ࡱ>    c =bjbjzz 7~]\~]\ 5        8X| 2`"}}}_______adz_ }}}}}_  _}  _}_9QVc9 S4_`02`=SpeehVe V }}}}}}}__}}}2`}}}}e}}}}}}}}}> :  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 PRESENT: Berlin Ray, Bleeke, W. Bowen, Corrigan, Deering, Delatte, Delgado, Duffy, Ekelman, Engelking, Fodor, V. Gallagher, Genovese, M. Gibson, Hampton, Henry, Holland, Holtzblatt, D. Jackson, J. Jenkins, Krebs, Lazarus, Little, Lupton, Marino, C. C. May, Nawalaniec, Niederriter, B. Ray, Resnick, Robichaud, A. Smith, Sonstegard, Sridhar, Xu, Zhao, H. Zhou, Zingale. J. Bennett, R. Berkman, Chesko, Halasah, Khawam, McHenry, Sadlek, Yarbrough, J. Zhu ABSENT: Boboc, Inniss, S. Kaufman, Mazumder, K. ONeill, Rashidi, Shukla, Visocky-OGrady, W. Wang. All, Boise, Bond, Gleeson, Grech, Karlsson, LeVine, Lehfeldt, V. Lock, Novy, Parry, Ramos, R. Reed, Rushton, Sawicki, Schultheiss, Spademan, G. Thornton, B. White, Zachariah. ALSO PRESENT: Kothapalli. Senate President Nigamanth Sridhar called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M. Approval of the Agenda for the Meeting of February 10, 2016 The Agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote. Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of May 7, 2014 and April 1, 2015 The Minutes of the meetings of May 7, 2014 and April 1, 2015 were approved unanimously by voice vote. . Report of the Faculty Senate President Dr. Sridhar reported that we now have an up to date website for the Faculty Senate. Dr. Sridhar stated that there were a few items he wished to talk about. The first has to do with our GenEd curriculum. Dr. Barbara Margolius has been working on getting ready for GenEd assessment. She has been collecting syllabi from across the campus. Those who have been teaching GenEd courses have been supplying items for her. He noted that as far as looking at all of that and also as part of the 2020 project on GenEd, there is now a new ad hoc committee that has been established. Two weeks ago, the Steering Committee set up a new ad hoc committee to look at our GenEd offerings, getting ready for assessment, and also sort of going back and looking at the 2008 report on GenEd seeing if there are things that we need to address. Dr. Sridhar acknowledged and thanked the members and noted that actually, the committee is still being formed. There are still a couple of spaces left. Dr. Margolius has been actively soliciting faculty to participate in this committee and we should have a full roster pretty soon. He noted that at some point in the next couple of Senate meetings we will have a more substantive report. Dr. Sridhar commented that we have just gone through one semester of using this new system for student evaluation of instruction, the Blue system. We were able to get fifty percent of our students to respond to the SEI instrument. He added that we are still working on that process. In fact, later in this meeting, UFAC is bringing to us some language for sharing data that we received this year. Dr. Sridhar turned to Rhodes Tower. He has spoken with both the Director of Facilities and the chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Space about Rhodes Tower. With the kinds of things happening in the building, there are several issues not the least of which are students trying to use the elevators to meet with faculty for required appointments especially for English and math classes. The Facilities Director has assured him that they are working around the clock getting things fixed. He reported that as of the latest update, there are four elevators working in the building, three in the main well and one inside the Library. But there of course several maintenance needs there. The two items that the Facilities Director pointed out to him were that first of all, we need better elevators. The second is that because of the fact that the building has not been asbestos abated, our facilities crew cant really get in and do maintenance tasks even if they are technically capable of doing that. Dr. Sridhar said that he is just bringing this issue to everybodys notice and that the Senate Committee on Academic Space will look at this issue in more detail and perhaps bring this issue to Senate later. Dr. Sridhar stated that another big challenge has been MagnusMart. He reported that there were long conversations about MagnusMart at both Steering and Provosts Council discussing the various things that have gone wrong with MagnusMart. In spite of efforts to test the system before releasing it, the testing was clearly not adequate enough and there are scenarios we have encountered that fall outside of the testing situations. The Steering Committee recommended that he speak with the Controller and he did. He reported that we now have a temporary fix. The temporary fix was communicated campus-wide that we try to use MagnusMart for every single purchase and, if there is trouble, then we will use the old paper forms to actually get our stuff through. He is hoping that as we are doing that we treat this as our testing phase and actually get MagnusMart implemented right. Dr. Sridhar also had a conversation with one of the people in his Deans Office and she said that when using the online system, when it works, you get through the system fairly quickly except that the usability of the system is the corner case at this point. Hopefully, it will get resolved and we will be able to actually begin using it in full. Dr. Sridhar reported that another item was a memo sent to all the department chairs just before the beginning of the semester concerning minimum class size caps for various kinds of classes that are GenEd classes. The memo was sent to department chairs for the spring semester. He discussed this with the Provosts Office and now it has been referred back to the Admissions and Standards Committee for Faculty Senate to review it to ensure that there is governance participation. He noted that there are good points to be looked at but there are also concerns that Faculty Senate should address and we will do that this semester. Dr. Sridhar said that he wanted to end with a quick report on the Path to 2020 Program. He noted that eighteen projects are all underway and progressing. There are faculty representatives on all of these projects. Throughout this semester we will have reports to Senate from individual projects. Today, we will have Senator Brian Ray talking about the Administrative and Institutional Support Processes project which is one that he knows that all faculty are eagerly awaiting to see the results. The 2020 team has drawn up a calendar for when each of these projects is to actually report to either the Presidents Cabinet or to the Executive Committee. Some of these will make it into the FY17 budget, some of them will pass that and go into the summer. When it is appropriate for the proper governance committees to see these things, we will see them. University Faculty Affairs Committee SEI Policy Changes/Updates (Report No. 23, 2015-2016) Senator Allyson Robichaud, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, stated that she has two items from the committee with respect to the SEI. She will start with the policy revisions and then will move on to talk about the data sharing. She referred to the section where people have campus access to the SEI data. She noted that in part b) under the heading, Campus Access to SEI Data, a very small correction was made they removed Information Services and Technology because it is really Institutional Research that looks after this data and then Tom Geaghan, of Vice Provost Teresa LaGranges Office, Academic Planning, interfaces with IS&T. Dr. Robichaud stated that the second item, under the heading of Inclusions and Exclusions for SEI Data Collection, is slightly more substantive. There is an added provision that allows there to be a way in which things that cannot currently be evaluated using Blue will be able to be evaluated and the language UFAC put in was: Where Blue cannot perform evaluations for a particular academic activity due to current technical limitations, an alternative method will be used in a manner appropriate to that activity as determined by the units Deans office and the College/School Faculty Affairs Committee. The goal is for Blue to ultimately be able to capture all evaluation data. Dr. Robichaud stated that there are various problems that people have noted with certain academic activities where it has been impossible to capture and yet they want them evaluated and so we are trying to figure out how that would be worked out and this gives the possibility and policy of that happening. Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is bringing forward two changes to the policy governing access to the SEI data as well as inclusions and exclusions for SEI data collection. He then asked if there were any questions. Senator Norbert Delatte stated that this isnt actually in the change category. He noted that he is looking at the last item 2) at the bottom of the second page where it says, combined or cross listed courses are supposed to be aggregated. He reported that that didnt happen last semester. The impact is if you have a class that has a relatively small enrollment and it is split up between undergraduates and graduates and a student may be cross-enrolled in a capstone, you dont get any data at all or there are so few being reported that you could actually kind of almost tease out whose individual response it is. So, unless those start being aggregated, that is not meaningful. He realizes that this is not part of the resolution but that item 2 says that this is supposed to be happening. Dr. Robichaud asked Dr. Delatte if he could put that in an email and send it to Vice Provost LaGranges office and see if there can be some resolution through that office. She added that this sounds like it is a technical problem, not a policy problem. Dr. Delatte stated that what is happening is that Blue is generated by what sections students are enrolled in, but we need to begin this process. Dr. Robichaud responded that UFAC recognizes that there are a lot of problems like that but until they are identified to Vice Provost LaGranges office, they cant be solved. She added that it may be that Dr. Delattes classes will be one of these situations that falls under some kind of alternative way of gathering evaluation data at this point. Senator Petru Fodor commented that on point 2) where it says, A course enrolling