ࡱ> ;=89:Y gbjbj[[ 79 \9 \_e        8X$ ,q"ppppppp$sup p  p  ppXw]0cD7Z6pp0,qZ^v^vlw]^v w] pp,q^v> : MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 PRESENT: M. Adams, M. Bleeke, W. Bowen, M. Buckley, B. Cavender, B. Conti, L. Deering, S. Duffy, G. Dyer, B. Ekelman, D. Elkins, P. Fodor, K. Gallagher, V. C. Gallagher, J. Ganning, J. Gatica, D. Geier, J. Genovese, M. Gibson, J. Goodell, C. Hansman, M. Holtzblatt, M. Jackson-McCabe, M. Kalafatis, R. Krebs, A. Kumar, M. Kwiatkowski, S. Lazarus, K. Little, W. Matcham, B. Mikelbank, T. Porter, B. Ray, A. Resnick, B. Richards, L. Rickett, C. Schoenewald, R. Shelton, A. Slifkin, A. Sonstegard, R. Tighe, A. Vandenbogert, J. Visocky-OGrady. R. Dunn, K. Mooney, H. Sands, J. Sawicki, S. Shaheen, N. Sridhar, D. Stewart, D. Zhang, J. Zhu. S. Gingerich, T. Guzman, K. Hamlen Mansour, J. Niederriter, D. Jackson. Approval of the Agenda for the February 6, 2019 Meeting Unanimously approved by voice vote. Approval of the Meeting Minutes Summary of November 28, 2018 Unanimously approved by voice vote. Report of the Faculty Senate President Faculty Senate President William Bowen reported that he is making his rounds to college faculty meetings and encourages two way communications. Dr. Bowen mentioned that Huron Consulting Group came to the BOT meeting and did a financial review of the universitys situation; it is basically sound. With that said, enrollment declines since 2013 and restrictions on tuition have led to declines of eight tenths of one percent per year of revenues. Expenses have increased at the rate of nine tenths of one percent per year. Reasons were reported in the November Senate Minutes. Senate President Bowen turned to Strategic goals and reported that the goals were discussed at the BOT meeting and President Sands will be sharing his priorities. It was put together in a collaborative way and in partnership with faculty leadership and the administration it is thoughtful and well-reasoned. The next step will be to translate it into operational terms. A meeting has been set to start to do that next week. Dr. Bowen reported on meetings of the OFC (Ohio Faculty Council). It is active in state politics. This Friday, the OFC will meet with Randy Gardner, our new Chancellor, and his Senior Vice Chancellor, Mike Duffey, to talk about the higher education initiatives that will be taken over this next year. Dr. Bowen noted that there is hope that the faculty and the administration will have a joint Free Speech Statement. Professor Bowen stated that President Sands has changed the way honorary degrees are selected. The process will be more faculty driven. Finally, Dr. Bowen mentioned that the Admissions and Standards Committee will bring forth a proposal to raise the minimum English Language from 6.0 to 6.5 on the IELTS and that will be covered a little later on the agenda. He added that this could help enrollment. University Curriculum Committee Dr. Joan Niederriter, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, presented the following proposals for approval. Vote: 1. Bilingual Education, Post-Licensure Endorsement (Report No. 33, 2018-2019) Inactivate this program there has not been any students enrolled since Fall 2015. The program and courses in the program are being made inactive. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 2. Capstone Criteria Revisions (Report No. 34, 2018-2019) The proposed changes will bring the approval criteria for capstones into alignment with the way in which the capstone requirement is described in the report that established the current General Education program (Gen Ed 08). The resulting review and recertification of capstones puts into action one of the recommendations of the 2017 report from the Ad-Hoc Committee on General Education. Senator Jorge Gatica inquired, How will it be conducted? Professor Niederriter responded that they will start with capstone courses. If approved, they will come up with a new set of criteria and submit things for review. It might be easy for some because capstone already does. It will be a little bit of paperwork. It could take 2-3 years. It will be the departments initiative. Senator Anup Kumar commented that there will be some reflecting and the students will have to do a little work to consider the next steps. Senator Beth Ekelman stated that there are catalog issues with regard to time. Senator Jose Gatica reported that criteria sheets will be on the Gen Ed website once approved. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 3. Comparative Religion, B.A. (Report No. 35, 2018-2019) Created some new electives REL 348 and REL 361 Moved some electives between categories REL 336 and REL 367 are WAC courses that have been designated as writing intensive Research Skills Courses. Designated REL 475 as fulfilling Religions Originating in the Middle East diversity requirement. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 4. English, B.A. (Report No. 36, 2018-2019) Increasing the coherence of the major and minor and bringing requirements into better alignment with peer institutions and transfer institutions. Decreased core credits from 9 to 6. Required: ENG 306 Literary Analysis and ENG 400 Critical Research Methods Degree 120- major 39 and for honors 42 or 45 depending on track Made additional changes in courses for the honors program Unanimously approved by voice vote. 5. Elementary and Secondary Education (Advanced & Applied Teacher), M.Ed. (Report No. 37, 2018-2019) ETE 565 (4 credits) will be replaced by ETE 570 Technology in Learning Environments (3 credits). The Educational Technology Master's program has redesigned their program which included changing ETE 565 from 4 credit hours to ETE 570 (3 credit hours) with redesigned content. The content from ETE 565 which was obsolete with respect to technology was removed from ETE 570. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 6. International Relations, B.A. (Report No. 38, 2018-2019) Substitute ECN 382 for ECN 482 in the International Business Concentration (both tracks) and Global Studies Concentration of the IR major. ECN 482 is designed for economic majors. ECN 382 covers topics more appropriate for noneconomic majors. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 7. Journalism and Promotional Communication, B.A. (Report No. 39, 2018-2019) Adding two courses to the list of Restrictive Elective courses in both the Journalism sequence and the Integrated Promotional Communication sequence. Removing COM 301 Broadcasting from the list of Restrictive Elective courses in both the Journalism sequence and the Integrated Promotional Communication sequence. Our question was about COM 301 which was answered. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 8. Literacy Development and Instruction, M.Ed. (Reading and TESOL endorsements available) (Report No. 40, 2018-2019) This program has not had students enrolled since Fall 2015. The program and the courses in the program are being made inactive. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 9. Music, B.Mus (Report No. 41, 2018-2019) Major changes to the program tracks due to an extensive review of the program and to make sure that it meets the American Music Therapy Associations requirements for program approval and the National Association of Schools of Musics accreditation requirements. Changes in credit hours in various tracks. Removed MUS 113 Writing about Music and add ENG 102 as required. Made some changes to the capstone requirement in several of the tracks. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 10. Temporary General Education Status (Report No. 42, 2018-2019) To create a policy for the possibility of granting temporary General Education status to courses in order to respond to special circumstances, such as a one-time event or a visiting faculty member. It also establishes and expedited review process for the courses by the Director of General Education. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 11. Urban Education, Ph.D. (Report No. 43, 2018-2019) Proposal to change the definition of candidacy and to require students to begin work on their dissertation prospectus in their third year, instead of in their second year. Students will be required to begin their prospectus development no later than the third year of the program, allowing them additional time to begin specialization coursework and develop relationships with faculty members before starting dissertation work. Beginning in the third year of the program will ensure that students have adequate content knowledge and knowledge of the expertise areas of faculty to make optimal use of their time during prospects development. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 12. Urban Studies, MS (Report No. 44, 2018-2019) Public Finance: A new course in the curriculum (UST 636) provides an opportunity to strengthen this specialization. Other topical finance courses are choices within the specialization. The number of free electives changes from two to one. Community and Neighborhood Development: Due to the frequency of offering, this change creates a choice between UST 660 and UST 664, instead of requiring both. Economic Development: Replacing UST 629 with UST 622 as a requirement better reflects the expertise of the full-time faculty and the policy theme within the college Unanimously approved by voice vote. Informational: (Report No. 45, 2018-2019) Dr. Niederriter stated that the final two proposals approved by the University Curriculum Committee are informational only. 1. Anthropology Minor Changing the foundations requirement from one course to two, one of which must be 101 or 102. The department requests this change to provide a solid foundation and enhance students chances of success in the required core courses. Ensuring that all minors take either 101 or 102 will enhance their chances of success in the required Core courseEnsuring that all minors take either 101 or 102 will enhance their chances of success in the required Core courseEnsuring that all minors take either 101 or 102 will enhance their chances of success in the required Core courseThe elective requirement will be reduced from 9 hours to 6 hours. Required for minor is 15 credits (has not changed). 