronic Learning Committee (Report No. 101, 2014-2015) Ad Hoc Committee on Student Success (Report No. 102, 2014-2015) There being no questions Faculty Senate received all of the Annual Reports. New Business Senate President Sridhar thanked everyone for their service on Faculty Senate. Dr. Sridhar then asked if there was any new business. There being no additional business Dr. Sridhar adjourned the meeting at 4:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debbie K. Jackson Faculty Senate Secretary /vel Edited by: William Becker, University Archivist     PAGE  PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE MEETING PAGE OF THE FACULTY SENATE MAY 6, 2015 4?@AJKWY\^gqz    " ) L M S U X Y [ \ g h t { }   ȼȼȸ̴h9;uhhghoh#h_Ch?h[2h0|hH hUG5 h?5 h5 h:m15 h\\r5 hI5 h{5G34@AB   P i j `^``gd#^gd# `^``gd[2^gd[2 `^``gdhu$a$gd   2 O P h i j k   $ % 2 3 = S T U V X z { ~  & ' ( ½h3h|86hLhy#hHrh|8hc&*hCl hL5 h#5hUGh8h&l=h?lhgh0|h_Ch8h[2hoh#h9;uh?h h58 % * U W X ' ( NO`gd|8^gdL & F^`gdL`gdArtgd^gd#zcVWwx&'(R^`bCD7>aS ¾~zzh 4hhuh(h5~e hL5 h *Eh *Eh *Eh3 h#5 hUG5 h|8h|8 h|8hHrhClhHrh3hHr6h3h@Nn6h3h6h3hI6h3hu6 h36h3h|86h3hT/60'(_`() ^`gd5~egdL^gd *E`gd *EgdUG & F^`gdUG`gd|8S Y !!!!!"*"6"A"L"`"e"""""""#7#<#t####B$C$D$M$O$ %0%%&!&;&M&&&&&&&&'*'\'w'''''(-(d({((([))))***ҿƿֲh@>]h h>*h hh hh *E h *E>*h *E hL5 h#5h1Rhh{-h(hh5~eh 4h3D !!C$D$N$O$ % %0%h%%% &!&M&n&&&&&&'';' ^`gd *EgdL & F^`gd ^`gd5~e;'['\'y'''''((@(c(d((((())A)Z)[)))**`gd gdL & F^`gdLgdL*++_+++,, ,=,H,^,,,,,,,-w....../"/H/L/j/r/s/x////// 1 1`1d1w2222222233.4O4444444444566677<7F78=899h2) h;hD:h_ hx(Zh^Kh(hA6hAh&BhPhh(h1Rhh3h@>]J*, ,//44=8N=O=IIFPGPUU]]]]^^YfZf`gd7rgdL & F^`gdLgdP`gdP`gd 9::Y:;;>;;; <<E<<=M=N=O=a=u========= >>G>P>V>j>m>v>{>~>j?HANAyAAAAAAAAB}BBBBBBB#C>CUCtCCCCCBDFD6E7EMEQEEEEEFFGFhFqFFFfGhJ?h&Bhxhh%[h'ThGrh^Kh_ hAhPhDefh2) h;OfGGHHIOISIIIIIIIYKbKLLbMfMN/N0N4NiNNNEPFPPPPQSSSTTTTUU=V^VHWhWWW1XQXwXXXX2Y3Y7Y9Y`YZZZZZZZ[[[[>[P[][ؼ༸̸h>dh}8hmuhxhdhTJ6hdhJ?hTJ6hTJh*h\hKhJ?h%[h&Bh{-hh_ G][a[o[[[[[[[\\]]]]]n^^O_T_q__``h`i`$a?aYaaaaaabubbbbbDcZclccccEdOdWdddddddddde=e^eeeXfYfUggghhhhhi־hzhfgh1hoDhE 2h:v5h' h7r hL5 h#5hKhdh)h}8hmuh>dIZfhh9o:orrrrvv}w~wwwwwyy{{}}gdUGgdUGgdL & F^`gdL`gd `gd7riiiiiiuiiiiiiiijjj&jFjjj8k9k;kdhfgh{-h' hzh NtuuvvvWvwvv|w}w~wwwwwwwwwwwwyyyyy1z2zzz{.{e{n{{{}}[}{}}}5~6~xˁ́hkĺIJĪĢĚĪĚĪh hc&*5hNNsh)6hNNshUt6hNNsh6hNNsh6hNNsh6H*hNNsh6hUGhh h5 hUG5 hL5 h#5h)hUthLhNNshC934‡Çȉ ]݊& & Fgd@Nn & Fgd@Nn^gd@Nn`gd%K5gd)gdNNsgdUG234;<t:‡ȉ׉&Frdn\]^&);<ɑػϷϳئؙh)) h(N}5h.#h@Nn5 h.#5h ~hH hK#h(N}h@Nnh@Nn5 h ~5 h%K5h%K5h%K5 h%K55 h@Nn5 h)h)h)hUthNNs h)5 hA5 h#5:]^`aYZ()֧ק¨è `gd(N}gd(N} & Fgd.#ɑϑґin 5_aޔ^f|}ܕ.4:Xy{ʗ$%&15$[w9>]^ٜ͜ .ޝ̟kmh hQhehh.6h&BhTLh1hrhClhl$hNNsh h ~h))h(N}L%9UWͥΥ ORԧէ֧y{ )hjptܭݭî%3Kԯ w{ӰKUWʳ˳@`S|Ƽ h5 h{Y 5 h.#5h;h^) h@Nn5hham&h1hL,h.h ~h]FhhQh H pqKLӯԯ)*;<˳̳;`gd;gdgd.# ^`gdgd@Nn & Fgd@Nngd@Nn`gd(N};<BCϷз>?,-#$QSҽӽ}~^gdS^gdS & Fgd.