fewer than 5 students will be excluded from reports that actually students who are enrolled in courses that are less than five students are still prompted to report on the course even if that data is not shared with them. Dr. Robichaud stated that currently, all of the data that can be collected is being collected in Blue but for reasons that Dr. Delatte was just raising of anonymity fewer than five are now being reported back. Professor Fodor said that is what we want but it shouldnt be collected in the first place. Dr. Robichaud noted that this is another problem probably with a system that would need to be worked out. Dr. Delatte pulled up his report on his laptop to make sure. He noted that they actually are being reported even to the department chair if they are below five and he is looking at one section that had one respondent but he is still getting percentages to each question which are one hundred percent. So it looks like that is not happening either. Vice Provost Teresa LaGrange commented that it is not the number of respondents that determines whether the report will be generated or not; it is the number of students enrolled. Professor Fodor remarked that it does happen that the report does not report what the department chair would see; the faculty department chair that teaches that class would have access to that data. Dr. Sridhar stated that again, these kinds of issues are technical issues and we have just gone through a pretty massive roll-out across campus and it is a good idea for us to document these things and send them on to Vice Provost LaGranges office and make sure that those are actually acted upon before next semesters data collection. There being no further questions, Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee has proposed changes to the SEI Policy concerning campus access to SEI data and called for the vote. The proposed SEI Policy changes concerning access to SEI data were approved unanimously by voice vote. Dr. Robichaud stated that with respect to data sharing, the sheet that everyone received is an example of the data that can be collected. It is not in the format that the data will appear. We are committed to sharing data and the policy says that we are going to do this. She would like people to keep in mind that this is a process and we will be making improvements. This is a first step toward sharing the data with the university community and the University Faculty Affairs Committee is recommending that we start by sharing the data that is associated with the two overall questions that have a possibility of five different responses and just to remind everyone that since it is not as clear as it could be on the sheet that everyone received, the overall questions are, What is your overall evaluation of this instructor? and secondly, What is your overall evaluation of the course? There are actually points that the students can work with. When UFAC looked at the possibility of sharing these data points, the first thought was perhaps only the means but then UFAC recognized that they wanted to be very clear for people to be able to understand how many students were enrolled in the class and people can see that in the far left, Invited Count, how many actually responded and submitted an evaluation, Respondent Count, and then if you like the Response Ratio, what percentage of your class actually completed the evaluations. Furthermore, UFAC also wanted what everyone should see over on the right hand side which is, how many students actually rated an individual instructor as excellent and their overall evaluation is excellent or below average or whatever so that the numbers would be broken out with respect to how many folks did that. While this is not the way that it will look, UFAC will be going forward and present a couple of ways in which the data could look, and this will be the data that will be shared. She added that this is the recommendation of UFAC that this will be the data that will be shared. Dr. Robichaud stated that UFACs rationale for going with this to start out with, at least is that first, it is not going to overwhelm anybody with reams and reams of data. It should be fairly straight forward for students particularly who are interested in using it. When Student Government was spoken with, they seemed pleased with getting these data for now. Dr. Robichaud pointed out that the Law College has always shared all of its student evaluation data in the library and, so far as she knows, there have been no incidents where things went awry and crazy stuff happened. UFAC recognizes too, for now, that the means are not liable because we dont have enough data so that is another reason for sort of keeping the sharing small as we start out. Dr. Robichaud stated that this data has the five points: Excellent; Above Average; Average; Below Average; Poor; whereas the other data is a four point scale so this also sort of helps to keep it simple. She noted that Vice Provost LaGranges Office wasnt able to discover anybody else in Ohio sharing data so that we will be pioneers among the state universities. She stated that the other thing she would point out along with this is that the data will be posted on the Institutional Research website and there will be some kind of link from CampusNet for students to be able to flip over. But, the data will be secured, they will have to use their student ID and password in order to get in and everyone will see on the back of the sheet with the data the statement which comes right out of the policy for SEI that UFAC thought would be important to actually have at the access point for students and anybody else looking at the data administration, faculty, Board of Trustees members, whomever, about the role of the SEI data with respect to competence, or excellence in teaching, and noting that it is one of the constellation of the materials and not the sole piece of the materials especially since this question format is fairly new, Blue is fairly new, and so we are going to have to build up some data as we go forward. Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is bringing forward a proposal and a recommendation for what data is to be shared, not necessarily the format in which it will be shared, and in particular, the two questions, one asking about excellence of the instructor and the excellence of the course. He then asked if there were any questions. President Ronald Berkman commented that there is a question about why you would ask students to answer eleven questions on the overall evaluation but you would only give students access to looking at two of the responses. He stated that he doesnt understand how you would explain to students that we have asked them to complete the evaluation and they want to see more about the nature of a particular course, what kind of materials are assigned, was there a project and whatever it may be, but they would not have the opportunity to do that. He said that he was just curious what the rationale is. We are saying, answer all of these questions. This is a complete and positive evaluation of how you feel about the course but you can only look at two questions. Senator Robert Krebs inquired if there is just a technical difficulty in just putting all of the data up. Dr. Robichaud responded that she believes that it could all open up. Vice Provost LaGrange commented regarding posting the entire questionnaire responses said that one of the concerns that came up when this was discussed with UFAC was that there were two different scales in the two question sets and the overall ones were at five and the remainder of the questions are on the four point scale. She noted that there was concern that this might be somewhat confusing. If people wish to revisit it however UFAC is certainly able to go back and revisit it. Dr. Sridhar stated that the idea is eventually to get to a point where we can responsibly share all of the data. It is just a matter of how we are doing this starting now and we are just starting with this. He added that he doesnt think this is the end. We will work on how it can be done. Senator Beth Ekelman commented that she is on UFAC and that was one of their concerns we are the first in the State of Ohio to do this type of data-sharing. UFAC was not comfortable with sharing all of the data right away; we thought this was a start. And as Dr. Robichaud mentioned, this is a process and we can always add if faculty decide to do that but right now two different scales was a really big issue and if youve look at all of the data, the way it was presented to us we had samples of what students would see with all of the data or would they see only these two questions? It was data overload and I think it just was too much and I think if they are going and really looking at class by class instructors, they are going to have too much data and they may misinterpret it so we thought we would start out on the cautious side. SGA President Emily Halasah commented that actually Case Western Reserve University shares all of their data and they do summarize it and they do share the entire data-sets. Dr. Ekelman stated that in cases of private institutions, there are no other public institutions in the State of Ohio that share data. President Berkman noted that the Law School has for years shared all of the data, all of the questions to all of the students in the Law School without ramifications. He does feel that again, there is going to be an issue. The Board of Trustees is very sensitive about this issue. And, he personally doesnt know how to answer the question. Why would you only allow students to see two responses of the thirteen questions? Now, one of the things I thought was suggested is that you could have some summary that you could initially show the student but if the student wanted to see an entire evaluation set for that class that they ought to have the right to see it. I dont even know with their public records how we would explain how we are blocking the students access to data that is publicly collected in a public institution? Senator Fred Smith did not think the issue as the UFAC has presented it is denying access. It is providing useful information in an efficient way. If a student looked at something and then wanted more detail and could click on a button and then see the detail that sounds fine. But, presenting all of the information at once, as Dr. Ekelman said, probably no one