2. Business Economics Major, B.B.A. Adding ECN 428 to the list of potential electives for Business Economics Majors. This is to increase the number of electives available for students in the major. Admissions and Standards Committee Proposal to Raise Minimum English Language from 6.0 to 6.5 on IELTS (Report No. 46, 2018-2019) Dr. Karla Hamlen Mansour, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the committees proposal to raise the minimum English Language from 6.0 to 6.5 on the IELTS. Dr. Mansour stated that in looking toward potential partnerships between ϰϲʿ¼ and those who can assist us with international student recruitment, it came to the attention of the Admissions and Standards Committee that our minimum standards for English language tests fall below those of most other universities. In fact in some cases, ϰϲʿ¼ would not even be eligible to enter into such a partnership because of our lower requirements. So the Admissions and Standards Committee puts forth the proposal that we raise our minimum English language requirements contingent upon ϰϲʿ¼ entering an agreement with an education partner that requires it. The reason this is proposed as a contingent vote instead of an immediate change is because such a partnership would give ϰϲʿ¼ the resources needed to create a pathway program for the graduate students like the one that we have for undergraduates. This way, graduate students who do not quite meet the new English language requirements would have a pathway to attend ϰϲʿ¼ for one year as non-degree students while completing ESL courses to increase their scores on the English language tests. If we do not enter such a partnership, we would not be implementing a Graduate Pathway Program so we would keep the standards as they are now to avoid losing potential candidates. The proposal is to raise the minimum English language requirement for the entire university from 6.0 to 6.5 on IELTS along with equivalent scores on the alternative English language tests contingent upon ϰϲʿ¼ entering into an agreement with an education partner that requires it. Senator Jeremy Genovese asked, How would it affect our Chinese language program in the College of Education? This is an important program. He then asked Professor Mansour if she had consulted with the people who run that program and are they in support of this resolution. Professor Mansour stated that she did consult with them. They were gathering data but she never heard the final results. She believes it would affect them to some extent because their students do struggle to meet the current requirements. If they were able to meet the new requirements, they might go elsewhere anyway but she doesnt have any data on that because she never got the final results. Provost Jianping Zhu stated that we do have a precedence for exceptions for particular programs. Dr. Nigamanth Sridhar remarked that asking for an exception is not necessary since we already have a process and would prefer to continue. It is a highly specialized program and we know the needs are different. Senator Michael Kalafatis stated that we already know that the Chairs have had a meeting with the Provost. He asked, Are we going to reveal details and costs? Provost Zhu reported that he is in conversations with the company but doesnt have the specifics. Exact details cannot be discussed until it is finalized. Responding to Dr. Kalafatis, Provost Zhu stated, In principle to your question, we have a saying, If we are sitting here now doing nothing, the situation will only get worse. Provost Zhu noted that, at the peak, we enrolled between 1,600 and 1,700 international students. As of now, we are at about 1,100 so we lost 500 international students over the last two or three years. In terms of the revenue, keep in mind that those students pay twice the in-state tuition and their credit hours, typically by regulation, they have to sign up for 9, while domestic students on average only take 6 to 7 credits so revenue equivalent, one international student is equal to three domestic students. Provost Zhu stated that based on our assessment, this company has the potential based on their partnership with other universities, and we are fully confident that if we enter into the agreement, we will be reversing our trend the trend being over two or three years that we have lost 500 to 600 students so he is pretty confident. President Harlan Sands stated that he committed to everyone that we will grow, and he does not want to be here talking about cuts. If this comes to pass and we are in the end stage of a negotiation, it will be a good deal for the university. This is a revenue plus for the institution. The investment that the company will make in us will be greater than the investment that we will make up front. He stated that he looks forward to sharing the details with everyone. It is a negotiation so he has to be true to that relation, working very closely with Nigamanth and the Provost and faculty leadership to make sure that we do something that is good for all of us. President Sands said, I am very confident. If this relationship comes to pass, we will be one of a small group of universities of which most of the other universities that this group is partnering with are ranked higher than us in the U. S. News and World Report. He went on to say that it is a good group to be with. We have a nice niche. I have been able to present our campus and the work that you do in a very positive way which has been able to bring them to the table and be willing to do this with us. It is not a sure bet they didnt come looking for us but I am very confident. Senator Andrew Resnick commented that the Provost and the President mostly answered his question but, since we currently do not have an agreement and we are in negotiations for an agreement, is there some sort of sunset clause in this motion? Say we dont enter into the agreement, and it is twenty years from now and we still dont have an agreement. Is this just hanging up there or does this sort of lapse during a certain amount of time? Senate President Bowen responded that his understanding is if we dont enter into that agreement fairly soon, it will be null and void. He asked, Do you want to add a sunset clause into it? Dr. Resnick said no and said he just didnt know where the negotiations were at now. President Sands reported that they have asked us to raise the standards. This is something that has been well received by the programs for the most part with the exception of the one in Education that was raised which we can deal with on a one-off. But, if the deal doesnt come to pass, he defers to the faculty leadership if this is something they want to re-examine. The proposal to raise the minimum English Language requirement for the entire university from 6.0 to 6.5 on the IELTS was approved unanimously. University Faculty Affairs Committee Second Reading Proposed Greenbook Revisions The Faculty Senate (B) Selection of elected members (H) Election of officers (Report No. 21, 2018-2019) Professor Stephen Gingerich, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, commented that everyone may notice that he is not David Forte who was chair last fall. He noted that he is back from professional leave and he is happy to be back. He has tried to pick up the threads of what UFAC was doing last fall, what David presented at the last Senate meeting, and is now getting a second reading and they are revisions to the Greenbook. Dr. Gingerich noted that he heard there was a lot of discussion at the last Senate meeting about the first one, 3344-13-02 (B) Selection of elected members. The first change is inserting new language in the section governing Selection of elected members of Faculty Senate. This election shall take place during the spring semester of each academic year on a schedule such that the balloting is completed, counted, and senators selected by March 1st. He noted that for the nominations committee of CLASS, that is not the calendar that they had and the committee is aware that most colleges dont operate according to the schedule. They talked about when this would take effect. This would need to go to the Compliance website and then be approved by the Board of Trustees and would be difficult to put into effect for next year. So no one should be worried that we are trying to get colleges to elect senators within twenty-two days. This is something we expect to put into effect for next year. He noted that this is a second reading and we will have a vote today. Professor Gingerich stated that the proposed revision to 3344-13-02 (H) Election of officers, changes the start date of the positions of the executive committee. Instead of following the election at the start of the fall semester, subsequent to the spring election, when the positions commence, this makes it possible for Senate officers to actually continue through the summer with the final clause here that they will coordinate with the outgoing executive committee. It reads, Outgoing senate officers will work with officers elect during the summer semester after the election to ensure a smooth transition into the new academic year. Professor Gingerich noted that he has heard some concern about the timing of this and UFAC will coordinate with the college faculty affairs committees so that this can be implemented in an orderly way. Dr. Bowen stated that we have a motion on the table to revise the Greenbook such that elected members and officers occurs in the spring rather than the fall. Senator Jennifer Visocky-OGrady noted that her college, CLASS, had a question that this would set us up to have this years elected senators elect the following years leaders but the same senators might not move forward and so there is the question of adequate representation. Dr. Gingerich replied that the implementation of this would not happen until next year. What CLASS and other colleges would have to do is finish the elections for Senate representatives before March 1st. So for next year, it can happen according to the calendar that has always been in place and then next years elections will have to take place by March and then those new senators will elect the executive committee for the following year. He noted that he was looking at the timing thing. If we had elections at the end of this year but the senators are the outgoing senators, then they would be choosing leadership for the next years senators and that is something, in implementation, that we will make sure does not happen. Senator Brian Ray noted that to procedurally clarify, we would elect our senators not this year but next year in March and then the current crop of senators would continue or there would be a complete transition where this body would then Whoever the senators are next year, who doesnt continue, would then step aside in March and the new body would convene or how? He said that he is just not clear on it. Dr. Gingerich replied that these are the things that UFAC can work out when the pressure is not on to explain it but the whole procedure would have to start next year so that this years senators dont elect the executive committee that is not going to oversee their membership. Professor Ray inquired if Dr. Gingerich was envisioning that the new senators would convene in March just to elect the officers or that the whole body would switch over in March? Dr. Gingerich replied that actually the elections are slated for April immediately following the election of senators. The Faculty Senate President So April 1st is what it says. The elections for the Executive Committee would have to take place by April 1st. Professor Ray noted that he is just trying to understand procedurally how this would work whether we would get on a schedule, where each new Senate would, in effect, begin in March to March or you would have two simultaneous... Professor Gingerich responded that the next transition will follow the way the Greenbook is now. While we oversee that colleges write into their Bylaws elections by March 1st and then during March, those new Senators would elect their executive committee for 2020. Senator Robert Shelton referred to the Senate officers and stated, If they are elected by March 1st, they dont take office until September 1st, but then it also says that the leadership would be elected before they take office. He then asked, Who elects the leadership the sitting senators who are about to leave or the new senators? Dr. Gingerich replied that the idea is that the new senators would elect their executive committee for the following year. That is the clause that the Senate officers will work with the officers-elect during the summer for a smooth transition. The duties do begin before the term begins because of this idea of a smooth transition. The authority hasnt kicked in but some duties have and that is what this is trying to establish. Senator Joanne Goodell stated that the intention was, from her recollection, that it would make the transition of offices smoother if there was a certainty about who the next president would be so that over the summer, the incoming president of Senate would have an opportunity to work with the outgoing president of Senate and the same for any other officer position so the time line was worked backwards to try and make sure that that would happen in a timely fashion. She went on to say that it certainly was not the intention that two senates would be operating simultaneously nor that one senate would be dismissed in March and a new one take over. If it is not worded clearly enough, then perhaps UFAC