# ^`gdS ^`gd>N & Fgd@Nngd.#`gd;|AB-v`aӻ$.QRSҽӽ}~QRz}~-.]^qr0optvwxŻŻԫ h#5 hSh9h9 h5 h{-5 h5 h;,5 hS5 hShS h;5hSh^)h>N h.#5 hh;h;h(`A~QR+pg;3A:;wx & F^`gdc&*`gd9^gdS & Fgd & Fgd.#gdS & Fgd.#noHI,-gd;,^gdRFgdcY`gdcY8^8gd;,`gdS & Fgd;,gd#gdS/2)+/oBFlNmEdos!(+2XwHIȽȹ̹ԹԹ̹̹̹ hcYhcYhRFhM} hSh?hcYhx;h?hCC h5 h;,5 h#5 hShShy+hClhS hS5F-0\^}%>?KP "QTU !G+,<?'o&*5¾¾hAUhAvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$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}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] '  S *9fG][itɑ|5Zln* //  ;'*Zf ;~-%+ // !!!8@0(  B S  ?!!##&& ' ' '''''''''mq=0>0@@RSoq&4bc!! ' ' '''''''''3333333333333&&}}}}xx44VX!!""""""##?#A#C#C#G%`%:&D&}&}&~&~&&&&&&' ' ' ' ''' '+','''''&&}}}}xx44VX!!""""""##?#A#C#C#G%`%:&D&}&}&~&~&&&&&&' ' ' ' ' '''''''|''''''VI f*[<Ajk`<@KXr,k Yh55! Veg_!Q-!L%|YS) B!/$PuUJ0W( vn0n*+oZhp }Tz!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.^`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.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.^`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(hH 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(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.hp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHhP^P`OJQJo(hHh ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH8^8`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.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.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.8^8`5o(. ^`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.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.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.vnp2JhPB!/YS)xN/F/`/]0h011B1:m1E 2[2ar3M.4p4f405%K5:v5.67J78}89r9;x;<!<F^=&l= >M]>xA@Cf=C2D *EzEE"FvRF]F4H9CH(IANUAUaUAV;iVW"WXYY5PYoYx(Z%[JD[\^Y\:]@>]R]0^2H^ko^ _`(`|`MagaVb~c&d>dwXdpfdqe5~eDefggf"g:g%Igs]ghAh~i'j BjFjykCl@NntozoJpJppgqiqGr\\rsNNs.tUtArt9;uCumup_p_?l.|8 Jr^rbNYnq;I9y?VD^z;q/\dq3 XHk+T]@gjSWg 238`A(CC!w 0s:betHrl!\q&_lf `0Gow}K'+28\K~BQDly#%n],LmcH \13;I#s~Z"EZu ]\S(]-v9v8%Qu(a%Q/N4+'?7 E;!)a?Hr)):V8CwdkaUGz: 3DFU./X>(91?u)\~}).DI]PZu5vhMde.hvsyRFcY1J7])lhwGz\:_uV)_4mdt c \J?PhS+iOW?GYG.T#mj?#k)^KDFP ~<@wQ3\]8b^e$ ilQ1n_CQc|$k&&=7FO$#u oD ' '@'p@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial9. ")Segoe UI?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1hYYY,,!4s&s&2QHP ?2!xx MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTViolet E Lunder                        Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTNormalViolet E Lunder3Microsoft Office Word@F#@4)9@z̐9@z̐9,՜.+,0 hp  91Ʒs& MINUTES OF THE MEETING Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~   Root Entry Fpѐ9@1TablesWordDocument 7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore0Pѐ93ѐ92E2ZXWPNEEJ==20Pѐ93ѐ9Item PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q