wants to see it. So, making it available, like there is something wrong with making it available, what we dont know yet, and he thinks that Professor Robichaud was unable, what she didnt know at Steering, is exactly how information would be accessed, that is, what you would see like when you see it course by course, section by section. Would you go to some place and find an Excel spreadsheet with all the information for every course in the university? So, depending on how or what your first encounter with the data is, that probably influences how much is presented at once. President Berkman stated that he agrees. Probably to put it all out there for the entire university would be a data overkill. He agrees with that. But he thinks UFAC should consider a provision that if particular students want to see the answers to the evaluations in a particular course that they ought to be able to look at the entire piece. Professor Sridhar said there is also another issue. We have one semesters worth of data right now. He has had a chance to look at some of these summaries and there are lots of courses that have one respondent so thats the other issue with this which is that when you start sharing all data and there is one respondent for a course, then that gets queued as well. Again, as a matter of principle, he doesnt think there is any issue with sharing. No one in this room is saying that we shouldnt share data. It is a matter of how we are phrasing it out. Vice Provost LaGrange stated that we are certainly happy to share the data in whatever way anyone believes is an appropriate one. One of the considerations that we were taking into account however was the time line. There was an expectation that we should give the data available to students as soon as possible. So it is easy and fairly quick to do a database. It is either the two-question one or all of the data. She stated that that is a fairly easy thing to do and we should be able to get it done by the end of this semester so that it is available to the students by the fall. Putting the database in such a way that it is interactive, students could look at the reduced data and then click on it and a pop up comes for the rest of the data. That is a little bit more technically challenging and would take longer. If that is the way we want to go, certainly that can be done but she just wants everyone to know that it might be a longer timeline. And, of course for the students, whether or not that is an issue. SGA President Halasah said regarding the timing manner, after SGA spoke with Vice Provost LaGrange about it, SGA wanted it to be fall of this year. It was SGAs job and they are trying to do their best to increase participation but they do need the faculty to promote it in their classes. She added that this addresses the point about not having enough but anything is better than MyProfessor.com. Some may think that some data is relevant or not but she just doesnt think that UFAC should be the body to decide that. She thinks that students would feel a lot more included regarding the first question on the evaluation that was, After you take this, what do you want to see? The student may actually want to fill this out; maybe I should take the time and introduce questions because I can get this feedback from people. Senator Maria Gibson commented that she is not sure about the information about the professor because she thinks it is private information. She believes that it is fair to give an evaluation of the course. We can see that in the health care system they dont evaluate their surgeons. They evaluate their hospital. She believes this is private information and should have the permission of the professor to be published. Dr. Robichaud stated that since we are a public university, she is afraid that that information is not prohibited its public. She continued stating that all of this data is now accessible publicly if somebody wishes to get it. It takes a bit of time and a little bit of effort but none of this is prohibitive. Professor Gibson asked if they have her Social Security Number too. Not all of the information is revealed because we are public so the courses should be revealed but not personal information. Dr. Robichaud responded that she was referring to this data, not personal data and your health care data is not available either. Dr. Ekelman said that she wanted to emphasize too that the purpose of the SEIQ is to provide faculty feedback from students for their courses so that they can improve their courses and refine their courses. So, thats the purpose of it. Dr. Sridhar stated that there are two ways of going forward with this. The one way is for us to say, as of today, we will go ahead with this piece of data and Vice Provost LaGranges office can go ahead and get started with putting this on line so that before the end of this semester, students have access to this data and in parallel keep looking at other methods and ways of implementing this and come back with a second policy that is option A. Option B is just to say we will keep this shut for now and when we have it all worked out, we will release it then. Dr. Smith stated that he had a question for Vice Provost LaGrange. He asked, does what we decide now influence what you will do this afternoon and tomorrow? If we say we are going to do this now and something else later, or we are going to do this now and we will decide what is going to happen later, does that influence the IT work that you are about to do this afternoon? Dr. Sridhar inquired, If we came back next month, would the revised data policy still be okay with respect to getting data for this semester? Dr. Sridhar then asked if this item can be tabled for now and come back next month? Dr. Robichaud responded, It is the will of the people, not me. Senator Claire Robinson May stated that she is also a member of UFAC. She thinks what we need is a sense of the faculty and of what they are comfortable sharing. She is in the Law School where everything is shared because it is on paper and everything could be read including the comments. She noted that UFAC was acting conservatively because they were not sure what the majority of the university is comfortable with. The faculty, in terms of what is shared, because most faculty she believes are going from nothing being shared to something being shared. This is really where UFAC is coming from. She said she doesnt think that anyone is trying to hide data but we need a sense of what they are comfortable with and not just a sense of the administration versus the students. President Berkman remarked that he believes if one student made a public records request to obtain all of the evaluation data publicly collected at the institution, they would be entitled to that data. Senator Brian Ray stated that as everyone knows, public records are public. He said that it is certainly possible but we shouldnt allow We should be aware of the legal content. The legal content shouldnt resolve the policy. President Berkman stated that he was just clarifying the comment that they are publicly accessible documents. Senator Cheryl Delgado stated that under the changes that were made, we talked about the item on the second page, number 2 saying that the courses response size evaluations would not be shared with faculty. She asked, Does that mean that there is going to be information available to the students that is not available to the faculty? Dr. Robichaud responded, No. Dr. Delgado asked if there is no report generated, are we supposed to use the students site to look up this information? Dr. Robichaud said, No. That is only referring to when there are only five or fewer students enrolled in a class. The data doesnt get reported because nobody wants to be able to identify the students. The students wont see it; the faculty dont see it and maybe in the future they will stop collecting it. So, as we heard earlier, the students are being prompted in a class of five or less to fill out an evaluation that doesnt go anywhere and that seems like a waste of time. But, no, that information is not going to be available for anybody. Dr. Delgado commented that we are really not sure of the information. Dr. Robichaud stated that the policy decided that they would not put out a report when there were five or less students in a class. She added that no report would be generated so there would be, in effect, nothing to be shared in those cases. Dr. Sridhar stated that Dr. Delgados point is moot in that case because there is no report generated so there is no data to be shared. He added that the right way to handle that is, as suggested, those students should not be prompted in the first place and that is a technical situation that we can handle. Dr. Robichaud commented that this is a political growing pain she suspects. Dr. Delgado stated that there will be certain types of classes that will never be evaluated. Dr. Robichaud said that it seems fair with policy to make sure that students couldnt be identified to instructors and in those small classes it would be very easy to figure who sent what. And, if you have somebody who is in year one of a program and the student will have the same instructor and they said stuff, she can imagine that this is just the problem that Dr. Professor Delgado is thinking of. Dr. Ekelman commented that the SEI is one method of evaluation so for those courses that are smaller, she is assuming that there are other ways to evaluate the course like the student outcome for example. There are other ways but you wont get the SEIQ. She added that this is how it has always been with smaller courses. Dr. Krebs stated that first there was a suggestion made to table this. He said he thinks we have the information but he is not sure what we gain by tabling it. He certainly has no trouble sharing his data it is a public record; let it be. He also really liked what he thinks was a suggestion. He just wants to repeat it just to get it down on the table which is this concept of getting the summary out there to satisfy the students requests to make them happy they want it. If that is easier to get up, then make sure we get that up by fall with the idea that there could be a link for more details that could go to the greater page and that is something that could be added later. So, it seems like this could be done in stages but it is important to get these summary statements out there and available to the students