needs to take some advisement from people who have a better way of wording it. Dr. Bowen asked for a motion to refer the proposal back to UFAC. It was moved and seconded that the proposal be referred back to the University Faculty Affairs Committee. Dr. Bowen asked for a vote. The motion to refer the proposal back to the University Faculty Affairs Committee was unanimously approved by voice vote. First Reading Proposed Greenbook Revision Appointment of Chairs and Deans (Report No. 47, 2018-2019) Professor Gingerich presented the first reading of changes to the Greenbook policy on appointment of chairs and deans. He noted that this is something that he is trying to pick up and clearly and accurately represent UFACs discussion of this even though he wasnt in those discussions. He was reading though the section and he noticed that the chairs and the deans have clear directives to foster democratic procedures and to cultivate democratic management. He noted that in spite of that, there was no clause that described how chair and dean evaluations would be reported back to the faculty members. These clauses were inserted in order to create a mechanism for that. He referred everyone to page 5 of the proposal the underlined section which is being added: The dean shall provide to the faculty of the department a summary narrative of the departmental members evaluations. The dean shall take into account the departmental members responses to the narrative and shall include this information in the colleges annual report to the provost. The idea is that the responses from the evaluations get turned into a narrative that gets distributed to the faculty. Dr. Gingerich next referred to page 9 of the proposal under the deans section. All evaluations shall be received by the provost who shall prepare a summary narrative of the evaluations and convey the summary narrative together with the provosts comments to the dean and the faculty of the college. Dr. Gingerich stated then it reads, The summary narrative shall not be included in any personnel file or permanent record. Dr. Gingerich noted that both of these create a mechanism for reporting. This seems to be a step in the direction of greater transparency. He noted that it has been pointed out to him that it does not provide for any other oversight. Though there is this increase in transparency, they also preserve the administrationss exclusive access to those raw evaluation responses. Professor Gingerich stated that this is one of those cases where for him, in the UFAC, it is a decision for the Senate to make. People have to weigh that idea of increased transparency and an added mechanism for reporting against the fact that that evaluation data really still remains with the level of the administration higher than the person being evaluated. Dr. Gingerich again stated that this is the first reading and he will entertain questions about this. Senator Bob Krebs remarked that he is sorry to have to bring this up in this full room. He was hoping to try to head this off beforehand and he talked with Dr. Gingerich at some length this afternoon. For those who may or may not be aware, this was an issue that raised some real concerns across the faculty several years ago the last time the deans came up for review with precise procedures that we felt were not in any way transparent. The concept that we were asked to make a numerical determination, that we were expected to go out and review deans, that we were turning in forms, and that if any of you remember, the only thing any of us ever saw that came back from those evaluations was about a four line summary statement. When there were any questions that came out about what the actual data were resolving about these because actually in two different colleges, he was the union president at the time, he was addressed with concerns from faculty who simply did not believe the summary statements from their polling of colleagues. And, for that reason, we were looking for more transparencies and actually if people didnt know, we actually spent two years in a law suit with the university trying to obtain transparency in this. Dr. Krebs added that for the record, the university won that law suit. A judge ruled, in our opinion, he kind of did not like the idea of expanding the freedom of information act. He ruled that the university had the right to decide what is a public record and what is not a public record and, therefore, if the university wants to choose that dean reviews are not a public record, then they can destroy them. Dr. Krebs added that he accepts that thats the ruling from a court of law. But what he cant really accept is that this improves transparency; just simply saying that we are going to provide a dean review that somebody in some room is going to provide a summary statement and then that is just it. He went on to say that given our past history here, he thinks it is basically asking us to codify what was the administrative position several years ago. In a sense here, it actually makes it very clear that always the chair reports and it has always previously been numerical. The dean reports it not and so there is concern about whether this action does what we would like to do, which is actually provide a real response particularly in a sense that We are very aware that every time students review us, this is a record that is kept in our files. Dr. Krebs said that he didnt check clearly but he thought when we review chairs, in fact he remembers from the legal statement, the chair reviews are actually part of the public records. But once you go above a chair, any review we make is not a public record of this university. He said that to him that seems to be in asymmetry which seems a bit odd, and if we have to live with it under law, that is one thing but he said that he cant vote for that. Dr. Gingerich commented that this is why we vote on things like this at Senate. It has to do with whether we are willing, as faculty representatives, to place that responsibility in the hands of the administration in this way. Senator Rosie Tighe noted that she would just like to point out the fact that if this body is going to have a full discussion of this, she thinks it should be done when there are not Deans in the room. She knows that she has a lot of untenured colleagues across all the different colleges who may not feel comfortable discussing these issues with their Deans sitting behind them. She added that she is not speaking for herself but if we are going to have this conversation about what has happened before and where we are going to go forward, she feels like it should be something that maybe the Senate is doing in a closed forum because it wont put people on the spot if they are making comments like she is right now. Professor Tighe added that she would like that to be considered. Senate Secretary Vickie Coleman Gallagher noted that part of what she started to say in this conversation is that hopefully going forward we will start to have a culture where we feel that there is accountability that that conversation is getting stronger under this new president with regard to Deans and Chairs, etc., but simultaneously, that there is stronger developmental opportunities for all of us to figure out what we need to work on and, that is a very big mind-set shift but a step in the right direction. Dr. Gallagher stated that she appreciates what Dr. Krebs said; she wasnt aware of all of that and she is hopeful for the future but she can understand the skepticism. Senator Gary Dyer noted that this is our first reading and asked if there is a motion to send the proposal back for reconsideration by UFAC. Dr. Dyer stated that he is on Steering and he was not aware of the facts that Professor Krebs drew his attention to today. He added that maybe he wasnt paying attention in Steering that day but, in his opinion based on what he has heard, there are some questions here that maybe require re-consideration both by UFAC and frankly, also a discussion in Steering both. Perhaps he should make a motion that we send the matter back to UFAC for some reconsideration because there are apparently legal matters here that he was unaware of that may need to be taken into account in some way so maybe he makes a motion that we, UFAC, take this back and do some rethinking and reworking. Dr. Bowen commented that maybe Professor Dyer does. Dr. Dyer stated that he does want to make a motion to send the proposal back to UFAC. Dr. Bowen asked for a second to the motion. The motion was seconded. Dr. Bowen then asked for any discussion on the motion. There being no discussion, Dr. Bowen asked for a vote in favor of sending the proposal back to UFAC. The motion to send the proposal back to UFAC was approved unanimously. Ad Hoc Committee on Undergraduate Student Success Retention and Graduation Rates (Report No. 48, 2018-2019) Professor Debbie Jackson, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Undergraduate Student Success, reported that in her role, she attends Retention Roundtable meetings as well as the newly formed Deans Academic Equity Steering Committee. She noted that she first wanted to talk a little bit about the Retention Roundtable, chaired by Dr. Peter Meiksins. The membership of the Roundtable includes members from the Office of Institutional Diversity, Undergraduate Studies, Enrollment Services, Center for Faculty Excellence, the Mathematics Department, Strategic Planning, Institutional Research, Student Life, University Marketing, and the Higher Education Compact. The Roundtable has been discussing the data that she is sharing with Senate today for about one year. The data that Mr. Thomas Geaghan will share today has been presented to the Provosts Council and the presentation at the Provosts Council resulted in the beginnings of the Deans Academic Equity Steering Committee. In addition, the data has been presented to the faculty in the College of Education at a college faculty meeting as well as at the College of Sciences and Health Professions at a faculty meeting. Dr. Jackson stated that Tom Geaghan, Director of Institutional Research, will be presenting to the department chairs in the College of Engineering in the coming weeks. That was supposed to happen last week but it was too cold so none of us were here. Professor Jackson introduced Mr. Thomas Geaghan and noted that he will go through the data with Senate consisting of about ten slides. Mr. Geaghan has been working on this data for quite some time. The slides are about retention and in particular the gap between majority and minority students here on campus. One slide indicates that according to IPEDS data, we are number 34 out of 35 for having the largest gap. She added that there is data out there searchable by anyone on IPEDS that we are currently second to last in addressing the gap between majority and minority students. Mr. Tom Geaghan said that he would first give some background of all of this it is very much population level descriptive statistics. We are not doing a whole lot more sophisticated than that. He said that they are thinking about doing that for the next steps and there is a lot of conversation about what to do next. Today, he will be showing Senate just descriptive data. Referring to his overhead presentation, Mr. Geaghan stated that we are looking at what we call IPEDS, first year cohorts. These are students who started at the university, they are full-time students and this is their first university; these are not our transfer students. Typically, these are mostly students right out of high school. That is not entirely 100% the case. There are some students who come to school non-traditionally, but they would not have had any formal higher education experience before now. He noted that what we are looking at here, are minority and non-minority students. Minority students have a much lower retention rate and graduation