Academic Senate Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio  44555

Note 1: Many thanks to Joan Bevan of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies for taking notes and preparing a transcript of the April meeting while I was out of town for a conference.

Note 2: Please submit agenda items and cover sheets for the May 2 Senate meeting to Bege Bowers, English Department, by noon on Friday, April 20. Provide both a hard copy and a disk copy of your report and cover sheet in Word or rich text format. A downloadable cover sheet is available at the Academic Senate web site:

Note 3: If you want to read or print the pdf version of these minutes and don’t have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you may download the program at the following link: <http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html>.

To save paper, use the Acrobat Reader menus or toolbar to print the file, not the menus or toolbar in your web browser. 

Major topics presented/discussed: Need for committee volunteers for next year; need to examine YSU’s statement of ethics; encouragement to investigate the OBOR web site; notification of circulation and approval of two academic programs and approximately seven minors; proposed revision of University mission statement; approval of FY02 Library Budget.

Actions:  

• The following motion carried: motion requesting approval of the FY02 Library Budget as presented in Attachment 4 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting.

Call to Order:

Jim Morrison, chair of the Academic Senate, called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting:

Minutes of the 7 March 2001 meeting were approved as posted.

To view the March minutes, click here; click your “Back” button as necessary to return to the April minutes.

Senate Executive Committee (SEC) / Report from the Chair: Jim Morrison made the following announcements:

• The SEC will meet in the coming week and will make assignments of faculty to committees. The due date for faculty to submit committee preferences was Friday, March 30, but that date has been extended.
  
• President Sweet has encouraged us to look into whether the YSU Statement of Ethics (<http://www.ysu.edu/acad-senate/ethics_statement.htm>) can form the basis of a code of behavior and communication. There has also been input from OEA leadership concerning the definition of misconduct such as plagiarism and whether that is an appropriate area to be addressed by the Senate. Senators should contact Jim Morrison if they want to participate in that process. A committee will be formed of volunteers and others.

Ohio Faculty Council (OFC) Report: Tom Shipka, our elected representative to the OFC, presented the report that appeared in Attachment 1 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting. He made the following additional comments:

• The person who is compiling and releasing this data is Robert Sheehan, who is a Ph.D. and a specialist in research methodology and statistics. He has been at OBOR for about two years and has compiled the increasing mountain of data you can find on the OBOR web site about various aspects of higher education in Ohio that have seldom been publicized before. I have circulated a hard copy of the OBOR class size report to you today.

• As the report states, the Chancellor was not optimistic about the potential for dramatic progress in the legislature. Vice President Mears announced today that the University has received information that the Governor has ordered that our budget be reduced by one percent. That’s this year’s budget, the current budget. So this does not augur well for any hopes about increases in the new biennial budget. 

• I might emphasize again the importance of the OBOR web site (<http://www.regents.state.oh.us>). I think that web site is increasingly important in public higher education. You’re going to see edition after edition of details about higher education in this state on that web site, accessible not only to you and me and family and potential students, but also to the media, and I think it’s important that we familiarize ourselves with the data as they surface.

• Finally, in one of my previous reports I alerted you to a new recruitment technique of the Ohio Board of Regents called “Success Express.” Success Express will be visiting our campus on May 2. High school students from the region will be invited here. YSU will not be the only higher education institution that will be part of this visit. Many nearby institutions will be invited as well. Bassam Deeb will release more information in due course. 

The next OFC meeting is April 13.

Charter and Bylaws Committee: No report.

Elections and Balloting Committee: Louise Aurilio, chair of the committee, had no formal report but reminded senators that spring elections are ongoing and invited senators to nominate themselves or others.

Academic Programs Committee: Kathylynn Feld, chair of the committee, reported the committee has approved and circulated two programs. Others either have been sent back to the committee or will be circulated in the near future. Approximately seven minors have been approved and circulated and will be signed shortly. Others will be circulated either Monday, April 9, or by Thursday, April 12. Questions should be directed to Kathylynn Feld.

University Curriculum Committee: No additional report. See a list of approved courses in Attachment 5 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting.