as soon as possible. Then if students do ask President Berkman about why they are only getting part of it, he can say that we will have it and we are working on it and we can get this to you now. Senator Vickie Gallagher noted that there are a couple of things the rationale for not having the full data right away is exactly what Dr. Krebs said is confusing because some are one to five and some are one to four. We need to explain that in some manner. Even people who have been trained in statistics are trying to get their heads around that. She added that the other problem is still the sample size. The sample size is very volatile and until we get that up, that is going to be very problematic. She worked at Northern Kentucky University for three years before coming to 㽶ֱ and they didnt release grades to students until they filled that out and they would get their grades always after the semester ended if they didnt fill it out. So, we need to figure that out because we all understand what sample size means and thats very problematic until we have a stable mean as well. Dr. Sridhar said that he could ask Vice Provost Teresa LaGranges Office to put together two things. One, a time estimate of how long it would take to do this solution of presenting some data and then clicking on to see full data and two, some mock-ups of what the presentation format would look like. He noted that we have heard a lot today about what data may be confusing and whether students can read this and those kinds of things so it would be a good idea for us to see a couple of mock-ups of how the data can be presented so that we can actually have a substantive discussion about that. Senator Raymond Henry, a member of UFAC, emphasized that the decisions here werent made to restrict access. You can read the principles and it says that the Faculty Senate is committed to sharing the SEI data. This is about the feasibility of doing it and also following the other principles such as not releasing data until the validity can be determined with a sufficient data-set. So, all of these principles are bringing up a more stepped approach to rolling this out and there is no intent from anyone to restrict data and he just wanted to clarify that. He went on to say that this is a question of presenting data in this particular system at this particular time and recognizing that as we get better with it, the roll-out will be more complete and that is an important thing to remember. Professor Gibson said that when we collect that data, faculty research, we have to be informed. So, if we are publishing data, we should have informed consent if data is not like full data of all professors together. So if it has selected data, like a private phone number of a professor, we need to have informed consent of the professor. Dr. Robichaud responded that this isnt research. Professor Gibson agreed that it is not research but it is making data public. Dr. Robichaud stated that the rules governing even a subjects research would not qualify this as research and therefore would not need an informed consent. Dr. Ekelman reported that Faculty Senate agreed last year that we would share the data so we have already made that a public determination. Professor Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee does have a proposal in front of Senate for data-sharing. He noted that we will treat this as what we have for today. He called the vote on this data-set being shared not the presentation format. The UFAC proposal for data-sharing was approved by voice vote with one no and one abstention. University Curriculum Committee Dr. Fred Smith, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that his committee has four proposals that require Senate votes and some pieces of information. Proposed Mathematics Suspension of MA (Report No. 24, 2015-2026) Dr. Smith stated that the first item is a proposal to suspend the MA program in math. He noted that the rationale for this is that the enrollment has declined due to disinterest of teachers. In fact, they do not need to obtain Masters degrees to renew their licenses. Graduate education in mathematics will still be available through the MS program. He then asked if there were any questions. Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Curriculum Committee is bringing forward a proposal to suspend the MA program in mathematics. Students wishing to receive a graduate degree in mathematics can still get that using the MS program. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The UCCs proposal to suspend the MA in mathematics was unanimously approved by voice vote. Proposed MLRHR Program Revision (Report No. 25, 2015-2016) Dr. Smith next introduced a proposal is to make changes to the MLRHR program. This eliminates certain prerequisites and revises some core courses to modernize the program and streamline course content to align with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) certification areas. Dr. Smith reported that this is a model proposal for program revision. So, anyone who wants to revise a program should ask people in this program for their proposal. Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Curriculum Committee is bringing forward a proposal to modify the MLRHR program as described in the meeting packet. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed changes to the MLRHR program were unanimously approved by voice vote. Proposed Program Changes in the Tax and Audit Tracks of the MAcc Degree (Report No. 26, 2015-2016) Dr. Smith next introduced proposed changes to the Tax and Audit Tracks of the Master of Accounting degree. He noted that this involves some 4 to 3 course conversions, eliminating certain prerequisites and changing and realigning the content of some core courses. Dr. Sridhar then stated that the University Curriculum Committee is bringing forward a proposal for program changes in the Tax and Audit Tracks of the Master of Accounting degree. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed program changes in the Tax and Audit Tracks of the Master of Accounting degree were unanimously approved by voice vote. Proposed 㽶ֱ Teach Humanities LA and SS Programs (Report No. 27, 2015-2016) Dr. Smith next introduced a proposal for establishing the 㽶ֱ Teach Model for Language, Arts, Social Science, Social Studies and Foreign Languages. He noted that this brings the teacher education programs in those areas into alignment with the model that has already been established for Teacher Education in STEM. Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Curriculum Committee is bringing forward a proposal to establish the language, arts and social studies programs under the 㽶ֱ Teach Education program for language, arts, social studies and humanities, and Foreign Languages programs as well. There being no questions Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed 㽶ֱ Teach Humanities LA and SS programs was approved unanimously by voice vote. For Information (Report No. 28, 2015-2016) Dr. Smith stated that UCC has a few points listed for Senates information. Minor change in the Physics Honors Program A small change in the Physics Honors program the content and number of one course was changed. Small change in the BSHS Pre-PA Program An increase in the number of elective credits while maintaining the total number of credits in the major. Small modifications to the Honors Program in Math Honors upper division requirements update. Small change to the Marketing and Management Tracks of the International Business concentration of the International Relations Minor A small change which permits additional elective options PSC Dept. IR Business track changes. New GenEd Courses New GenEd courses and 4 to 3 conversions of Accounting courses and changing the MLA prefix to WLC for World Languages, Literatures and Cultures. Approved as SPAC: Modern Languages CHN 301 SPAC Approved as WAC: HIS 358 The Holocaust Approved as Arts and Humanities and as WAC: Dirt, Disease and Public Health in Medieval and Renaissance Europe 4-3 Conversion of three graduate Accounting Courses Change prefixes of MLA courses to WLC The For Information items were received by Faculty Senate. Dr. Smith reported that next Senate meeting will be the last Senate meeting at which we approve things that will go into the fall 2016 catalog. Associate Deans were notified of this so that they could hustle things along to the UCC. Resolution on Academic Freedom (Report No. 29, 2015-2016) Senator William Bowen commented that book after book and article after article, (if you read the Chronicle of Higher Education and the news all over the place) warning about the threats to academic freedom and is fresh with ideas that are going on in universities. He reported that this led to conversations amongst those in the College of Urban Affairs and that led to codification of the Resolution on Academic Freedom. Dr. Bowen reported that the Resolution passed unanimously by faculty vote in the College of Urban Affairs and he was asked to bring the Resolution to Faculty Senate just as a statement. He noted that when people ask him about what is going on with academic freedom at this university, he usually is happy to say that it is one of the really fine things about this institution. The idea of this Resolution is to make a positive statement on behalf of the Faculty Senate about our position on academic freedom. Dr. Bowen read the resolution. Whereas 㽶ֱ is committed to protecting and championing the right to freely communicate ideas without censorship and to study material as it is written, produced, or stated, even material that some members of our community may find disturbing or that provokes uncomfortable feelings; and Whereas this freedom is an integral part of the learning experience and an obligation from which we cannot shrink; and Whereas helping students to learn to process and evaluate controversial material fulfills one of the most important responsibilities of higher education; and Whereas shielding students from controversial material will deter them from becoming critical thinkers and responsible citizens; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate strongly reaffirms its commitment to academic freedom; and Be it further resolved that while Faculty may advise students before exposing them to controversial readings and other materials that are part of their curricula, the Faculty Senate does not endorse any