Academic Senate Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio  44555

Note:  Submit agenda items for the March 1 Senate meeting to Bege Bowers, English Department, by noon on Friday, February 18.  Provide both a hard copy and a disk copy in Word 6/95 or rich text format.  A downloadable cover sheet is available at the web site:

For the third time this academic year, there was no sound on the tape of the Senate meeting. I have summarized the meeting from my typed notes.  It is imperative that you submit both a hard copy and a disk copy of your reports and statements to ensure accurate records. (BKB)

Topics presented/discussed: Jim Morrison’s remarks on the YSU presidential search and the need for better communication with the Board of Trustees; Academic Standards Committee’s distribution of material on minors and conditional admission, to be discussed at the March Senate meeting; procedures for resolving issues related to the proposed Finance program; changes in general education courses that were attached to the agenda; procedures for submitting proposals for courses to substitute for general education courses; Tom Shipka’s letter to the Vindicator concerning the appointment of David Sweet (Appendix C).

Actions:

• The following motion carried:  that the Academic Programs Committee report back to the Senate next month with either a recommendation to approve the Finance program, a recommendation not to approve the program, or a statement that the committee takes no position.  (The motion also stipulated that this procedure be adopted as official policy for handling disputes about approval of programs.)

• The following motion was made, but no vote could be taken because of the loss of a quorum:  that the Senate formally request that the University counsel research the individual liability that faculty will incur because we don’t have the resources [i.e., a catalog] to advise appropriately for the fall semester.

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 19 January 2000 Senate meeting were approved as corrected in the web version of the January 19 minutes.  Click here to view the correction (then click your "Back" button to return to the February minutes).

Senate Executive Committee / Report from the Chair: Jim Morrison made the following remarks concerning the YSU presidential search and the need for better communication with the Board of Trustees:

Now that the presidential search is concluded, I thought it appropriate to give my final report on my participation in the search.  I thought it might best be titled “What a Long Strange Trip This Has Been” (apologies to the late Mr. Garcia).

Several of you who were upset by the result have approached me concerning whether a vote of no confidence in the Board should be taken. I have urged against such a move for several reasons, most of which—I hope—will be clear before I’m done.

Brief History of the Search, Part One

As you will recall, two representatives from this body, Bege Bowers and I, were selected for the Presidential Search Advisory Committee last spring. The committee’s first task was to write/approve a statement of desirable characteristics of a YSU president. At the meeting in which we approved the statement and other search materials, it was announced that the statement would have to be submitted to the entire Board before it could be released.

At a special meeting of the Board, a bulleted item concerning interest and experience in expanding two-year programs was added. Then, the statement of desired characteristics was disseminated to the campus; many faculty became concerned that the item concerning two-year programs signaled an attempt to turn us in the direction of a community college.  I and others presented those concerns to the Search Advisory Committee; those concerns appeared in print.

This prompted Bruce Beeghly to respond at the next meeting of the Search Advisory Committee, at which he stated that the Board was concerned about the drop in graduates of two-year programs. Since his response was the only public portion of an otherwise-closed meeting, it became the Sunday-morning headline story, to the effect that the Board was mandating expansion of associate degrees.  This, of course, raised even more concern. While there was some softening by some—especially President Cochran—there was no real attempt to retract on the part of Board members, and, in fact, a question about two-year program expansion was asked of all interviewed candidates.

Of the almost 70 applicants for the presidency, the committee selected 15 for intensive reference checks; and 10 of those were interviewed in Cleveland. We were directed by the Board to present them with four to six candidates, unranked as to preference. We gave the board five names. Throughout the process, I felt matters proceeded in as open as possible a manner; differing perspectives were expressed, and I felt that each candidate had been treated fairly. Based on the information that the committee members had at that time and on the interviews we conducted, the five were a very clear consensus.

The committee’s work was done.

Round Two—On-Campus Visits and Interviews

I asked for and was granted interview time for the Senate Executive Committee and Graduate Council members with each candidate. These times were to be in addition to the meetings open to various constituencies. I attended four different sessions for each candidate, including an evening reception attended by community members, University retirees, and several Board members.

I began to get the strange feeling that there was a change in behavior on the part of some—that, especially during the last week, some members of the Board were simply not listening to what the candidates were saying, as if their minds were made up and focused only on the Friday night meeting.