rate. Mr. Geaghan referred to the six-year graduation rates in his overhead presentation. We are looking at students who started in fall 2012, where they are six years out. Twenty-six percent of our minority students have graduated compared to 53% of our non-minority students. Mr. Geaghan stated that to put this in context a little bit, this is some of what Professor Jackson talked about. That 28% gap puts us among the widest gaps for the Ohio public institutions in the Urban 21. The Urban 21 is an urban facing serving urban universities who essentially have a similar makeup of us in a lot of ways but it is a little bit of an outdated group so something that we have been talking about is trying to rethink our peers. But, among our peers, we have the second to largest gap comparing underrepresented and non-underrepresented students. He noted that if we look at just the underrepresented graduation rate, the raw rate, we are not quite as far down but we are right down at the bottom there with 20% of our minority students graduating in six years. Mr. Geaghan reported that they also looked at national student clearing house data which is data that shows where our students ended up graduating from if anywhere after they leave the university. What we find is, looking at that same chart, 50% of our non-minority students graduate in six years compared to 26% of our minority students. Two percent of both are still enrolled here at the university so they are still trying to get their degree. We do know that a few complete in seven or eight years. Thirteen percent of the non-minority have graduated from somewhere else Tri-C, Kent, and 6% of the minority students have gone on to graduate elsewhere. He noted that the really striking figure is the 66%. Sixty-six percent of the students we admit have not graduated from anywhere six years after they started at ϰϲʿ¼. He added that this is a huge number. We know that the ACT score is a bit of a predictor and that is about as linear as social science results can get. So we see that as students get higher ACT scores, their graduation rate six years out increases. Clearly, as we look at our incoming students who are at what ACT level, we see that our minority students are sort of focused around this lower end where our majority students are much more broadly distributed with a peak several points higher. Obviously, we do have a much lower incoming ACT score among our minority students. But, what we see is if we lay out the ACT score and look at graduation rates at every single point, we are seeing that our non-minority students are achieving a higher graduation rate at essentially every single ACT point. So, we are sort of normalizing it to a similar type of student. In some places, these gaps are quite high and referring to his overhead presentation, Mr. Geaghan stated that something striking is that the size of this line or the thickness of this line shows the distribution so you can see that, yes, 100% of those three minority students who came in with a thirty or higher, they did graduate but there were only three whereas we have hundreds back in these lower ends. Mr. Geaghan stated that what they really tried to look at is, what about students who achieve here on campus. So now, instead of the ACT score along the axis, we are looking at groupings of GPAs after the first semester at ϰϲʿ¼. He pointed out that every student in this data set, every student who attends ϰϲʿ¼ at least one semester, all of them have a GPA in that first semester. And, what we see is that even among the students who get a 3.5 here at ϰϲʿ¼ because they are students who show that they can do the work here, they are graduating at 53% six years out compared to 74% for those majority students, the non-minority students. So, that is a huge difference and that is basically it. Mr. Geaghan stated briefly that the next steps, they are trying to do here is, those three committees Retention Roundtable, Student Success and the subcommittee out of the Provosts Council, we are going to try to meet, we are going to take in feedback that everyone gives us, that he has gotten from Science and from Education, that we have gotten as they presented, and we are going to start to prioritize next steps. There is a lot of talk about looking at best practices, there is a lot of talk about looking at course level data because we do see that these achievement gaps persist at the course level; is there something about maybe the highest enrolled courses that we could look at. We are also thinking about where we should be. A twenty-eight point gap seems too high. But if you look at the list, the gaps are all over the place. Can we build a model using institutional characteristics that says where we should lay out compared to say institutions in similar urban areas, similar student body, similar student body makeup, that sort of thing to figure out where our gap should be. Mr. Geaghan reported that the final thing we want to do is sort of look at individual risk factors. Can we model individual student risks so that we can see students at highest and lowest risks for making it to that graduation point at six years? Obviously, those are the analytical things and once we figure that out, we are still going to have to decide what to do for these students and that is going to be hopefully what conversations come out of this. But, that is the lay of the land and this is some pretty striking data and certainly, this in particular, has really struck a lot of the committees. Mr. Geaghan added that this is something we need to understand better. Senator Jennifer Visocky-OGrady stated that she teaches a freshman level class, a major design class, and she is dealing with a lot of students in their first year of school and she can say that no matter who they are and what demographic background they come from, when they struggle, there is the strain of financial commitment, there is the strain of being away from home for many of them. When they struggle, it is a huge emotional thing too and so she has found herself as a faculty member doing a lot of counseling services and doing a lot of redirecting. When she looks them up because she is also a faculty advisor, the one common line she finds no matter what their demographic background is, is that they scored very low on the ACT. She said that she knows that is only one data point, but she has a student right now who is really struggling three weeks in and their ACTs are 14 which is not what our standard says. She said she is kind of wondering how 14s are getting to us. So without pontificating more, what she would love to see is as we seek peer institutions, is it we redefine the Urban 21 or who we are looking at to compare to in the State, an what are their entrance requirements. If there is a 15% chance of you graduating and you got a 14 or a 16 or a 17, maybe all of our efforts go to the 17 forward and really change the bar there and the remedial goes to like a community college. She noted that she doesnt have the answer but would love to know the correlation. Mr. Geaghan noted that one thing he could briefly address, one of the gold standards is Georgia State. George State has closed the gap for the most part and they have raised retention and graduation rates, their ACT is a 19. If we were to raise our ACT to a 19, we would lose 61% of our minority students in our freshman class, all things being equal. Obviously, we would change the way we would recruit and all of that. It is not done in isolation but even if we were to hold our standards two points higher, get to an 18, we are still losing 47% of our minority students in our classes. Professor Visocky-OGrady stated that she is just trying to understand if Georgia students are doing better on the ACT. Mr. Geaghan replied that the students are not getting admitted to that university. So the point being, it is not the state; it is something that we need to consider if we are going to start talking about entrance. Senator Rosie Tighe pointed out that the gap is widest among the highest achieving students so this is not about the fact that we are just letting in people who dont belong here. It is about the fact that we are failing our students who are qualified to be here and who are doing well in their first semester and then, somehow, two thirds of them are not finishing. Professor Tighe stated that we dont need to have a discussion about what our gap should be and where we should be on that list. The gap should be zero. That is what kind of institution this is. She went on to say that no gap is acceptable at all. She said that she really appreciates this data and she really appreciated Mr. Geaghan coming to Senate and talking about this. She added that this is a vital part of ϰϲʿ¼ϒs mission and what we need to address going forward and she looks forward to being a part of eliminating this gap. . Diversity Action Plan (Report No. 49, 2018-2019) Held until after Presidents comments Professor Ronnie Dunn, Interim Chief Diversity Officer, first thanked the Senate for giving him and his colleagues the opportunity to present the Diversity Report and Action Plan. He noted that his colleagues joining him are Dr. Mittie Davis Jones and Dr. Donald Hutcherson. He noted that they will be brief in their presentation. Dr. Dunn reported that the Diversity Action Plan was recently approved by the President and as everyone heard, has his full support. Plans for its dissemination are being finalized and it should be disseminated relatively soon. He noted that this plan is the product of collective efforts and work of the Presidents Diversity Council as well as the respective Deans and administrative units Diversity Councils as well. It is designed to enhance diversity across the university leading us to our sixtieth anniversary in 2024. As Dr. Bowen stated earlier, ϰϲʿ¼ is one of the most diverse public four-year institutions in the state. Our student body is 65% white, 16% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 4% Asian and 8% international students. Our faculty, however, does not reflect that same diversity. The full-time faculty is 73% white, 13% Asian, 5% African-American, 5% international and 2% Hispanic. He referred to tables in his presentation and noted that everyone will be receiving copies of his report to be able to look more closely at the presentation. Dr. Dunn stated that management at the university is not as diverse as our staff. We do have diversity among our staff but the diversity is more concentrated at the lower ranks. African-Americans are 14% of the managers here at the university, Asians represent 4%, Hispanics 2% and the remaining 79% are Caucasian. Looking at the senior executive cabinet there are currently fourteen members of the cabinet, 71% of which are male. Fifty-seven percent of the executive cabinet are white, 37% are African-American, 7% Asian and there are no Hispanic nor international members of the senior executive cabinet. Dr. Dunn reported that 60% of all of the Deans of the university are white which further illustrates the lack of diversity among management. Dr. Dunn noted that ad hoc committees were established from the Presidents Diversity Council and developed the faculty and staff bench-marks included in the plan. These bench-marks are aspirational and were formed by the universitys Affirmative Action Utilization Plan as well as the work of the Office of Institutional Equity and Human Resources. Once again, everyone will be able to look at these tables more closely when they receive the handouts. Dr. Dunn reported that international male students are more than double the number of female international students. In other countries, they do not have the same gender equity relative to education as we do here in the U.S., therefore, we have a responsibility to out-do outreach and recruit female students from around the world to provide them that