requirements to offer trigger warnings or to otherwise label controversial material in such a way that students construe it as an option to opt out of engaging with texts or concepts, or otherwise not participating in intellectual inquiries; and Be it further resolved that Faculty are encouraged to direct students who experience personal difficulties from exposure to controversial issues to resources available at 㽶ֱs support-services offices. Dr. Krebs commented that he had been told that this resolution was actually already introduced and Dr. Bowen still wanted to put this forward. Professor Krebs noted that he does want to remind people that one, the Greenbook which he hasnt actually looked at recently has a fairly explicit statement giving us all of these freedoms already and in fact, even right in our contract maybe he is just a fan of simplicity but it just simply says that faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects. The only caveat is not to discuss controversial subjects that are outside the realm of your course materials and that came out of the legislature. Dr. Krebs stated to Professor Bowen that the resolution reads well and we are covered. Senator Nicholas Zingale disagreed because this resolution is explicit in mentioning what has been discussed in the literature and in the Chronicle of Higher Education and in some media sources specific to trigger warnings and what we need to potentially have to tell our students about before we enter into that. He stated to Dr. Bowen, You should know, first hand, just from our meetings this morning, how sometimes those generalities can become muddy if we dont address the specifics and I do think that the one paragraph in here specifically talks about those trigger warnings and I think it is essential. There being no further discussion, Dr. Sridhar called the vote. The proposed Resolution on Academic Freedom was approved with one nay and three abstentions. Update on Path to 2020 Program (Report No. 30, 2015-2016) Senator Brian Ray explained there is a faculty representative on each piece of the 2020 Program. He noted that we have talked about the 2020 program quite a bit but it comes up in sort of bits and pieces. He thought that he would give Senate a quick overview of why we are doing this and what we are doing and then he will talk about the piece that he is involved in. Professor Ray reported that the University is aware that we are period of uncertainty regarding enrollment. The Enrollment Task Forces results look like enrollment is unlikely to go up substantially or at all over the long term and may actually go down. Then combined with that we have known for a very long time including in several periods where we had to address potential cuts, that the way we budget isnt ideal. It is not necessarily the most transparent because we tend to budget historically. We tend to, at least for the goal categories and for departments and colleges, have these categories and then the Budget Office does an excellent job every year of trying to make sure that we conservatively estimate what those big categories will be and then ultimately not over spend. We have done a really good job of that even through periods of cuts, but the net result is that there is a lack of transparency because we just fit things in and we basically live on or we figure how to make it all work through a combination of carry-over vacancy savings and again, very conservative budgeting that allows us to have the flexibility to move things around when we need to. So, 2020 is attempting to address some combination of those two things. Professor Ray noted the most immediate idea is that, given conservative enrollment projections and the fact that the State has imposed a freeze on undergraduate tuition increases, we need to potentially fill some size of a hole and exactly what that is, it is still under development but we have heard the numbers from Tim Long. It is not a small number in the aggregate but it is not accurate. He noted that it is not a crisis and we are trying to plan ahead and plan smart and, on top of that, take advantage of this opportunity to think through how we are budgeting and are there ways that we can do things a lot smarter. He stated that this is being done across the university but the emphasis is not in the colleges the college piece is a follow-up to program prioritization. The colleges are undergoing something similar in trying to restructure the way they budget and make it more transparent. But, there isnt the same detail process in part because it doesnt make sense. So the process he is describing is a process for the administrative and institutional support units. Professor Ray said that essentially two things are being done. We are doing a deep dive bottom-up analysis unit by unit of the budgets. So, taking a scrutinizing look at the budget it and then collaboratively working with everybody involved in the unit to ask, lets think about what we do in this unit; how do we do it, and is there a way to do it smart. We look at every expenditure and ask, Why are we spending money this way? Are there smarter ways to spend the money? Professor Ray noted that as part of that process, there is a big idea generation within it. There is always, at some point even after that detailed analysis or before it, some discussion of well, Are there some obvious things we are doing that either dont make sense from a procedural policy standpoint or dont make sense from a budget standpoint? Those ideas are then being looked at and gone through one by one. Ultimately, there is an endpoint where all of those ideas including the bottom-up ones and the big ideas, where the decision is made that either these make sense and lets do them right away as quickly as possible or they need more discussion or we need to figure out exactly how to do this or whether it makes sense to do this or lets continue to talk about it and someone takes charge of that or no, it doesnt make sense. We have had the basic framework for it at the beginning thanks to the efforts of Mr. Jim Bennett and a consultant that we brought on, Dave Shute, who have done this kind of process in a number of contexts including higher education contexts as well as other nonprofit contexts. So we have the basic framework but we needed to see how it would work within our environment. So Student Affairs volunteered before the break and we did a test run on Student Affairs. He noted that it was a really intensive process and they spent a lot of time under the leadership of Boyd Yarbrough and Clare Rahm, and brought in Student Affairs and Conference Services both and also Auxiliaries. He said that they really tried to figure out how to make this work. A lot of people really put in a lot of time and, from his own perspective, he was deeply involved and tried to attend as many of these meetings as possible. He noted that he came away incredibly impressed with the people we have here who were behind the scenes to make this work and were willing to engage in this process even though they didnt have any guarantees about what was going to happen at the end. Student Affairs was guaranteed that whatever was produced from this process we wouldnt immediately implement it unless they thought that it made sense and they would undergo it again later. Professor Ray reported that some of the things they thought would work in concept didnt play out but when refining the process, they figured out how to do it a little bit faster and a little bit more efficiently. The net result was that the pilot was a success in the sense that this seemed to make sense, it seemed to have productive outcomes, and it might make a difference or it should make a difference in a meaningful way in the budget process. What has been happening ever since then, really right away because meetings were scheduled immediately after our final wrap up meeting in Student Affairs, there are two pieces broken up or not exactly broken up. They sort of broke up the big ideas piece and then the unit by unit analysis had been rolled out in the beginning of January. Most of the units or a good chunk of the units, twenty plus, should be done by the end of March so we have time to generate some ideas that will affect FY17. Then some of the units including Student Affairs, because we made them do the pilot we were not going to make them do it again immediately, although a lot of their ideas actually have probably already been implemented. Professor Ray said that they will be done in April and June and hopefully still in time to get some results that will affect FY17. Professor Ray commented that regarding the university unit, he would be happy to explain in more detail what the breakdown is with the combination of the university unit and a range of cross-cutting big ideas that either were in play before or were identified as they began to scrutinize the budget from a fifty thousand foot perspective. A team of Jim Bennett, Bonnie Kalnasy and he (Brian Ray) are looking at that concerning those sets of ideas and they are already in the process of talking with a number of people to try and see if any of those ideas make sense and what the results might be. The idea is to have a good chunk of this done by the end of spring semester and the rest of it done in time to get into the budget building process for FY17. But, necessarily some of the ideas that come out are complex and require timeframes that wont hit in FY17 and so FY18 is in play as well. And, then that other piece, the more strategic piece he talked about earlier in terms of changes in the way we do budgets, they are just planning to try to do that and this will be the first cut in implementing it and then the idea is that this is how we budget on a unit basis and at the university level so that we are able to plug in this kind of process where we are looking for cuts if we need to look for cuts. He stated that we are managing the budget well ahead of time and in a strategic and more transparent way. Dr. Zingale asked Professor Ray if it is too early to start asking if they are seeing any patterns. Professor Ray replied that it is probably not too early although he is the wrong person to ask that question. He noted, just to clarify what he did, he participated extensively in the Student Affairs pilot and so he got to see how the deep dive works and what it was going to look like. One, it did make a lot of sense for him to try to hit