I have publicly stated my keen disappointment in the results of last Friday’s Board meeting—not just who was selected, but the why. I would feel much better if I felt that each candidate had been given a fair hearing, that on-campus reactions had been truly weighed. The reaction of many—already suspicious of a process that began its finale only a very few hours after the last candidate interviews were concluded—was that perhaps we had been subjected to an unnecessary two-and-one-half-week dog and pony show.

We all should be clear:  the Board conducted its legally required duties in selection of the next president.  In the final analysis, it is their responsibility, and no one else’s. Absent any evidence of chicanery, we all must accept the outcome and move on without further fussing.  But I remain concerned about what has been said by some members of the Board, some in public statements, some in not-so-public ways. Together, the statements seem contradictory and sometimes contrary to the choice that was made. A few examples:

For some, the two-year program expansion is a hot-button item. But Dr. Sweet’s knowledge of subsidy formula with its punishment of general-studies offerings is as thorough as anybody’s, and he has made clear his pessimism concerning likely change. Further, his experience in program development is at the graduate level.

Some seem to have a misty-eyed desire to return to the YSU of the early 1970s—before Black Monday; when CAST was overrun with associate-degree candidates (many in Nursing). It was a time when we did no recruiting, when we had a president who seemed to view us as something like a fifth-year high school, and when suggestions about political activism and advocacy in Columbus were met with a response akin to finding a dead mouse under his dinner napkin. That was then, and this is now. Any attempt to return to what we were then would be logically to negate the progress we have made since and that we can make in the near future.

The strangest comment from a Board member was that YSU has become an “elitist” institution. What could that be about?  Honors programs?  New masters degrees?  External funding of research?  Expectations of scholarship for faculty?  These are negatives?  Also, one member stated that he or she would not support a particular candidate unless that person promised to clean house (Tod Hall). OK?  But then what?

It would seem that some Board members are ignorant of what we have been about and why we have been doing it. And we must admit our ignorance of the orientations and concerns of the Board. Perhaps we need to remember that our role as educators extends beyond the classroom and laboratory and that we need direct attention to other members of the University community, including members of the Board.

I attribute much of the mutual ignorance to our present structure of communication within and without the University.  It is almost as if a curtain is drawn between the majority of the faculty, staff, and students on one side and the Board members on the other.  Dr. Sweet comes from a University with a Board like ours, with a faculty senate somewhat like ours.  I believe the CSU Senate has formal access to the Board through appointments of a faculty representative to each Board committee.  These representatives are of course non-voting, but the opportunity for two-way communication about concerns is established without any attempt to by-pass the administration.  I will propose to the Executive Committee that we should promptly and seriously consider ways to structurally change our communications, formal and informal, with the Board and with the president.

In the mean time, if there are those who wish to express their opinions and views on the above matters directly to the Board, then I invite them to a meeting in the Psychology Department conference room at noon on Friday, February 4, to discuss matters of mutual concern.

By whatever means, we must also clearly communicate to the Board that the faculty and staff are at the center of program development, not just delivery, and thus we need to be involved at all stages.  This means that we refuse to remain the victims of jingoistic PR or mindless marketing ploys.  For example, the most recent marketing survey conducted for the University showed several respondents’ wanting an Associate in Nursing degree at YSU, and the question was then put to the department, “Why can’t we have one?” I was reminded of another rock group’s line, which I will butcher as follows: “You can’t always get what you want, but—if you’re lucky you may get what you need.” Marketing surveys for education are collections of wants; it is we who must do the needs analysis. From that, I suspect we will conclude that if YSU is to be the school of choice, it will be because of the strength of its baccalaureate programs, then master’s programs as needed, then associate-degree programs in technical areas.

Boards of Trustees are legally responsible for the operation of the state universities.  Presidents are responsible to the Board, but neither runs a university.  YSU will continue one way or another, whoever occupies the president’s and a Board seat.  We will run very well if there are mutual trust and support, not so well if there are not.  We owe it to the Board, certainly to Dr. Sweet, and most of all to ourselves to clearly define and make clear to all who we are; what we are, where we must go, what we need to get there.

In the meantime, let us be about welcoming Dr. Sweet to campus in proper fashion, and—Go Penguins.

Discussion followed:

David Porter:  Please clarify the meeting at noon on Friday.  What is it, and who is sponsoring it?

Jim Morrison:  I am sponsoring it as an individual faculty member.  Any statement we prepare can be forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee or sent directly to the Board of Trustees.
 

Ohio Faculty Council Report: No report.