educational opportunity. Females represent the majority of our student body and they are also the majority of our full-time staff but they are not the majority there but the minority among our full-time faculty. The university also does not collect demographic data on sexual orientation or identity which is recommended and we will move to begin to collect that data as well. Dr. Dunn stated that we had a reported 500 veteran students here at the university at the time the plan was completed. He noted that he has since been informed that that is not necessarily a precise number. Our Veterans Center has a new director and he is going to be meeting with him and they are going to identify a more reliable source for that data. We have over 1,000 students with disabilities or with special needs and we have diversity of world religious reflected here at the university. The lack of diversity between our student body and our faculty are reflected in the student to faculty ratio with that for African-Americans being the highest at 86 to one and the lowest is that for Asians at eight to one. For Hispanics as well as internationals, those ratios are high as well at sixty-four to one and forty-six to one respectively. Dr. Dunn noted that there are opportunities however for us to increase our student diversity as well as that of our staff when we consider the high percentage of historically underrepresented groups found throughout Northeast Ohio, that being whether we are looking at the city, county or regional level. There are also opportunities to potentially increase our faculty diversity by tapping into our pool of part-time instructors at the university which is much more diverse than our full-time faculty. At this point, Dr. Dunn turned the presentation over to his colleague, Dr. Donald Hutcherson and noted that he will walk us through the student diversity data. Dr. Hutcherson reported that the following student diversity benchmarks are aspirational modes with incremental increases over three, five and ten years. The overall two-year student retention rate is 71%, international students having the highest rate of 87% while African-American students are at the other extreme with a retention rate of 52.9%. The rate for Asian and Hispanic students has increased somewhat over the past decade while for other groups it has remained steady consistently. He referred to a table in his presentation that documents the past ten years by rates. The university loses a considerable amount from revenue annually from students that do not return for their second year. This is particularly true for African-American students whose dropout rate has an outsized impact on the universitys bottom line resulting in a $1.1 million loss in revenue in 2016 compared to $3 million for white students. In other words, 16% of all students represent one-third of the total revenue loss of our university. The six-year graduation rate for all ϰϲʿ¼ students is 41%. However, African-American and Hispanic students have six-year graduation rates of 22% and 39% respectively, rates that are much lower than those of their peers of other racial and ethnic groups. Dr. Hutcherson went on to say that these graduation rate disparities hold for Hispanic and African-American students even with higher ACT scores then their white peers. White students with ACT scores of 18 have a 38% graduation rate while Hispanic and African-American students must have an ACT score of 22 and 23 respectively to achieve that same 38% graduation rate. Clearly, we must address some institutional barriers amongst African-American, Hispanic and White students. Dr. Hutcherson stated that expectations for student success benchmarks include increases of student grade point averages of 3% over three years, 6% over five years and 10% over ten years. We also expect increases in graduation rates of 10% over the next three years, 15% over the next five years and 20% over the next ten years. Dr. Hutcherson then turned over the discussion of initiatives to resolve some of these racial equities with Dr. Mittie Davis Jones, Assoc. Prof. Emerita. Dr. Mittie Davis Jones greeted everyone. She said that she is pleased to be back among some of her Faculty Senate colleagues. She noted that she is sorry we are still dealing with the same data that was reported maybe ten years ago but okay we are going to do this. Drivers of the work. Dr. Davis Jones stated that the Presidents Council on Diversity will monitor and set benchmarks for the institution through 2024 which is just five years from now but these will inform the Deans Diversity Council benchmarks for the respective colleges so each Diversity Council will also come up with benchmarks and initiatives to reach some of the goals that have been set. She noted in the presentation that the next slides offer a list of faculty and staff, student success, and student diversity initiatives that have been produced by our councils. Cleveland State is in the process of identifying various to diverse hiring and will increase faculty and staff diversity through three strategies which she summarized. The first one is utilizing strategic hires as a resource, the second is including explicit statements in both employment ads and during the application process asking how candidates meet these diversity qualifications and third, using a rubric which we will develop to quantify how candidates meet diversity related qualifications. In terms of student success, the University will undertake initiatives to identify barriers to success for students of color. In addition, we will develop student, faculty and staff mentorship programs with the particular focus on under-represented groups. ϰϲʿ¼ is in the process of developing cultural competency and implicit bias training for all university stake-holders and that will be pertinent to students as well as faculty and staff. Dr. Davis Jones stated that with regard to recruiting diverse students, ϰϲʿ¼ will enhance programming and recruitment efforts for CMSD students and reference was made to the newest initiative addressing post-secondary opportunities for CMSD students who will also provide greater opportunities from other Northeast Ohio school system which have a high proportion of students of color. Dr. Davis Jones noted as previously mentioned, ϰϲʿ¼ is also a member of the Higher Education Compact along with other public regional colleges and universities. The purpose of this compact is to participate in a variety of ways to attract students, measure their success, meet labor force needs and realize efficiencies and this again, is targeted toward Cleveland students. Dr. Davis Jones went on to say that there are a number of already existing initiatives and new initiatives incorporated in what we plan to do going forward. Dr. Davis Jones thanked Senate and also thanked everyone, some of whom are seated in this room for contributing to the development of the diversity plan and looks forward to the implementation going forward. Dr. Dunn thanked Senate and noted that they would like to entertain any questions Senators might have. Senator Rosie Tighe commented that she has something to say about everything apparently. She thanked Dr. Dunn and Dr. Davis Jones for their work. She noted that she just wanted to point out something that everyone already knows and that is that faculty of color tend to do most of the heavy lifting in emotional labor around advising our students of color. One thing she thinks that we can do to change that is to tap into those of us who might be first generation college or graduate students ourselves and utilize us as mentors because there is a lot of overlap there between folks who are first generation college students and their underrepresented minority status. So, she wonders if maybe tapping into those of us that have gone through that maybe that is a way for us to help bare some of that burden and that might be something to add. Dr. Dunn thanked Professor Tighe and noted that we all have to serve as mentors for our students regardless of background but that is a very good point. Once you have had a chance to go through some of the initiatives identified in those tables, enhancing mentoring for students as well as faculty and staff are planned initiatives that we look to and everyone will see it further once they get the full report. Senator Gary Dyer indicated that he wanted to come back to something Dr. Dunn had said. He noted that the value of diversity lies in having a range of viewpoints, people coming from different perspectives and, as someone who used to teach at Idaho State University, he values diversity very, very much. Dr. Dyer noted that one thing Dr. Dunn had mentioned was the whole question of the LGBT community. He was thinking there was someone in his twenty years here, in a sense a thing that is often shaped, discussion in classroom out of classroom, is the issue of not so much presence but a visability of the LGBT community. He wondered if Dr. Dunn could say a little bit more about what kind of information he hopes to collect and what steps might be taken that relate to the things specific to LGBT presence, LGBT visability, and the effect on LGBT students in the community in general. Dr. Dunn responded that as he is sure that everyone is well aware of the unfortunate event that we had here at the university last year specifically targeting the LGBTQ community. At that time, his predecessor was here and reacted to that incident in a way that hadnt been sustained. First, we intend to put those mechanisms back in place and then to enhance that but that begins by being able to identify the population other than the LGBTQ Center. He went on to say that as he noted in his comments, we do not currently collect that data. Diversity of thought is reflected in all sense when you have diversity of demographics then you almost automatically do get diversity of thought and experience. He noted that while we have some shortcomings in that regard, it is our intention to work and build on those efforts and he looks to engage with everyone in that effort. Report of the President of the University Harlan Sands President Sands thanked the Senate for amending the Agenda and he apologized to everyone for letting him report early. He stated that somebody locally is being named the honorary counsel to Japan in Cleveland and he has been invited to a reception to represent Cleveland State. President Sands stated that he wanted to follow up on something Professor Rosie Tighe said. This is one of the seven strategic themes that was identified in our statement of strategic priorities that we have been working on for the last eight or nine months here at Cleveland State. One of them is clearly student success and how we are going to do better. We have done some really great things over the past seven, eight, nine years. He commented that he thought he saw Dr. Peter Meiksins here earlier. He added that we have done some great things on that front and there have been some great concepts that have been talked about at the committee that Professor Debbie Jackson runs. He stated that we can do better and we need to align our resources to do better. President Sands stated that today what he first quickly wanted to talk about is what he promised when he came to Cleveland we are hardy Midwesterners and we never close. One of the first decisions he got hit on when it got cold was, why are we open? He added that he hasnt been attacked more by students and he got attached because he took too long to close the school when CASE closed at 6:00 AM and he said, but its not even cold yet. He doesnt know what happened but he was convinced to close for two days and he will tell everyone that his personal feeling was that there was no snow, there was no ice, but he does understand that there are people waiting at bus stops. He went on to say that he hopes that everyone will educate him