Academic Planning Committee: Alice Burger, a member of the Academic Planning Committee and the Mission Statement Revision Committee, presented the Academic Planning Committee report. See Attachment 2 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting. Scott Martin, who attended the April 4 Senate meeting, is also on the Academic Planning Committee and the Mission Statement Revision Committee appointed by the President in January. This is the proposed revised mission statement:

Burger: President Sweet charged the committee to “shorten, revise, and focus” the current YSU mission statement. The charge was also not to radically change the existing mission of the University. The current mission statement is a two-page mission statement. There was some talk that if possible the revised mission statement should fit on a 3"x 5" card. The statement in Attachment 2 of the agenda (see above) and in the handout circulated at today's meeting comes close to that short and focused mission statement. 

The review committee, consisting of representatives from broad-based constituencies across campus and in the community, worked in small groups, and in each meeting the composition of the groups changed so that the statement resulted from input from the various groups and no one subcommittee or group was able to push through its version of the mission statement.

The new statement is two paragraphs containing five bulleted items that the task force believed were distinguishing characteristics of YSU, who and what we are, and what we want to project to the public. [Burger commented on each of the bulleted items as follows:]

The first bulleted item—concerning integration of scholarship and service with teaching—speaks to the University’s primary purpose of teaching, which was very important to members developing this statement. In the past six to eight years, especially, this integration has become a distinguishing characteristic of YSU among public and private institutions in the state. This is a focus. The statement does not say that other types of research—independent research and basic and applied research—are not important, but the integration of scholarship and service with our primary teaching purpose does distinguish YSU.

The second bulleted item—offering a broad range of programming, including certificate, associate, baccalaureate, and graduate programs—identifies that range as a distinguishing characteristic of YSU. At all baccalaureate institutions in this state, the majority of the programming is at the baccalaureate level, so baccalaureate programming does not distinguish YSU from other state institutions. A distinguishing characteristic of YSU is that broad range from certificate to graduate programs.

The third bulleted item—fostering student-faculty relationships that enrich learning—speaks to the University’s commitment to student-faculty interaction, the low student-faculty ratio in our courses, and the one-on-one interaction that we have with students from their first day on campus. From day one, students have the ability to interact with full-time faculty, tenured faculty, faculty at full-professor rank. That is also a distinguishing characteristic and a hallmark of YSU compared to other institutions in the state, where a student may not have a full-time, tenured professor in the first two years. At YSU, we have a low student-faculty ratio, and students have the opportunity to be involved in community service projects and research projects with professors. The committee believes this contact with professors both enriches and enhances the learning experience of students and, therefore, constitutes a distinguishing characteristic of YSU.

The fourth bulleted item—promoting diversity throughout the University and the communities it serves—is certainly a characteristic to which YSU is committed. In the last three years, a number of initiatives have been planned, implemented, and operationalized at YSU. The question remains: are we where we want to be on that?—and most people on campus would say “no.”

The fifth bulleted item—advancing the intellectual, cultural, and economic life of students and the broader community—refers to the leadership role that YSU plays in the economic life of the region and the many community/University partnerships that support business, industry, and education K-12, as well as the cultural impact of the University on the region and beyond.

The revision committee thinks those five characteristics are true to the mission of YSU; we simply shortened and focused the mission statement so that it could be operationalized. The committee is disseminating this statement broadly across campus to all University constituencies, and we ask senators to take the proposed mission statement back to their departments, faculty meetings, DAC meetings, etc. and thoughtfully read and compare this statement with the previous statement. Provide input either to Bege Bowers (bkbowers@www.ysu.edu), chair of the Mission Statement Revision Committee, or to Ram Kasuganti (rrkasuga@www.ysu.edu), chair of the Academic Planning Committee, by April 13. All suggestions will be thoughtfully considered. Some input has already been received and considered.

In May, the Academic Planning Committee will bring to the Senate a mission statement for a vote of approval. In June, that statement will go to the Board of Trustees for approval, and that will prepare the way for the next strategic planning process, which was started by Dr. Cochran and placed on hold by Dr. Sweet until the mission statement could be reviewed, revised, and approved. The revised mission statement will kick off that strategic planning process, building upon the work that has already been started. The planning process will be followed by a "visioning" process focused on where we see ourselves as an institution and where we want to be.