Charter and Bylaws Committee: No report.

Elections and Balloting Committee:  No report.

Pavia noted that the definition of minors has been on the committee’s agenda since 1997-98.  The material presented is not to be confused with the 2/3 rule or conversion to semesters.  The question is, What do we feel constitutes a minor?

Megan Isaac:  Do the hours on the handout refer to quarter hours or semester hours?

Pavia:  Semester hours.

Academic Programs Committee:  Patricia Sarro, reporting for committee chair Kathylynn Feld, announced that the committee has almost finished processing programs for semester conversion.  Two programs are still under review—the committee is awaiting clarifications.  The Programs Committee rejected the proposed Finance program.  The people who forwarded the program may adjust it, or there may be an appeal.  Departments need to be sure students won’t have to substantially exceed 124 semester hours.

Pete Woodlock, chair of the Department of Accounting and Finance:  It’s upsetting that the reason for the objection is the number of 4-hour courses.  No pedagogical reason was given.  The committee does a disservice in not discussing this matter further with the department.  I hope we can resolve the matter and move forward.

A discussion of appeal procedures followed. Morrison noted that the Senate Executive Committee formulated temporary procedures for the Programs Committee, the Curriculum Committee, and the General Education Committee last year.  According to those procedures, the Programs Committee should follow procedures parallel to those of the Curriculum Committee, which has an appeals process. However, there is confusion about that process.

Morrison expressed hope that the Programs Committee will accept a request for an informal appeal and see if a resolution can be reached.  If none is reached, the committee can bring the matter to the floor of the Senate, outline the issues, and take one of three actions: recommend that we approve the program, recommend that we not approve the program, or take no position.  The Senate would then vote on the program.

David Porter moved that Morrison’s comments be adopted as official policy:  that the Academic Programs Committee report back to the Senate next month with either a recommendation to approve the Finance program, a recommendation not to approve the program, or a statement that the committee takes no position.

The motion was seconded, a vote was taken, and the motion carried.

University Curriculum Committee: Tammy King reported for Patricia Hoyson, chair of the Curriculum Committee, who was teaching.  The committee has finished processing most of the courses for semesters and plans to complete that work by Monday, February 7. (The report actually occurred later in the meeting, but it is included here at its regular location in the minutes.)

Academic Planning Committee: No report.

General Education Committee: Bill Jenkins, committee chair, referred to the items the committee had attached to the agenda for February 2.

He noted that three courses on the list have been renumbered:  ECON 1500A should be 1501; ECON 1500B should be 1502; and ECON 1500C should be 1503.

The circulation period for four of the courses attached to the agenda will end Friday, February 4:  courses 990078, 90118 [mistyped for 990118?], 990051, and 990097.  If no objections are received, they will be certified.

Jenkins noted again that courses certified for general education are listed on the general education web site at <http://www.ysu.edu/ger/GERlist. html>.  You can download a complete list there.

David Porter noted that the prerequisite for course 990139 (POLIT 2640) should be worded “POLIT 1550 or 1560,” not “POLIT 1550/1560.”

As noted on the agenda, the committee had planned to make a motion concerning the theatre courses listed on page 9 of the hard-copy agenda.  However, because Tod Porter and others have withdrawn their objection to the courses, the committee is dropping the motion.  The two courses are appended as required by the procedures of the GEC.  See Tod Porter’s memo in Appendix B.

Jenkins noted that the committee has finished getting regular and substitute courses in place; has cleared some capstone and intensive courses; and is looking forward to receiving proposals for intensive components as soon as possible.  Writing-intensive courses must be on the upper-division level.  Each department should try to have at least two of those courses.  One of the oral-communication courses can be an upper-division course in the major, and the GEC encourages each department to have one.  The committee also welcomes critical thinking-intensive courses from the majors.  The committee has received few proposals for intensive and capstone courses. Try to get intensive and capstone proposals to the General Education Committee by the end of winter quarter.

For informational purposes, Charles Singler asked Jenkins to comment on the issues related to approval of the theater courses as substitute courses and to the objection that followed.

Jenkins referred to the similar subject matter of substitute and general education courses, to the heavy credit and accreditation demands of the theater program, to the question of breadth versus depth, and to the courses' upper-division status.

Singler acknowledged that the task of reviewing the many courses submitted from across the University for general education approval has been monumentally time consuming and that the General Education Committee should be recognized for that service.  One consequence, however, has been that communication with the general University population about the specific guidelines, criteria, and procedures beyond those of the criteria to satisfy goals has not occurred.  Some faculty have raised questions to Singler about these and other matters, including some related to possible overlap of responsibilities with other Senate committees.