on how to make better weather decisions in the future. He commented that he heard one story from an administrator who said, Well, I walked two miles up hill to school. and of course the rest of the story is, I walked up hill two miles to get home. So I guess we are just the old generation and it is different now. President Sands said that he did want to earmark where we are going with all of the work that everyone collectively have done and we have done as partners the leadership team here. He noted that there were three ad hoc committees that were established before he arrived to set strategic priorities for the new president before he was hired. Those were the student committee, the faculty committee, and a staff committee and Professor Vickie Coleman Gallagher chaired the faculty ad hoc committee. We started with those as a baseline. We then spent most of the last six or seven months talking to a lot of you, talking to students, talking to constituency groups and what we came up with were these seven pillars that we are going to roll out very quickly to a wider community. He added that everyone will be hearing more about them. Seek distinction as a leading public urban research institution They will describe in more detail what that means. Differentiate on student success How are we going to make our proposition different than some of those schools that are up on the chart that Tom Geaghan showed. He added that we will hear more about that data from Ronnie Dunn as he talks about a diversity action plan. This is going to be one of the high priorities. Strengthen the anchor mission of Cleveland State. This is really critical to who we are, it is part of our DNA. We have established ourselves as an anchor; 80% of our graduates stay and live and work in Cleveland. There isnt a four-year institution that comes close. He noted that Akron may be the closest they are in the 30s; CASE is a 20%. This a huge competitive edge for us. It is usually important to our partners in the City. The other piece that is new is also becoming a Beacon institution. We have enough critical mass and strength in this room, in the rest of the faculty, among our campus and our student leaders to attract faculty, staff and students here. President Sands noted that he has been getting an incredible response as we talk about how we are going to build Cleveland State as a Beacon. He thanked everyone for voting for that resolution to raise the standards because our partners all have higher standards in what they accept and if we can get this partnership to the end game, this is going to be one of those things that is going to drive us as a Beacon. It is going to change the nature of our campus in a very positive way and the learning environment too. Build financial strength. Well, if you saw his background and expected building financial strength not to be one of the pillars, everyone was mistaken. President Sands stated that one of the ways that we do that is we have to grow the pie. He is very, very aware of what some of our fellow institutions are struggling with here in the State of Ohio. He spent a good amount of the day talking to the Deans and the Associate Deans about the challenges we have in graduate enrollments which are down for eight straight years. We have done some good things, the Deans have been open about the things that they are doing that seem to have worked. We need to do better. It is going to help with the financial strength. There is not an institution he has been at thats cut their way to prosperity. It is very, very difficult. So, how we grow is going to be an important part of our strategic themes. President Sands added that he is very bullish in our opportunities to grow. We have built a great product here. This is the incredible part of what he has learned talking to everyone for the past eight months. Enhanced engaged learning. President Sands added, better defined engaged learning. We all have a little bit of a definition of what it is. It was clear to him in discussions that we have to clarify what that means and we have to be able to educate people and tell people what it means and what we do that is different so that will be another pillar. Strengthen the campus community which is building upon the things we have done; to build that connective tissue. He commented that he hasnt met any CEO across the City yet that has not said they dont want to help, that hasnt wanted to help us. He added, he will put it in the positive. He said that he has a particular strategy that he is going to employ on how they are going to help us. Yes, part of it is asking them for money but in our case, it is almost better to ask them to support hiring and training our students. President Sands asked everyone when they go back to their departments, he has gotten very positive feedback on what we built as far as co-ops and paid internships. It really works and the response he has gotten in the City to building that into a more rigorous and defined program is going to be another. President Sands commented, seven themes. We will roll this out over the coming months in a series of Town Halls, individual meetings, collaborations with stakeholders, enhanced web presence, and ongoing meetings with the faculty leadership. He commented, The question I know I am going to get is, okay, what are the specific things we are going to do under each of these themes? President Sands said that he is going set up a Steering Committee we are going to have a lead for each of these themes that is going to come up with an implementation plan to help begin deliver on all of those areas. He said that there are a couple of things we already have in the hopper. We have talked about this international partnership. Everyone has read about the Say Yes to Education Program. We have an amazing opportunity to be a huge partner in that program. Now, with that, comes challenges. Up to an earlier point that Marian made, we have to make sure these students get in the right pathways. We are going to be working on a partnership with Tri-C in extending our partnership with Tri-C and Lorain Community College so that we get the students in the right pathways. There are students at Tri-C that probably belong here. There are students here that probably belong at Tri-C to start and there are probably students at both that maybe need to be in a certificate program or a training program for a trade. President Sands went on to say that we are going to work on something with Tri-C as partners because we believe that a lot of those students that are going to be going to college from the Say Yes Program belong here. President Sands stated that he is asking for everyones support in how we build it out. He added that he knows that there is going to be certain wrap-around services that we are going to need to have in place. We have an exciting partner that is going to step up in a big way to make this happen. Partnerships are coming and that is going to happen in the next couple of years. President Sands reported that we have also done some things to improve our yield on the undergraduate side. He stated he is working very closely with our university leadership and several of the Deans to figure out what that is. We do really, really well on the funnel going in for undergraduates our applications are up but our yield rate is lower that our peers. So, somewhere between when they apply and how they decide where they are going to go, that is kind of an area where we are focusing for this cycle. Finally, President Sands reported that we have an item on the agenda that is coming up that he believes that Senate Vice President Adam Sonstegard is going to introduce. Senate was active and engaged enough to approve a statement on free speech and he appreciates that. We, as administration, have made a couple of slight changes to it and are going to ask that Senate approves it so that he can issue a statement jointly. We will be national and state-wide leaders in this if we can pull this off. The Faculty Senate President will talk more about this. Ninety-eight and one half percent of what Senate approved is in this document. A couple of lines were changed and the walk-through of those lines when this item is presented under new business, but he asked everyone to take a hard look at it. The administration is very much in support of it and he is really hoping we can come out of this meeting today with something we can use as a standard. Report of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer Jianping Zhu Provost Jianping Zhu stated that he has a few quick items to share with Senate. He noted that his first item is the Task Force for computer replacement for faculty. Many of our computers are outdated and we currently do not have a replacement process in place. In the past, every four or five years the computers are replaced. But, as the budget became tighter, that replacement has stopped. The last contract between the AAUP and the University, required a Task Force to look into the situation and to make a recommendation. He said that he is pleased to announce that the Task Force has been formed and it is chaired by Brian Yusko from the College of Education and Jorge Gatica from the College of Engineering. Recommendations will be made to the Provosts Office before the end of the semester. He noted that the key issue is, are the resources there. He is sure the recommendation will come in requesting some regular replacements but, the challenge is to find the resources to do that. Provost Zhu stated that the second item he wanted to share with everyone is the Distinguished Faculty Awards. He noted that some people remembered that last years recipients were selected but no formal recognition event was organized and the awards were not officially presented. He said that because of the presidential transition, it was not decided at what event they would recognize those faculty. Many people probably recall that we used to have a fall convocation and then we stopped that a few years ago. Then the faculty awards were presented for a couple of years at the commencement. Then some people realized that this may not be the best practice because the time is compressed and there was not even time to read the citation to highlight the faculties accomplishments so that may not be the best place to do it. It looks like now we are organizing a university-wide event led by our new Chief Talent Officer from HR. They will organize a major staff and faculty recognition event annually, hopefully going forward, to recognize the outstanding accomplishments as well as long-term service. Faculty and staff who have served ten years, fifteen years, and twenty years will also be recognized. He reported that this years event is tentatively scheduled for May 1st. So last years Distinguished Faculty Award recipients as well as this years recipients will all be recognized at that event. Going forward, it is hoped that will be the formal event. Provost Zhu reported that he heard some of the discussion where people were saying, Maybe the university has a budget difficulty and the faculty awards will not be presented because we have no money. Provost Zhu commented, rest assured, the award recipients will receive their awards as they normally do and, coming May 1st, they will be formally recognized. Provost Zhu turned to textbook affordability. He noted this is high on our students minds. He emphasized that this will be an ongoing effort. We are pushing on two fronts. One is open access material. He continues to encourage all faculty to look at either adopting or writing and developing their own material. For those who need support in terms of time or other resources to develop their open access material for their class, to please reach out to him and he will work with faculty to find the resources that they need to help develop their material. He asked everyone to please