Discussion followed:

John Sarkissian, Foreign Languages: Compared to the old mission statement, this one says "YSU faculty and staff are dedicated to . . . ," which seems to exclude administrators and trustees from participating in the mission of the University. Do others think that is a peculiar change? I have a question about the word “integrating.” I think that word suggests something like incorporating into a larger unit. And I know that you said that this first bullet is not intended to denigrate applied research, but it seems to me it could be construed as saying that scholarship concerned with pedagogy has precedence over other types of scholarship, and that could eventually have an impact on things such as promotion and sabbatical decisions. Maybe I’m reading more into this statement than was intended, but faculty should think seriously about it.

Burger: Comments will be recorded in the Senate minutes and go back to the Academic Planning Committee for full consideration.

Regarding your first concern—"YSU faculty and staff are dedicated to"—the committee did for some period of time have "The University is dedicated to," but there was quite a bit of discussion on being more inclusive. It was the consensus of the committee that the language should include faculty and staff, not meaning to create a laundry list of all the constituencies at the University and not to narrowly focus but to use those terms "faculty and staff" in an inclusive manner. But your comments will go back to the Mission Statement Revision Committee and the Academic Planning Committee for consideration.

Regarding your comment about research and establishing a priority of what is of more value to an institution—basic research, applied research, or integration of teaching, research, and service—it is not the intent here to set priorities for promotion, tenure, or review of sabbatical or research professorship applications. The intent is to say what is a distinguishing characteristic of YSU and what are some of the things that we do exceptionally well. This integration has been an emphasis since Dr. Scanlon came and we created mission drafts around 1993/94; it was broadly supported by this body as well as the Board of Trustees. It is not really a change but an emphasis on the integration of teaching, research, and service as a distinguishing characteristic of YSU.

Michelle Hettinga, Student Government/College of Education: At Student Government, we looked over the revised mission statement and we think all of these bullets are great, but we think we can focus and shorten the statement without just having a list of facts. A mission statement should be meaningful and have a conclusion—it should "go out with a bang"—and we suggest the addition of a short paragraph at the end.

Charles Singler, Geology: Concerning the 3" x 5" card approach, will there be a supplement giving a context and explaining the elements listed?

Burger: The idea is that this will be the mission statement. It will be backed up by purposes and goals, it will be operationalized by a strategic plan, and there will be a vision statement referring to the future. In a sense, this mission statement will never stand alone, just as the previous one did not really stand alone—but for purposes of dissemination to internal and external constituencies, a mission statement as long as the current one raises concerns about someone sitting and reading the entire mission statement through and then wondering what the University’s true mission is. The committee looked at other university mission statements, including some in Ohio, that were a paragraph or so long.

Singler: Will there be something in writing explaining the context of the bulleted statements that would help us to understand, for example, what is meant by fostering student-faculty relationships?

Burger: Each of these bullets will relate to institutional purposes and specific institutional goals, and the committee believes these are all measurable items and can be put into measurable terms. You are right; that will follow this statement.

Singler: Within this there is a reference to "quality learning experiences" in addition to some other things identified by the several bullets. One thing that seems to be lacking is a focus on the mission of the University. Whether we say faculty or staff or administration, the mission of the University should be to provide a quality education, not just quality experiences and the integration of things toward teaching. I think there should be an emphasis on quality education.

Howard Mettee, Chemistry: I’m curious whether there was any discussion concerning the sensitivity of the narrowness of interpretation that might result from specifically mentioning the metropolitan region. It seems to me that although you add the term “beyond” after that, focusing on the explicit metropolitan region seems to characterize us a little as a community university, and I’m sensitive to that. I think we’ve been trying to reach beyond our immediate 50-mile radius and be more than a community university. We have national and international ambitions and accomplishments, and it seems to me that a wider view might be more stimulating than that narrow focus. Has there been discussion of that question?