Singler asked Jim Morrison whether he would accept these comments as a referral to the Senate Executive Committee for its consideration.  Morrison responded affirmatively.

Jenkins:  Specifics of Dr. Singler’s concerns have not been sent to the GEC committee.  I think it would be appropriate to discuss those concerns with the GEC.  The GEC has gone to the Curriculum Committee and discussed some of the instances (such as the numbering of some courses) where we’ve asked for changes.  I don’t object to the matter’s being forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee, but the GEC needs to be apprised of your concerns.

Singler:  To some extent we have done that. We attended some meetings of the GEC and disagreed about some things.  I think the Senate Executive Committee will serve as an objective third party.  We’re concerned that we don’t know what criteria are being used.

Integrated Technologies and University Outreach Committees:  No reports.

Library Committee:  Tom Atwood reported that the Library Committee met and will submit a budget at the next Senate meeting.  Because of the 6% budget cuts, the committee feels that many departments can no longer afford to subscribe to so many journals.  Each department has received a list of the journals to which it subscribes, the cost of each of those journals, and the journals that are available online.  The committee will recommend a $1.5 million budget.

Curriculum Committee:  Tammy King asked to report for the Curriculum Committee.  See the report above, listed immediately after the Academic Programs Committee report.

Academic Research, Student Academic Affairs, Student Academic Grievance, Honors, and Academic Events Committees: No reports.

Unfinished business:  None.

New business:

Item 1—Tom Shipka:  I rise for a point of personal privilege.  I am chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, an at-large senator for the College of Arts and Sciences, and an elected member of the Senate Executive Committee.  I would like to have attached to the minutes a letter I will send to the Vindicator.

The parliamentarian ruled that Shipka could present the letter, which addresses the choice of David Sweet as president.  Shipka read the letter, which is attached to these minutes as Appendix C.

Item 2—David Porter:  Like others of you, I read a memo signed by Nancy White that said we won’t have catalogs when advising for semesters begins.  If one of us gives bad advice to a student and the student has to go an extra semester, we personally can be sued.  This is an awkward position for us to be in—to be asked to advise without the most important document we need to do so.

Porter moved that the Senate formally request that the University counsel research the individual liability that faculty will incur because we don’t have the resources to advise appropriately for the fall semester.

The motion was seconded, and someone asked if we still had a quorum.  A count showed that only 36 senators remained. No further business could be conducted, so no vote was taken.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

February 1, 2000

Editor of The Vindicator:

Dr. Nancy White from YSU had harsh words in a Vindicator story about the selection of Dr. David Sweet as YSU's next president.  While she may be disappointed that the finalist that she preferred was passed over, she should take a fresh look at Dr. Sweet's credentials and give him and his leadership team a chance.  Invective and whining are not what our university or our community need as we face daunting challenges.

As a member of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, I received the applications and resumes of the five finalists, participated in interviewing them, and filled out evaluation sheets on each as requested by the trustees.  I found the credentials of Dr. Sweet especially strong.

Dr. Sweet has taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels at the University of North Carolina, The Ohio State University, and Cleveland State University.  His degrees were awarded by universities with fine reputations — Rochester, North Carolina, and Ohio State.  He is author, editor, or co-editor of five books.  He is author or co-author of twenty-eight chapters in books, monographs, and journal articles.  He has written extensively on urban universities and urban and industrial development in periodicals and newspapers.  He has given approximately one hundred twenty-five papers and addresses on these same subjects throughout the country.  He has published thirty-one commissioned research reports for which he was project director or principal author.  Only a tiny fraction of Ph.D.'s achieve this level of scholarly productivity in a career.

He has held significant positions in state government under Democrat and Republican Governors and enjoys respect on both sides of the aisle in the Ohio General Assembly.  He has worked hand in glove with the Ohio Board of Regents for years and currently chairs the Regents' Urban University Program.  He has also been a dean of a college with nationally recognized programs in city management and public policy.

Beyond this, Dr. Sweet's campus, professional, and public service record has brought him dozens of awards and accolades.

Only time will tell whether Dr. Sweet fulfills our hopes and expectations.  As for the trustees' decision, based on the evidence before them, they acted responsibly and deserve to be congratulated, not maligned.