spread the word to their colleagues. Also, we are going to very quickly scale up our all-inclusive textbook model. We are piloting that right now. Once the pilot shows success, we are going to expand that to all other classes. How the model basically works: the faculty will chose a textbook from a publisher that is well into heavily discount book prices but in exchange, all students in the class will be required to buy that book at the heavily discounted price. The good thing for the students is that it is heavily discounted, the students will have the material from day one, and the student will not be caught off guard. It wont be basically the day you show up in the book store you are told that you have to pay $100 for the book. It will come as part of the tuition bill. It will be included on the bill and financial aid can be used to pay for the book as well. So there are a number of advantages. This will not only save students money but because they have the material from day one, they actually do better in class so this improves student success. He encouraged faculty, when the opportunity comes, to think about that as one approach and think about adopting an all-inclusive access textbook model for their classes. Finally, Provost Zhu turned to the early discussion about the performance gap between minority students and the general student population. He stated that as everyone can see, at all levels in terms of preparedness, in terms of ACT scores and GPAs, at all levels there is a gap there. With that, we really need to think about what is the root cause that we need to address. We tend to think students have issues. Lets prepare them better for college coursework but if at all levels there are issues, we need to think about are we teaching them the right way for that particular population. It is not just a matter of how do we get them ready for college coursework. We need to also think about what we can do in terms of our pedagogy, the way we teach, to help reduce that gap. We need to think about that from the other perspective or the other direction. XI. Report of the Student Government Association Samia Shaheen (Report No. 50, 2018-2019) Ms. Samia Shaheen, President of the Student Government Association greeted everyone. She confirmed that the student body was very pleased that we had the two days off last week. She thanked everyone that had a say in that decision although it was a little bit late. Ms. Shaheen noted while it might feel like her term has just begun, it actually is coming to a close a lot quicker than she thought. Student Government elections are actually happening in April and applications are now open this week. She noted that if faculty know any students that might be interested in running for student government, if faculty have exceptional students in their classes that would do a great job, she would recommend that faculty turn them over to her or encourage them to apply on org.sync which is their platform to submit applications. She noted that her term isnt over yet and since December, Student Government has made great progress on a number of student initiatives. Ms. Shaheen reported that before winter break, Student Government had the opportunity to go to Wright State for the Ohio Student Government Association summit where they convened with thirteen other public universities in Ohio. There they discussed major topics concerning higher education including campus free speech, textbook affordability and tuition costs. The fourteen universities unanimously voted in favor of resolutions in support of House Bills including HB 337 for tax exempt textbooks which would save students in overall costs of $26.2 million and then HB 603 which waives the one-year residency for requirement for active duty students and their dependents in order to seek in-state tuition. Just to clarify, those two House Bills were written by the Ohio State House and then the OSGA wrote two resolutions in support of both House Bills unanimously. Ms. Sheheen reported that at the state level, they will also be traveling to Columbus in April for the Inter-University Council, IUC day, where they will have the opportunity to meet with Ohio Senators and Representatives to advocate for higher education matters such as textbook costs, tuition costs, state funded financial aid and university funding. She noted that if anyone needs her to send a message to anyone there in Columbus, just let her know. Ms. Sheheen reported that at the local level, her Executive Board and she had the privilege of presenting to the Board of Trustees on January 17, 2019. She noted that oftentimes there is a disconnect between the higher administration and campus culture from the student perspective so they enjoyed providing the Board a synopsis of the structure of SGA, their current projects and their financial handlings which is a topic that they seem to enjoy a lot. Ms. Sheheen reported that her Vice President and she have been working with TRIO in creating a first generation lounge in the first floor of Berkman Hall. She added that she appreciated comments regarding first generation, faculty, staff and students. Ms. Sheheen stated that she herself is Lebanese and both her parents were born in Lebanon and migrated to the United States in the 90s so it is something that really matters to her a lot. She added that they just wanted to create this lounge to celebrate diversity and to celebrate students accomplishments. She added that if anyone here is a first generation faculty or staff member, the lounge is going to feature spotlights and stories of faculty, staff and students that are first generation so if anyone would like to be featured or submit a story of their experience as a first generation son or daughter, please forward them to her. Ms. Shaheen turned to her textbook affordability survey. She commented, My pride, my baby and my joy that I have not stopped talking about with you all has concluded. She reported that she received an overwhelming number of responses from about 1,550 students which is pretty good although they have up to 18,000 now but it is hard to get students to participate in those just because a lot of times they just skip through the spam emails that SGA sends them a lot. Ms. Shaheen reported that the Academic Affairs Committee and Student Government is working to analyze the report and clean up the data but she is happy to share some of the raw data that they collected thus far. Seventy-seven percent of the students that participated were undergraduate; around 40% of the students declared that they were living paycheck to paycheck; around 30% of students declared that their expenses are bigger than their financial resources; around 30% of students also paid $200 to $300 for textbooks in the fall semester; 20% paid over $400; 40% say that zero to two of their classes during fall semester utilized open access material. In the open comment portion of the survey, a significant amount of students admitted there struggles with being faced with the decision every semester to pay for textbooks, purchase groceries or pay for their rent. Another large amount of students expressed disconnect with access codes which amount to at least $100 minimum on top of the textbook cost itself. Ms. Shaheen went on to say that these are just thoughts that she asks everyone to keep in mind when assigning course materials in future semesters and contemplating the use of open access materials and, as the Provost mentioned, he is here along with the Michael Schwartz Library in support of any faculty that would like to utilize the open access material program. XII. Report of the Graduate and Professional Student Association Daisy Zhang (Report No. 51, 2018-2019) Ms. Zhang, Vice President of GPSA, stated that she would like to provide updated information about the graduate students. Perhaps not everyone knows, but they now have a Graduate Student Center located in (building?) Northwest ?? in room 210. They have spaces for students for group work, quiet study, meetings, and they also have a kitchen. So graduate students can study, eat, watch a movie or just relax there. In addition, faculty will be able to come so there will be more communication with the graduate students. Ms. Zhang announced a graduate student professional event. The Graduate College is looking for students to present their dissertation or thesis research to a special audience. This event is an award program. The student can compete for a cash award. In addition, the winner will receive a ϰϲʿ¼ sponsored trip to the regional competition in St. Louis. She asked faculty if they teach graduate students to please let their students know about this award program. Ms. Zhang reported that there will be a nighttime trivia event on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 7:00 PM. Ms. Zhang also mentioned that they will have a Graduate Student Appreciation week. In addition, there will be a special trivia night for all of the faculty. She added that the information for this event will be sent out soon. Finally, Ms. Zhang announced that this semester, they will have a Graduate Student Happy Hour on Thursday, February 28, 2019 from 5:00 to 7:00 PM at the Bar Maurice on East 17th Street. Special ϰϲʿ¼ Viking drinks will be served for ϰϲʿ¼ graduate students and faculty only. She added that she hopes everyone will join the graduate students. XIII. New Business Modification to Free Speech Statement Adam Sonstegard To be a joint statement with the administration (Report No. 52, 2018-2019) Senate Vice President Adam Sonstegard stated that both Senate President Bill Bowen and President Harlan Sands have introduced the Free Speech on Campus Resolution revisited. He noted that the only issue in front of us is to try to get this converted into a joint statement between the faculty and the administration so that the administration can sign on and so that University Legal can also advise the administration to sign on to it with MBA Joint Faculty and Administrative Faculty Resolution on Free Speech on our Campus. Dr. Sonstegard reported that we are the 52nd college or university in the country to ratify the Chicago Statement and, as President Sands reported, the first public university in Ohio to ratify it. He added that we should be proud of ourselves. The only issue to stay ahead of us now is whether this will actually be a faculty and administration joint resolution. All of the proposing from the administrative side is some small scale sentence level revisions and deletions that are basically walking back some extremes of wording, truncating a sentence we have already debated and reworded back in October and did a little bit of extra trimming to bring it to, as Harlan said, somewhere around 98.5% of what it was when we voted on it back on Halloween Day. Dr. Sonstegard commented that he is an English professor, not a statistician. He will just believe about the 98% part that and say that it kind of reflects the spirit of what the committee tried to put forth as a draft last spring, last summer, last fall. It is also a great chance for us to show some unity, show some cooperation with the new incoming presidential administration. He also wanted to say that there is no collusion as far as incoming presidential administrations go. Kind of our chance to show that we are on the same page with this joint resolution for a Faculty and Administration Free Speech on Campus Resolution. Professor Sonstegard then asked for a motion and a second. Senator Gary Dyer called a Point of Order. He noted that the Point of Order is, does everyone have the version that was initially sent out where changes were marked in the version that is not the version we approved. The version that was sent out last is one where there is a sentence that says, The First Amendment to the Constitution protects controversial, offensive, and radical speech, and no one has a