every unit. He stated that he is not involved in that kind of unit by unit analysis except that when Jim Bennett and Bonnie Kalnasy and he meet. They discuss things that come up. He is heavily involved now in the cross-cutting ones and those tend to be discreet, sometimes connected but not tightly connected. He noted that there might be the case that there are patterns emerging from the unit analysis and we can find that out. Mr. Bennett stated that one that was described to him and is pretty broadly-based is the degree to which we serve our students so well that there are non-consequences for behaviors that are not helpful, etc. For example, financial aid: information on time, changing classes and so we bend over backwards to knock at rules and disciplines. The costs of this are really quite extraordinary in terms of staffing requirements and inefficient work processes where we have hunches that regularly occur at certain times at the school so we have policy decision as to whether we want to move ourselves as an institution to be more disciplined. He noted for example, we have charges for not paying bills and we do not enforce them. He noticed from parking tickets through bills that occur, we have a limit of $1,000. A student can come back if they are $1,000 in debt and the financial aid only covers by federal regulation $200 so there are some of our colleagues saying, We will be much better off if we went to $200. The reason is we then have bad debts which go right into the operating budget to the tune of $3 million per year. Mr. Bennett noted that these are the kinds of things that we are handling. So there is a very long list of practices that cause staffing, that cause disrupting the operating system and their choice is whether you want to tackle those and move into the program and tighten it up. He commented that there are lots and lots of little things that were done over time that are not so necessary now or can be stopped or done less frequently. We just need take a hard look at things that we dont need to do anymore and if you accumulate them they have a cost including everything from little things to some interesting patterns in terms of how they run the institution. Mr. Bennett noted that there will probably be a thousand ideas; in the pilot there were sixty-five and when we do the whole university, there will probably be a thousand little ones $1,000, $20,000, $25,000, etc. and it will range all the way up to some fairly big ones which are one-time decisions and there are ones in between which are cultural ones that we need to work on. Professor Zingale wondered that as this information starts to roll out, he doesnt know if there is a format that Mr. Bennett is thinking about as to how it gets shared, but it would be kind of interesting to begin thinking about a way that it can be talked about. For example, there might be these cultural or whole institution concepts that flow from this but then it might be interesting to also see things that are emerging that are horizontal patterns and then also things that might be emerging that are more vertically integrated patterns and that might speak or at least be helpful for us to look at our own colleges to see how what we are learning from other colleges might relate to. Dr. Sridhar stated that this will be discussed in two parts. One, the college budgeting thing that Professor Zingale is referring to is quite a different process than the one that Professor Ray explained. It is similar but there are fundamental differences in terms of how they are structured. In the administrative institutional support costs project, the idea is to go through and take a deep dive and say how can we do things better to cut operation costs Dr. Sridhar noted that with the college budgeting, it is different in terms of saying, are we investing resources, resources that we are already investing and continuing to invest, are we investing that in the best ways so that they are pointed in the right direction to what the college wants to have in terms of its strategic plan. He added that every college has a strategic plan. Every college has goals for five years, etc. so the question there is, Are these resources being invested in the right way in order to achieve these goals? What Professor Zingale already suggested, would automatically happen with that process. He noted that the second part of that is with the horizontals that Professor Zingale can see across these. There is in fact a synthesis project that will occur with all of these things and that will occur after the individual projects themselves are completed. The idea of the synthesis is exactly what Professor Zingale suggested which is to look at all of these projects, all of these sixteen or eighteen different projects going on, and pull things together so that we, as a university, can operate in a fundamentally different manner than we have been. Dr. Sridhar commented, Maybe we will be different, maybe we will just be like we have been doing things right all along but we will find out. Professor Ray stated that this is something we have talked about a lot at the beginning and we emphasized that it has gotten a little bit lost in the shuffle. It has been a ton of work to just do this but at some point it will make sense probably for the bigger team to talk about how to do a series of presentations about what happened. We will hear about them but the budget impact is really kind of secondary. The budgeting sort of phrases them and makes them salient for one reason or another but then those decision-making processes will take place on their own. Some stuff will just be pure behind the scenes stuff that are not that interesting but the overall process can be important at some point for us to take stock in and it explains what is happening and how we are going to do this on a foregoing basis. He added that we should talk about it. Report of the President of the University President Ronald Berkman said he wanted to make everyone aware, since we were talking about this data issue and this transparency issue, he doesnt know how many people are aware of the state Treasurers initiative which has already begun to have a state checkbook. This initiative would require every agency now including every public university and this is being pushed aggressively and many agencies already are on board and have signed up to provide data to the Treasurers Office chronicling every single expenditure of the university in every single category, including every faculty members paycheck, every faculty members extra compensation, every faculty members summer expenses, every expenditure on soft water, mana, gold, whatever the university spends dollars on and writes from a state checkbook that would now become public information on the Treasurers check. He noted that people can go on line now and check it out. If you want to know how many vehicles were bought from Ganley by state agencies, you can go on line and look at Ganley. It is an amazing amount of data whose utility he does not quite understand. President Berkman stated that the Treasurer has turned his attention to state universities. President Berkman stated that he would have to say that we have not been one of the universities that has stepped forward and said, Sign us up although there is significant pressure. He noted that we came to a good resolution if it holds that four universities would act as pilots in this effort and those four universities would go through a process with the Treasurers Office of going and discerning what information can be made public, what is covered by FERPA, what is covered by HIPPA, what was covered by Buckley, what information cannot be made publicly available, and to determine what the cost involved in downloading this amazingly large data-set into another amazingly large data-set would cost each respective university. This is real. President Berkman reported that he was in Columbus yesterday. He said that he has been so lucky to make very frequent trips to Columbus now. Indeed, the pressure from the Treasurers Office really kind of put the other universities sort of on the witness stand about why we are not willing to make this information available. This is different than the agreement we thought we had with the Treasurers Office in which the four universities would be treated as a pilot. President Berkman invited everyone to go to the Treasurers website and acquire all of the information about how much DOT spent on fertilizer, oil, vinegar, salt and pepper and you will be a bad citizen as a result. But, this is going on and it is real. President Berkman said that he fears the time, the energy, and the complications involved in us having to do this, but it is not impossible and at the end of the day we will have to do this. President Berkman stated that he is trying to give everyone a thirty thousand foot view. There was a recent IUC meeting in Columbus. Right now there is a political vacuum in Columbus. There is no shortage of vacuum cleaners in Columbus who would like to use this opportunity to, including with the capital budget, play a stronger more determined role. And, there is a growing sentiment that the Governors decision to create the Capital Budget Commission with university presidents, and he is a member of the Commission, was not consistent with the duties and responsibilities given to the legislature. Two things are going on simultaneously: we are trying to resolve a pretty significant conflict with the two-year institutions concerning the respective share of the four-year institutions and the two-year institutions would get the plug number which is now $405 million which they decided arbitrarily as a group to raise to $455 million. There is a very significant rift, more than he has ever seen a significant rift in terms of what the respective share should be. He added that there is no formula for respective shares. There used to be but there is no formula now for respective shares and depending on what data you use, what data you judge to be determinative, whether it is tuition, square footage, FTEs, student credit hours, headcount, etc., the data falls in a different direction. On the other hand, is the fear that if we cannot come to an agreement with the two-year colleges, and everyone is not on board with the Governors process, the Governor will throw it overboard. President Berkman reported that a great meeting was held here this