Also, in the third bullet—the fostering of a student-faculty relationship that enriches learning—it seems to me that we’ve been doing a little more than that. I think we’ve been trying to develop relationships that also show an appreciation for scholarship and the need for these things and an appreciation for service as part of being a human being. I think that the student-faculty relationship goes beyond what might be in the statement, and I wonder if there has been any discussion of that question.

Burger: Regarding discussion concerning region and metropolitan region, much time was given to whether we are serving a metropolitan region and whether we are serving northeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania, which you will notice has been in past mission statements. Are we the three- or five-county area, the Valley, the region, northeastern Ohio—who is our target population, and who is this mission statement written for? That’s why we have “and beyond”—because we want our students to have an appreciation for a global society, a global economic environment, for business and industry that knows no boundaries, for telecommunication that allows us to e-mail within moments anywhere in the world. I’d rather not address that today, but I’m sure the committee will go back and address those concerns. Would Scott like to comment?

Scott Martin, Civil/Environmental & Chemical Engineering: Regarding the metropolitan region, in the past few years we have spoken of YSU as a premier urban or metropolitan institution, and we thought that the statement covered that but also went beyond it.

Burger: Regarding Dr. Singler’s second question, I think the statement goes beyond the faculty-student relationship. What we are doing is enriching students' educational experiences and their lives both now and in the future. That's what we saw as the purpose of the fifth bullet—advancing the intellectual, cultural, and economic life of students and the broader community.

[Burger thanked Kristin Serroka, another member of the Mission Statement Revision Committee and a student member of the Board of Trustees.]

Morrison: Input should go to Bege Bowers, Ram Kasuganti, or the Academic Planning Committee before April 13. The mission statement will come before the Senate at the May meeting, but for "ratification up or down"; it will not be amendable from the floor of the Senate, because it is not a product of the Senate. You can express reservations about it if you wish, but we will not be amending it from the floor.

Library Committee:  [The Library Committee's report was presented next since it required action.] Dora Bailey, chair of the committee, was unable to attend, so David Kurtanich presented the FY02 Library Budget; see Attachment 4 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting.

Kurtanich noted that the University Library Committee has agreed upon the budget as presented in Attachment 4 of the agenda and moved that it be approved. The motion was seconded, and discussion followed.

Singler: This seems to be a pretty lean report. Can you offer some insights as to how this budget compares to last year’s budget and whether any parameters have changed, leading to these particular numbers?

Kurtanich: The overall budget ($1,500,000) is the same amount as for the past two years. We are not proposing an increase at this time. The distribution among the colleges is the one agreed upon about three years ago. Tom Atwood will speak further to that.

Tom Atwood, Maag Library: Actually, the amounts are a little different. Two years ago, a six percent decrease was felt by the academic library. About $90,000 was taken from that budget. Last year, an additional three percent was removed from the budget, leaving approximately $135,000 less than shown here. The University Library Committee has submitted a supplemental increase request to bring us back to $1,500,000.

Singler: Was that loss distributed proportionately?

Atwood: That loss was for the reserve fund, and I understand it was in separate years.

Singler: The numbers you have here for the various colleges and other categories are essentially the same as last year and the year before?

Atwood: They are the same.

A vote was taken, and the motion to accept the library budget presented in Attachment 4 of the agenda for the April 4 Senate meeting carried.

General Education Committee:  Bill Jenkins, chair of the General Education Committee (GEC), reported that the list of recently approved general education courses that have cleared the objection stage is provided for information purposes in Attachment 3 of the agenda for the April 4, 2001, Senate meeting.

Integrated Technologies Committee, University Outreach Committee, Academic Research Committee, Student Academic Affairs Committee, Student Academic Grievance Committee, Honors Committee, and Academic Events Committee:  No reports.

Unfinished business:  None. Morrison reminded the Senate that committees must report at least once each academic year. If your committee has not reported this academic year, it needs to do so at the May Senate meeting.

New business: 

G. L. Mears, Executive Vice President: Concerning the comments Dr. Shipka made, it is correct that the University will experience a one percent reduction in state support. Each of our line items will be reduced by one percent, which amounts to $494,006. We do not anticipate reductions in the departmental budgets. We have sufficient additional revenue from the tuition that came from increased enrollment in both the fall and spring semesters.

Adjournment:  The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m.