constitutional right to protection from offensive expression, [simply because it could be construed as racist]. He asked if this is the version that we are debating. Dr. Bowen replied that this is the version that we are debating. Professor Dyer noted that this is the version that we are debating because there was another version substituted. Dr. Gary commented that he was a little baffled by some of these changes most of which are distinctions without indifference. When he sees a distinction without indifference he often thinks there is some difference that he hasnt seen. He went on to say that he feels a little funny discussing this without whoever it was in maybe the University Legal Office who wanted to make these changes. He noted that there is one change that he will honestly say that he doesnt quite even begin to understand which concerns that sentence that we amended last time because now it makes no sense. The first amendment to the Constitution protects controversial offensive and radical speech and no one has a constitutional right to protection from offensive expression. He said that he likes to think that he knows a little about these issues but he is not aware that people make the claim that in the U.S. you have a constitutional right to protection from offensive expression. There are people and smart people who would argue that you have a constitutional right to protection from certain kinds of offensive expression that is racist. In a sense, it takes away the claim that was initially It is responding to an argument that really isnt being made and leaves out the way that sentence would seem to be crafted to respond to an argument that does get made that there is a constitutional protection to, on a kind of equal protection basis, of certain kinds of speech. Now, maybe we should remove that sentence. Maybe we shouldnt. I want to keep it but the point is, the way it is now, I dont think it makes any sense. Dr. Dyer went on to say, with the next sentence, while civility respect for dissent and tolerance are important democratic virtues that are essential to civic participation, these values must go hand in hand with guaranteed freedom of expression. Dr. Dyer stated that his only problem with that is it is tautological so he is not quite sure why we are removing things of a proposal that we went over and we had tons of faculty look at it for months and ran past the whole faculty of the Law School. We are having these things brought to us and I am like, why? Professor Sonstegard commented that we can theoretically, as the faculty stated, this is actually a done deal. We have voted on and passed this statement back in October on Halloween Day itself. Its visit to University Legal is kind of getting a second hand saying that the sentence that Dr. Dyer draws attention to, the relative clause following the word expression, basically just kind of restricts what kind of expressions we are then talking about. So the idea there is that after expression it would be complete but I agree that it kind of leads that sort of an incomplete thought all the way back to the first amendment part. We also have the tautologies that are there. Perhaps if someone from University Legal kind of wants to say second hand that they were saying to us please do that again so as to make it a joint resolution. Dr. Sonstegard went on to say that it already is a faculty resolution. They arent really here to say why they want to make a change anyway. Senator Anton Kumar commented that the people who have amended this or those 2.5% amendments that they have done should be here to tell why they did it. We have no rationale for accepting something in absentia and the quorum technically has been called even if Senator Jeremy Genovese said yes. He would say on procedure given that we have such a very small number of people here, and this is such an important decision, he would really like to see it tabled until the next Senate meeting. He noted that he has some sense of urgency on Professor Sonstegards part but it just doesnt seem right to have it discussed and voted on by a body that no longer represents as much faculty as we usually do. We are making an amendment but it is a change and people who are not here might have feelings about it and it seems to be that maybe we should put it on as Old Business for the next Senate meeting. Senate President Bowen stated that he understands that Professor Genovese is making a motion to place the Faculty Senate Resolution on Free Speech on Campus an item of business on the next meeting agenda. Professor Genovese said, Yes, I move that we consider this Old Business at the next Senate meeting. Senate President Bowen asked for a second to the motion. Senator Stephen Duffy seconded the motion. Dr. Bowen called for a voice vote. The motion was approved with one nay. XIV. Open Question time There were no questions. There being no new business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Vickie Coleman Gallagher Faculty Senate Secretary VCG:vel     PAGE  PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 ,-.?AK] ^ _ `   ! 9 L M N n u @ ` &Yuy ABefͰhcWhA[h+Y hz5h<hkXhMhCQLhzh|*5hzhCQL5 hzhzhpahz hz5 hCQL5>* hCQL5 h1*5 h?5@-.?@AV Y  ^ _ ` ^gd gdCQL & F^`gdK`gdzgdz$a$gd1* ! M N BCuvvw & F^`gdKh`hgdMh`hgd+YgdCQLgdMgdCQL & F^`gdCQLfhmtuK`uvw#(8Wfj+125de~ hs.hs.h":PhVBhpa5 hVB5hVBhpahMh)GhCh <hzh)5 hz5 hz5hzhpa5hzh"5h<h{h(0Xh:Sih?hhkhxhA[h8phcWh+Y1*+12;<vw^gd:Si^gd":P &`@^``@gd":Pgd:Sip^pgdC^gd:Si `@^``@gd)G^gdM & F8^8gdB^gdC`gdCgd <:<?Z[uvw9:;gBC&(:frsy &'(TUxy{~#$%Žɽ͵͵h?hkXhr hChb~hV&h:SihVBhpa5 hVB5hVBhpah)Gh":PhK hs.hChs. hs.hs.E;<f'(YTUz{ &`@^``@gdkXgdLGL & F gds. & F gdLGL `@^``@gdkX `@^``@gd)G^gdKgd:Si ^`gd:Si{:$%IJ*+OP^gdC & F E^ `EgdLGL^gdb~gdLGL^gd[2  & F^gdLGL `@^``@gdkX `@^``@gd)G%HIJM*+NOPSpq  C D f"g"h"""""""""""""## #############%%%%ÿ׿˻ÿۿ hs.hs.hahkXhVBh}K5h}KhLGLhChs.hVBhpa5 hVB5hVBhpah)Gh":Phb~h[2E D !4"g"h""""# #gdLGL^gd[2 & F E^ `EgdLGL `@^``@gdkX ^`gd)G `@^``@gd)G ^`gdLGL`gdC  & F^gdLGL #######%%%%&&0'1'U'V'''9( & Fgdggdg ^ gdg `@^``@gdkX ^`gd)G &`@^``@gdkXgdLGL^gd[2P^PgdLGL%%%%%%&&&(&H&'&'/'0'1'T'U'V'Z'p'q''''**2*4*5*9*J*K*e*f*g*,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j-k-l---l.н뢝̽hZQhZQ^J h[25 h[2h)Ghah[2hZQ5h[2h[25 h[2h[2hs.hVBh[2hCh? hs.hs.h":PhVBhpa5 hVB5hpah)GhkXhZQ79(**4*5*f*g*X++,,,,,,k-`gdCgd[2 & F^`gdB ^`gd)G & Fgdg `@^``@gdkX ^`gd)G &`@^``@gdkXgdggdC & Fgdgk-l---8090^0_0114151z11188`gdCgdC^gd76gd < & F^`gd)GgdW^gd)GP^Pgdg `@^``@gdkX ^`gd)G^gdVBl./708090^0_0111&1*121314151A1f1g1x1z11111)2*2555526888888888999999999999ƵƥӅhH[2V76 <hVBh <5 hVB5hVBh765 hz5h":Ph)GhkXhZQhkX^JhZQhZQ^JhZQhZQ<^JmH sH 4899.;/;;;g<h< = =AFFdHeH|I}IJJKKKKgd)G & F^`gd)G^gd76gd:-`gd:-99 :::$:%:;:X:m:-;.;/;7;@;D;K;P;S;;;;;;;g<h<p<<<<<<<= = = ==+=6=X=n=== > >!>">X>Y>g>>>>>>>>>>>`?n?o?w????M@y@@@@@AAh 9#hHShChr heh:-hs5hZQLAgAqAAAAAAAABBWBvBBBBBBBCCCNDPDgDjDDDDDDDD=EREXEYEZE\E]EtEEEFFFFFFFFFFfGhGiGjG}GGGGG HcHdHvHHHܼ𳯳h 9#hX; hi.5hi.hi.5 hi.hi.hi.hi.6 hi.6h ohm.hg:hi.h:-hr h_h hMh9=DHHHHHHHHHHH*IGI{I|IIIIIIIIJJ JAJWJhJiJmJxJJJ K K&KLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL$L%L=LWLXLYLcLÿܚh59DhSPhSP5 hSP5h <hahthdEhzhh)G hVB5hVBhpa5hVBh}K5h76hrhMhr h:-hg:h_hX;h ;KL$L=LXLYLNNHRIRUU8V9VRWSW4Z5Z[[\\p^pgdb ^`gdb ^`gd59Dgd76^gdSP & F gd < & Fgd < & Fgd <cLkL}LLLLMMMMMMTNoNNNNNO%O'O*O+O9OEOvOwOOOOOOPPPPPPPQWQRRGRIRcRRRRRRRSSSoSpSvSSS T TT+T,TT譽 hw 0hR~khR~kh 9#hhC_hBhhh-hb hgH* hw 0hbhw 0hgH*hw 0hbH* hw 0hghghg:hzhgh59DhF?TTTTaUbUUU9VAVJViVpVyVVVVVVV3W7W?WQWRW`WXXXXYYYYYYYYYYYYZ ZZZ Z4Z=ZGZQZ['[-[;[?[V[[[[[[[[\\\\\\\]]]]]0]]]]h>```````````````` a*a+aaaaaaaaaaaaaabb&b5b;bkbbbcccccccccccczdddddde ehsqh5BhhhzhBhFhHh1R e eTeYeeefe|eeeeee1f4ffffJgRggggggggg,h-hKhLhfhghhh|h-kkknkokMlNllllllYmZmmmmmm5n6n7n9nnoǿط䨡 hn=h#.hn=hNv hzhz hzh:9oo4oDoSoUoyoooooppbqfqqrrrr%r&rs's(s4sstu,uLwOwwwwww?xxxy2zPzzzz{}{{{{{{| }}}~~~ CIWv́itx hqh^hqdh?Uh{hdu/hw 0h0h":Ph]qHhgh>hNvhn=hWEMrr}}~~STGHÉĉZ ^`gdw 0^gdw 0^gd <gdSP & F^`gd`\ngd76 ^`gdq ^`gdg ^`gdh RSTU[HbFGH|‰Éĉ&PĊ͌ьYZx|ݏƐɑ!"6R'˾˶쮲잲hjYhhjh Zhehw 0 *hw 0hw 0 h`\n5hSPhSP5h`\nh <5 hVB5hVBh <5h":PhGfhwhqdhV@hqhNvh^hhrUh$= @BijxylmXY>?M ^`gd[^gd:_x & F^`gd`\nqLM;BCDE%|hi'm8BCz).:;<H!ǿ̷h`hwh8 hCQLhVBhS5hVBh <5 hVB5hVBhCQL5hXhhC\ehh:_xh=-JhhihwhheBMNDEi;<gdCQL & F^`gd8 gdX ^`gd ^`gd ^`gd8 gd=-J ^`gdi ^`gd[!`abhkx` 3456]^@A&D&:oper{!,CT`abBS$h&h(AhF3jh -hhhwn|hx{Kh-h8 hwh`R<abklpab%&<=opa & F8^8gdUrgdUrgdF3j8^8gdF3j & F8^8gdF3jh`hgdx{Kh`hgd`gd8 $%&F R8;<p| ( y L M abn3u>?ru+/@llm /ȼؼؼؼؼجhyDhYh=Mh":PhRhVBh <5hVBhCQL5hNh1hzEh vhwn|h8 hhhUrh?UhF3jh&Dabtu>?lm!!((0,1,,,,gd)G ^`gds ^`gd=MgdR ^`gdRgdCQL & F^`gd)Ggd8 h`hgd v)Nqsu : U l ~   v!x!!!$#,#A#J#R#U##$-$G$$$A%S%U%n'p'(()))**3*N*q**+ +/,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,e,o,q,,,̿̿ hSP5hVBh <5 hVB5hVBhCQL5 h`\n5hVBh)G5h|1hyDhRhsheheH*h=Mh=MH*hzEh=MheD,,,,g--///h0i00055/67A7`7a7::<<<<<9@S@AA)B*B+B1BmBpB|BBBBBBBBCCCUCYCCCCCCCbDcDDDDDDE.E5EƾƹƹڱڭکڭڭڵڱhJ/hYsUh'*hSh8 hnL5hVBhCQL5 hYsU5hg hF2IhhHrhnLhhhRhF2I hF2IhF2I hSP5 hCQL5A,--i0j03355a7b7::<<*B+BBBBDDF`gdnLgd8 ^gdnLgdYsUgd ^`gd ^`gdF2I5E6EkE~EEE.F1FtFvFFFFFFFFFFGG"G'GlGGGGH/H9HHHHHHHH IQIRISIWIYIeIfIgIIIIIIIJKKK LL;L=Lǿ䮦䮦䞖hsNhsNH*hsNhhpjbhpjb5 hpjb5hhVBhy05hVBh5 h`\n5 h~5h":P hJ/hhShSH*hpjbhYsUh8 hnLh'*hShJ/;FFGGRISIfIgIIIJQQQQ T TOTPTU]V]8a9agd&E`gdYsUgdpjb`gdpjbgd`\ngdgdJ/gdSgd8 `gdnL=LeM}MNNQQQQRR R@RIRSRRRRR0S1S8S:S;S6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 4@4 JHeader  !4 4 JFooter  !.)@. J Page Number@@"@   List Paragraph ^H2H ]C0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/AN ]C0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] _b dddddgf%%l.9AHcLT] eo 'q!$,5E=Lfg { #9(k-8K\rZ M<a,F9agg !g!!8@0(  B S  ?3>OV~28  ))ggV`8Bq$v$w$~$$$$$%%''n(u(++--f/m/d0k0224488b[n[________________ :>ooҡ.:7:;;;;Dz_____________333333333333399<Hbhkxp|bnu  ::<<>>--ճijXXXXX55ѳYYڴ[[5$)*]]__________________99<Hbhkxp|bnu  ::<<>>NWNWWW-X-XOXTXzXzXXXXXXX5Y5YLYMYYY[Z_ZcZiZ[[5\F\c\c\$])]*]a]]]___________________xdhJ*I25`zy$y (Uqg%^2( h -椁(=5M"<'Ddy HZ43?eR~T1VaV{^r[fj`R$e4ʤ:M.f0|=,g0h.hZD@(kX ml?Sgp~_3D\ },< Pe{C8-]e<W ;Sv  F$ (1 lC k ,!F!R "," 9#^#i#M $|$7$QZ$a_$%03%3%7%7%B%z%7&F&6N&^&S'B''+'Bh'kk'l't'8(J(`(Q7)S;)?)$B)C)>`)1*3*W*n*z*+6+MY+E|+|, -I-GQ-s.#.'$.i.y.F /1/:/du/C0w 0Q0j0x0x0y01H1b_1h12[2i2u23$3]d3n3r3=444%4,-45>4rV4c45Or5s5%:6X6d6J838?88D8ex8W0969>9 :D:e:m:s::z:lz:,;!;.;J;X;y[;];l; < <)<J<}f<=(=A=I= Y=j[=e=`b>q>p?m@u@A(AIOABB'B5BVBDgB?xB*C:CLC]C2mC}~CyDDW%D59D{zD/E.E1E06EUEWE[EzEF F2F@FDFLTFhFqFl7GeGfGyGHl#H5HmH]qH6sHII.IF2I^UIVIJJ$J=-JWJyXJ`JK}KKK0KfKuKx{KLLGLCQL{L%M=M$HMZM`MzMMN<#NDNIN~MNYNsNOFOb_O":PSP-QN.QZQVnQRRR5RFRaRlRS2S+S.S=SX@S TY7T=Tf2Uk5U?UIUPU4hUrUYsUKzUT$V&VkAVEnVKrVW WeW;WEW^WcW~WX#Xi)X(0XMIXvX}XjY+Y-Y`YV⳦Գ1:Sq~z*/&4;0Xe3g2xo{1bv|/~v'B8:Ixfp #9'~=`CxqK '/)m. :Tjhwn c:q.y?g a4@$Nsq?6YO4ROl  v7KLwW1mn~1X&fkQ{RU\v~D*.6rw1zN0Ybu. *3;9=L7P%[k{_))R:ay r%|1n=Db~ f22&ERDs+ 50eHT#!JPat5 Bl'*qqBU 8dWz |*6uQI^C TIWe+k2KL`SbM9^{BMV&]iw 1X_i[._eS 9 m"HZU'nLO4r{%BcYuzK2Umq9FX 0^UW!fBq`y#GCKQa[F #9\eBG H"KSuWUhs 2:AN&O_k"vLOWYcAmgn<T z.uH~Vx ;;b "(4v X\a@)XCvJ<1M/gTXF@8:BJSmmqsB4T8~r E56g:Um :->DPjs2YZVuDDRW </QVA[MkRkXawk\_zb,FE2g o3$9s<@CLH .3!/a!+x-~ >K?R_g;sPy Vc (^PPegv\{.\eiiyVNQ^i&,JMcktKch$6(^_t3SZge|0GLU}p76SXh|{'*:A@Ju@mt-"ctn oA%2=WJ_V"afh| . (Q7>INZ^xx4MQB|4AXdd$0J%M~l!PJ8QU WEt/z l,H>`eesf6G=JYq PY 5dK+ SZ;wtxd/OyV/\x|~J/~&:V@'15>y"&<+2uJ L5$Yr?Gf n ##+,P4iBWXksS]Sty__@_____@UnknownG.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x Arial7.*{$ Calibri9. . Segoe UI;Wingdings?= .Cx Courier NewA$BCambria Math"1h/tG/tG4tw4+~w4+~!4^^ 2QHX ?1*2!xx  AGENDA OF THE1001750Violet E. LunderVickie C Gallagherl                   Oh+'0  (4 T ` l xAGENDA OF THE1001750Violet E. LunderNormalVickie C Gallagher2Microsoft Office Word@F#@@97@97w4+՜.+,0  hp  ϰϲʿ¼~^ AGENDA OF THE Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&')*+,-./1234567<Root Entry F0 fD7>Data 1TablevWordDocument7SummaryInformation((DocumentSummaryInformation80CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q