morning with the Internship Summit. Two-hundred forty-five companies came to 㽶ֱ to discuss how to best generate, manage and help students get the most and help employers get the most of internship responsibilities. It was co-sponsored with the Greater Cleveland Partnership which in essence is Clevelands Chamber of Commerce. They were a great partner; they brought out lots of these companies. It began with an extraordinary keynote by a faculty member at the Kennedy School at Harvard who spoke about internships and spoke about lots of issues related to internships who are our sort of kids, the kind of kids who go to an urban public institution, etc. and did a wonderful job in framing the issues. But, there is no doubt out there that there are intense interests among employers to finding ways to improve the pipeline, finding ways to maximize communication between employers and they really want to talk to faculty. Dr. Berkman reported that it was an extraordinary meeting and it is something that we have to keep working at and we are spending lots of time and energy trying to improve Career Services, trying to improve our interface, trying to improve our systems, trying to get more students out, etc. He added that it is right at the top on the Governors list of important issues for higher education. Indeed, the Governors office had a state survey with Career Services that they sent out to every institution asking a battery of questions about how we do this. Four institutions passed and were the only ones that were allowed to participate in the Capital Budget Commission. The rest, by the Governors decision, were excluded from participating. They had to resubmit and recertify so it is extraordinarily important for him. President Berkman recognized Dr. Debbie Jackson and all of her colleagues, including Dr. Professor Nigamanth Sridhar who have had a role in the MC2STEM High School. He commented that we should all take incredible pride that the only non-selective, where you do not have to test in, the only non-selective high school in the entire City of Cleveland, MC2STEM High School, received an A in their state ranking and evaluation. Report of the Interim Provost Provost Jianping Zhu stated that he had four quick items to share with Senate. He noted that the first item is the faculty search. He reported that we have over sixty searches for tenure-track faculty and full-time lecturers ongoing right now. He said he wanted to extend kudos to the College of Education and the College of Business. They have finished their searches and all candidates have accepted offers. He congratulated the College of Education and the College of Business. Provost Zhu said he wanted to encourage other colleges because for the rest of the colleges there are forty-eight position searches ongoing right now. Only eight have been completed. So that is forty positions as of last Friday. He noted that it may be in different stages people are coming for interviews but he knows that everyone plays a very important role in this meeting with candidates. He asked everyone to please work with their search committees to make progress forward because time flies. He noted that a quarter of this semester is gone already; it is week four already so we dont have a whole lot of time. He asked everyone to please work really hard to ensure we have all those positions and they are filled with strong faculty candidates. We need them to continue our student success and to continue the accomplishments that we have achieved. Provost Zhu noted that many faculty have asked about new faculty positions. He asked everyone to please understand that in this ongoing search cycle, we have so many positions, and that is because the last two years we have gone through this program prioritization and one year ago, we didnt really do this tenure-track faculty search. We used many visiting faculty to cover our teaching needs while the program prioritization was ongoing. He noted that his estimation is, and it depends that we are still in the process of looking at the budget projections for the next year, to decide on whether we can actually start a new run of faculty position allocations. He added that if we are going to do that, the numbers will be very modest. If we are going to do it, he wants to make sure that we allocate those positions in adequate time before faculty leave for the summer. The goal is to have the committees in place and perhaps to post those positions before faculty leave for the summer. That way we will have the time over summer waiting for candidates to apply without getting into a really tight schedule for those who are recruiting new faculty. Provost Zhu stated that this is the update for the current search and he will keep everyone updated with the projections for the coming year. Provost Zhu commented that the Provosts Office is working on online test security initiative. After that, there will be security and integrity of testing for all in-classroom classes. He noted that it has been brought to his attention that our online testing policy is not complete. He stated that we do not have a very good policy in place so we are working with the Admissions and Standards Committee to develop a policy and to bring it to the next Faculty Senate meeting for approval. He noted that the reason why he wanted to give everyone a heads-up is that we could have a policy in place but the people who really enforce the policy are the faculty. So, we really need the faculty on board to ensure that we have a policy on instruction in the classroom and that we also have reasonable steps in place to assess our students learning outcome. So just to have a policy in place by the next Faculty Senate meeting, we will approve that and put the policy in place. Without broad faculty buy-in to implement a policy and stick with it, it means nothing. Finally, Provost Zhu talked about the recent incident of flooding in Rhodes Tower. He first wanted to thank the faculty in CLASS and the Department of Mathematics for doing an excellent job and who came back and carried on their classes on that Monday when they didnt have access to Rhodes Tower. On Monday last week Rhodes Tower was closed due to flooding in the elevator shaft. Based on the data he collected, of the many classes offered by the CLASS faculty and the Mathematics faculty, only four did not meet. All of the rest of the classes met as scheduled. Provost Zhu said that he wanted to thank all of the faculty and everyone on the emergency teams, our Registrars Office staff for the Sunday before that Monday really putting a lot of efforts in trying to find classrooms at the last minute. He also wanted to thank the Marketing and PR Departments that got the message out to the students about the change in the schedules. Provost Zhu reported that this brought up another issue: how prepared are we to deal with emergencies. He wanted everyone to think about what would happen if an emergency struck, because that could happen to any building or any department for different reasons. He stated that there are two sides here. As a university it is our responsibility to make sure that we have the system in place both to avoid accidents from happening and if an accident did happen, to make sure as quickly as possible that we open the door and provide access to the faculty. On the faculty side if for whatever reason that the building has to be closed for a short period of time, are we ready to continue our instruction so that the students wont be adversely affected. He noted that for every faculty it is different and for every department and every program it is different; it takes different equipment and different material to teach a class and some faculty teach two classes and some teach three or four classes. The department wont expect the faculty who teaches four classes to carry the books for all of those four classes every day between the office and the home. But, are there things that we can think about and to be reasonably prepared for example to have your class notes, if you use class notes, scanned into a USB drive and now at least every department should have a scanner plus a copier and it wont be too difficult to scan the notes into a USB and take the USB with you every day and if you use a laptop, perhaps you can take the laptop with you every day. He reminded everyone to make sure, if it is a university laptop, that there are procedures about taking equipment off campus. We need to have the proper procedure and be aware of the data policy while we protect the system data on the university laptops assuming people have all that information. Provost Zhu stated that those are the kinds of things to please encourage your colleagues to give some thought on and see how we can be better prepared to deal with emergencies like that. We cannot project at what time or at what moment that reachability may come off line. Report of the Student Government Association (Report No. 31, 2015-2016) SGA President Emily Halasah discussed internships and co-ops. She reported that SGA Vice President Malek Khawam and SGA Secretary Olga Grech have been working with Vice Provost Peter Meiksins on this and they are members of his ad hoc committee. She reported that they are satisfied with the progress that is being made and SGA hopes to see some recommendations for internships and co-ops in the future. Ms. Halasah next reported on a couple of Senate project updates. SGA has the Freshmen Leadership Council that is designed to be a mentoring unit. She asked faculty who have the privilege of teaching freshmen to encourage them to get involved with the organization. She said that she will let everyone know when the mentoring unit is officially established. It encourages fostering new leaders and gets them involved in different organizations on campus. She added that this is a multiple organization initiative and it also builds campus pride at 㽶ֱ. Ms. Halasah reported on the Wakeup Call event she mentioned at the last Faculty Senate meeting. She noted that the Wakeup Call is to prepare students for their career and that is all under way and set for February 18, 2016 to lead up to the Career Fair. Ms. Halasah talked about the initiative by SGA Assistant Vice President, Gabby Cvengros who does academic affairs. She noted that Gabby is partnering with the Undergraduate Studies Department to host an event that is taking the place of SGAs traditional major fair and it is called the Game of Life. She stated that it is intended to guide those students who dont know exactly what major or career path they want to choose a major. Ms. Halasah next reported that printers are being installed in the new Health Sciences Building after spring break and SGA is excited about that. Ms. Halasah mentioned the Fresh Water for Flint, Michigan initiative. She said that she doesnt know if anyone walked past the SGA Government Offices and saw the gallons and gallons of water. She noted that this is the initiative of two of SGAs all-star Senators, William Johnson and Gregory Joyce. They are in Omega Psi Phi ??? and Alpha Phi Alpha ??? which are both community based ??? fraternities here at Cleveland State and they actually received national recognition. They had contacted her and she directed them so they are quoted in a USA Today article and she encouraged everyone to check that out. It really gives Cleveland State a good light. President Berkman remarked that the students pictures and names and 㽶ֱ were mentioned in USA Today. Ms. Halasah stated that it was really great. President Berkman stated that the students took the water collected to Flint, Michigan two weeks ago. Ms. Halasah reported that those students are doing another drive at the end of this month. Finally, Ms. Halasah stated that her last item, which might be a point of discussion or not, is that she has been working with Senate President Sridhar on textbooks. They will be presenting to the Board of Trustees on March 2, 2016. She noted that their ultimate goal to summarize is whatever solution is set for standardizing textbooks and making them more cost-effective is to do so and not violate the facultys academic freedom but also not violate the students financial freedom. She added that we shouldnt be forced into purchase an access code that costs more than a used book that students can find on line. Dr. Berlin Ray said she knows of numerous cases where the Bookstore messed up this semester. For some courses the books werent in until the third week. She knows that Ms. Halasah is concerned about the code and paying extra for that. She noted that the other issue as well in terms of the cost of textbooks, if the bookstore cant do what they are supposed to do and do it well, she is not comfortable in encouraging her students to go that route. If she cant count on the bookstore having those books available and enough books available at the beginning of the semester and, if there should be glitches there, then she wants her students to go elsewhere and get the books and get them quickly. So, she is all for what Ms. Halasah is after but she is uncomfortable that there always seems to be, the wording is always, and so faculty need to watch the costs. She said that she would like us to have a fair examination of where the problems are. Ms. Halasah replied that she completely agreed with Dr. Berlin Ray. She does allow the bookstore some discretion only because she believes that they dropped the company that they were working with. She noted that the reason a lot of professors are choosing expensive textbooks and access codes are because they are adjunct and they are not paid as well and they are traveling from school to school so SGA is addressing the adjunct issue. Vice Provost Meiksins commented regarding legality. He reported that under Federal law, we are required to place our book orders with the bookstore so that students who are eligible for financial aid can obtain them from the university-sanctioned bookstore so we need to improve the bookstore, not find alternatives to it. Dr. Sridhar commented concerning Vice Provost Meiksins point. The last semester, the book orders were in fact actually placed. We had a record in terms of faculty placing book orders on time. We had the best performance that weve had so far but then in the transfer between the two different providers, the order went to the new one, and they actually lost a lot of data and that is what caused the delays. So, Vice Provost Meiksins point is right but the legal requirement is that the book order has to be placed with the bookstore. He went on to say, Now if you show up in class and the books arent available in the bookstore, there has to be a different way for the students to get the textbooks, so different points. XI. Open Question Time 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 4:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debbie K. Jackson Faculty Senate Secretary /vel Edited by: William Becker, University Archivist     PAGE  PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE MEETING PAGE OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 4EFGPQ]eo   % & ' 7 8 > @ W d f g j l t u z     ! D T m u v w x ммԴ渼ļиh[2hhiXhoh:Rh.th_ChXTh0|hH hUG5 hXT5 h5 h:m15 h\\r5 hI5 h{5G34FGH d   v w `^``gdiX `^``gd[2^gd[2 `^``gdhu$a$gd      ' ( 5 6 A B C D F i l    N O P 8 P XZ[ʻϨʻ h-L>*h-L hL5 hKhL hKhKhD>Oh7hK h v5 hiX5 hz5 hUG5hUGh8h&l=h?lh h5h0|h.th_ChiXhXThz:w ( - C E F   O P  & F^`gdLgdL ^`gdK^gdKgdKgd v & F^`gdUG`gdArtgd `^``gd0|[^l3aav:]TWy-5:U[dq./`cdT["S^hKh@ hThYwhho9hHA5h7h|whSjh-LhD>O h-L>*P 89NO""" # #%%))**-`gd/ gd/ gdL^gdiX & F^`gdL`gdSj`gdK,KLM( ) * !S"T"g"m"""""" # # #X#Y#######$-$S$$$$$$$%%%%%%%%&&&8&;&N&\&c& ( ( (!($(/(V()))** +%+*+3+9+++¾h/ h"hG~hH,h5Uh^hLh hL5 hiX5hhhho9h@ hSjK+E,c,9-<-E-F-K-"...=/B///1#1%111K2N222222333n3q3z3333344455555H6I67)8N8R8e888888888C9Y9[99&:*:A:C:I:Q<T<<<=??? @A@E@h+`h|1h[/h=yhFh9]h/ hh)(hG~hA>hH,h5Uh"O--..00l3m344I6J67788??CC I I{J|J{M|M-N.NP`gd[/gdLE@P@@@@@@CBGBkBsBCCCCD DDD#D$D,D.D;DSGSMShZ'uhWhR|heh! h>Hh?hXJhohFh[/h|1h+`PPP>Q?QTTUUYY\*^+^]`^`edfdggViWijjkklloopgdLMS_S}STT3TVTXT[TTTTTTTTTDUHUUUUU_VwVlXYYY*Y2YIYNYQYpYYYYZZ5ZEZ`ZcZgZ[[E\Q\g\j\\\]]+^>^D^^^_L`M`]`^```aabb?cTc#d)dBdCdddeddehhJhehF/h$h5nhz6h hu<h+ihWhR|PeeeeeFgGgggggghhhhhhUiViXi\i jjjjjVk\kkklll)l+lllll o oWoXopp:pMppppq%qlqpqqqqqqqqqqqlrrrrrrrssKtltttuuuuh@rh$hChZ'uh4=hhC0h hhWOhPhF/h]~Pppjqkqqqttvv\x]x{{C|D|z}{} gdLuuuuvwv*w+w+x/x8x>x^xbxoxsxxx y{{{ {{!{,{Q{]|a|||'}G}|}}}}%~+~ +YZ ;Z/P#$&fjwhX)h@h>Hh$hphM)h4vhimh_!hChh h@rhF/hPM deKLږۖǙ`gd9`gd & FgdiXgdiX`gdq0gd & F^`gdLgdL֑ KJK ?ږۖߖFGޗ;qƙǙ+,06Fb67!Ih窾 h v5 hrhrh]h+hhr hr5 hh9h9 hhh h5 hL5 hiX5h9]hWXhX)hM)h@BǙș+,6712ޟߟ WX 8h^8`hgd & Fgd v`gdgd ^`gd>gd v`gdrgdr & FgdiXgdiX+_/012Hޟߟ VW wxԡա֡[âĢϢ֢UVץإڥefv=Wh ):@[ީƽƹƵƵƵƵhWEKh 6h hVZ hu 6h)hu hL5 hf5h?hf hh h5 h v5 hrh>hh>hWEKC wxա֡[¢Ģ֢qUV^gdf & Fgd v^gdfgdf^gd & Fgd 8h^8`hgd & Fgd v^gd٥ڥݩީ45,-گۯ۲ܲH`gdu  & F^`gdL`gdfgdL & Fgd vگܯ)۲g$2stoyе"#$зdպ36w|XǾǾǾǺǶӨӨӨh>hM/5h37h\;hDYuhL+h vh$ hL5 h v5hhhf'h] h-+6h-+h''Uhh)h hWEKh 6hWEKh 56hWEKhL56hWEKhv67HI#$45VWVW`gd`gd$gd v & F^`gdZ'ugdLX[ghm|WwxyJOPjFJSTFJ hl/MVY+,q):=g.J*Jh0wBh$h@rh7h\`hM/5hL+hDYuh>h\;UJUV@b2> ZIKAVW$FSpsv6;iu";&0LQRGg}hrhzhdf>hh yh2h\;h7eIh9h@rhM/5h96h0wBh$h$Mpv24Of15h0RhCGbcqr#/06Q8 ؿػh9E^hp#mh_>ho h?5 h v5 h$h$h^EhFhZ'uh/>`hwh\;h2hh^'hrH/0       $%R`gd:d^gd:d`gd^Egd? & F^`gd v^gd$`gd$ ^co<ASV|3@>? >$&0EFb $256^aemhShojh#hh&hEEhRh^Ehoh)Xh_>7L#9+69<>I\59]^yz79CGQ[f. b i j        ) N p   Kbh @h -h? hA5 h v5h:dh)Xh&hh9E^hRhojhSh7eIh#LE">#$nDQR/?`dKO=prvz(HI4K .!!!!)"L"h"i"""#7#####$$h0u4hWhhM8h3phfh,4h$hh -hi<$h @h<PRSi$j$$$I&J&y(z(})~)6+7+++d.e...//,2-2`gdt|gdA & F^`gd v`gd:d$3$6$h$i$j$$$$$(%,%|%%%%%%%%%&#&H&I&C'G'''((((6)@)D)F)e)f){)|)})))_*c*p***'+(+*+3+5+B+G+,3,A,R,],p,,--%-/-B-^---ǿǻǿ˻ûû˻û˻˻hcht hMh:h`hHhhhhht|>* hhht|hyh<ht| h5 h v5hfhh0u4F-----d.e..... /*/./0/=/////////0"0L0p0\1]1+2,2-212;2A222222222338334q4u444446646:6H6M66}77777c8888;;;;;;; hy5 hd5hwhhOh_)h/ h, Lh:hch6 hM6hMM-2557788;;;;;<<<<<<<<< ====gdgd v & F^`gddgd vgdd`gdt|;;;;<<X<Z<_<a<|<<<<<<<<< = = ========== =!=#=$=*=+=-=.=/=a=|=}=~========ߋ먼hUjhH0JU*h{0JmHnHu*hH hH0JjhH0JUhTrjhTrU hh{h{hPhhh0hLh_)h8h v hhh h v52======!="=#=/==========gdh]hgds &`#$gdB5 01h:ps/ =!"#$% s2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 4@4 sHeader  !.)@. s Page Number4 4 sFooter  !@@"@ &l= List Paragraph ^H2H t Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/AN t Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$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}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] 5  [+E@MSeuXJm$-;=w -Pp ǙHR-2== !!!8@0(  B S  ?MS!!44 55555555555mnpp,4%%%%3%8%V%b% 5555555555533333333.<.<<<<<RJSJTTii ԙՙ֙֙[[֚֚24OVWW`f./0033444 5 5 5555 5#5.5/55555.<.<<<<<RJSJTTii ԙՙ֙֙[[֚֚24OVWW`f./0033444 5 5 5555555555|5~55555VI f*[<Ajk`<@KXr,55! V-!YS) B!/$P(  $kz|vn0n*+oZhp>uk8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.0^`0o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.88^8`o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(.  ^ `hH.  L^ `LhH. x^x`hH. H^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`5o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. p^p`hH. @ L^@ `LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. P^P`hH.  L^ `LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. 80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.vnp2JhPB!/YS)xNuXE        ^                4Vp        (        p3                         .\        n        H        6         ԰d                dLr        N        k                ,         H                .9        T.        ?> 9"L lS^vT{ O9}2^'`dt*h t Lo "% / HWXJ;pZ9+Sq$ )Y!{!T"9c"#i<$oC&u&f')(m(_))M)X)-+ B+,H,.m,r, -.j.w.N />/F/F/[/00h0111:1[23,4p4044/505ᴡ5\6z678(99r9;<!<u<F^=&l= >>M]>_>df>&YAB?VB0wB@Cf=C2DzEFE"FvRF4H9CH(I7eI XJr\JzkJWEK L, L-LXLN'M}-M NN]>籷OP9 S'SaSmfSgSzSTXT/kTU''U-U=UaUW"WFWWXXiXYYoYJD[^Y\:]9]R]^9E^2H^ko^ _+`/>`\`|`MagaVbc&d:dwXd_dqeggf"g:g%IghAh'j BjFjSjojykp#mim5nrntovozoJp3pJppgq@r@r\\rs.t.tArtZ'uDYu vp_p_?l Jr^rbNYnEEy?V]D^q3 #T]@gjSW 28G`A @+i!|1w x0s:betHwl!\q&_lf `0LGow>}+28K~BTr$QDXJf%n],@mc yp\3;Ih#sZ"7EZ ]\-v9v>H8(&a%N4+'7 E;!)?a?V8Cwd_!koHa2UGz: 3D^EU.37X(4=VZ1M8?uG~~.D]PZu5vM.hvwsyR1|w)<iclhwGz\O_duV_4chmdc+Q 96:RS+iOWGYG.T#mfjt|k)yrDFP<@\]^e$L+H il=yQ$_Cc|$Ck &&=O5U$# 55@5p@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial9. ")Segoe UI?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1hYYY .0 .0!4o4o42QHP ?2!xx MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTViolet E Lunderh                  Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|MINUTES OF THE MEETINGISTNormalViolet E Lunder3Microsoft Office Word@F#@9@9@9 .՜.+,0 hp  㽶ֱ0o4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~  Root Entry F9@1TablexeWordDocument 7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore}9c9ZWRJFMUSXHVTQ==2}9c9Item PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q