October 10, 2001

Officers attending: Russ Marcks, President; Pam Chambers, Vice President; Fred Thomas, Secretary

Senators attending: Cindy Beckett, Susan Callender, Frank Clay, Forrest Cope, Roxann DeLaet, George Hageman, Kenneth Melendez, Bob Reas, Ellen Rosengarten, Mike Smith, Karen Winston

Not attending: Rick Jurus

Others attending: Karen Blake, Joe Gorman, Jeanne Jacobs, Steve Johnson, Steve Jonas, Laurel Mayer, Anna Mays, Ken Moore, Gary Tucker

Russ called the meeting to order at 2:35 in the Alumni Room.

1.      Amendment of Senate Recommendation RCW0106

Russ distributed a proposed amendment to the recommendation made previously by Faculty Senate regarding changes to Faculty Handbook Section 2.4.6 on Creative and Scholarly Endeavors. Based on meetings with Jim Houdeshell and Jeanne Jacobs, the recommendation called for a minor change to paragraph 4.b, allowing Sinclair's President to delegate authority to approve use of the College name in reports, books and papers that result from private research without profit.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 in Handbook Section 2.4.6 were not covered in the pending Senate Recommendation, so without this amendment they will remain unchanged.
Ken, Frank and others expressed concern about paragraph 5, which continues to state, "Final authority over all matters concerning creative and scholarly endeavors shall rest with the President."
In answer to questions, Russ verified that the Senate Committee on Intellectual Property believes that paragraphs 4 and 5 are OK, with the minor change proposed here.
Forest moved approval of the amendment and Bob seconded. The motion passed, with 10 ayes and 1 no.

2.      New Form for the Amendment of Senate Recommendations

Russ explained that the process to amend a pending recommendation used above is not covered by existing forms. He distributed a blank version of a proposed form, Amendment to Senate Recommendation. Bob suggested that additional data be added to provide an audit trail, including information about the date of the Senate meeting at which the amendment is approved. It was moved and seconded that the form be approved with this modification, and the motion passed unanimously.
Cindy asked that the Senate officers maintain a listing of recommendations and their status, so the information will be readily available during Senate meetings. Russ responded that he does maintain that list and will make it more accessible during meetings.

3.      Membership of Faculty Development Advisory Council

Russ and Pam updated Senate on the status of the FDAC. Formation of the Council will be delayed while an ad hoc committee is formed (including Russ, Pam, Jeanne Jacobs, Ken Moore, Tom Huguley and Nancy Thibeault) to collect information and provide a charge for the FDAC. Names previously submitted for the FDAC will be held in abeyance and Russ is continuing to collect additional names to provide full representation. Part of the goal is to identify faculty needs and interests, both with regard to technology and other aspects of teaching. Cindy emphasized the need to provide training for new faculty in fundamentals of teaching. Ken made the suggestion that the chair of the FDAC might appropriately be a faculty member.

4.      Personnel Committee

Russ asked Senators to verify that the members of the Personnel Committee representing their divisions are indeed ready to continue in that role. We also need to identify an experienced committee member to assume the role of chair.

5.      Letter Requesting that FITs Meetings Be Open

Russ described a letter from a faculty member asking that all meetings of the FITs team be open to the public, under provisions of Ohio's "sunshine law." Russ said the matter had been discussed briefly in Monitoring Task Force and was currently under review by Sinclair's lawyers as to whether or not the “sunshine law” applies. Steve Johnson entered the meeting during the brief discussion and stated that the college lawyers had concluded the "sunshine law" does not apply. Russ asked that further discussion be deferred to the next Senate meeting.

6.      Provost Meeting with Faculty Senate

Steve Johnson, Joe Gorman, Jeanne Jacobs, Steve Jonas, Anna Mays, and Ken Moore joined the meeting and Steve Johnson distributed a summary of the 3 items to be discussed.
6.1             Health Care Update
Steve Johnson, Joe Gorman, and Steve Jonas led the discussion on health care, emphasizing the changes (both nationally and locally) that are dramatically increasing costs and emphasizing that the trend is likely to continue for several years.
Susan asked about the possibility of integrating discussions of health care with FITs, and Steve Jonas replied that the college has consistently sought to divorce the two since the topic of health care covers ALL Sinclair employees, not just faculty.
Cindy emphasized that Sinclair's low costs for health care reflect good management, not any skimping on the plan.
Cindy asked about possible increases in Flexiplan accounts to offset growing costs. Steve Jonas replied that this has not been on the table but it needs to go to the Health Care Team.
6.2             State Fiscal Update
Steve Johnson led the discussion on changes in state funding. He emphasized that employee pay and benefits are about 70% of Sinclair's budget, and that Sinclair has been informed to expect cuts of about $2 million by June 2002. The deRolf case on K-12 funding adds even more uncertainty to the future of funding for higher education. Sinclair is now in the early stages of developing a new balanced budget, with scenarios for consideration that include:
·             More spending from reserves
·             Significant reduction of equipment spending
·             Significant reduction in planned travel
·             Significant reduction in advertising
·             Freezing new hires
Joe Gorman emphasized that this is not a one-year problem.
Ellen asked how tuition increases effect the picture, and Steve Johnson replied that the revenue from tuition increases has already been spent three times over.
Ken pointed out that as the economy goes south, enrollment and costs are likely to go up. Steve Johnson stated that the administration is aware it cannot make cuts that cause the college to shrink, but that it is unclear if the college can afford to grow.
Gary asked if the battle is over regarding K-12 funding, and Steve Johnson responded that the battle could continue for a long time.
Frank asked if lab fees will be restored along with tuition increases, and Steve Johnson said they would not.
Russ stated that the latest tuition increase provides only a $1 increase over the cost prior to tuition rollbacks. However, this was countered with the fact that the previously mandated tuition cuts were state subsidized, and that with the increase in tuition, we will continue to receive some of that subsidy.
Steve Johnson said that the lack of a tuition increase during the last 10 years has effectively been a significant decrease because of inflation. Joe Gorman said that if we had no county levy but kept the status quo regarding budget, tuition would go to $73 per credit. Sinclair's annualized tuition cost is $1440, while the next lowest tuition in Ohio is Owens Tech at $1800.
6.3             R16
Steve Johnson referred to the sheet on Datatel R16 Project Goals and expressed his appreciation for the hard work done by the team of people who are implementing the conversion to R16. There may be bumps, but because of their hard work there will be no disasters as we make the conversion. Sinclair had no choice but to make the shift, since R13 is no longer being supported. Steve also stated that those bumps we experience should not be used to reflect negatively upon the R16 Team. They have done everything possible to ensure a smooth rollover.
Ken Moore emphasized the long-term advantages of the change such as registration over the web, but he made it clear that these will not happen right away. Other advantages include the fact that we will reduce the number of custom modules we use. A long-range concern is the fact that R16 is built on Unidata, which may also go away. The college will need to convert to R17 and then move to a different, more popular system.
Russ asked if it would be more cost effective to move sooner to R17. Ken Moore and Steve Johnson replied that the team isn't ready to make another major conversion. R17 is a major transition for registration, although the change will be less complex for other areas.
Anna Mays asked that Senators and other faculty who have not gone through the R16 training look at the on-line training module.
Ken Melendez asked about backup plans during the conversion, and Anna Mays replied that we will keep R13 for inquiry only. She recommended that Senators and faculty look at the Colleague R16 Conversion Update for further information.

The meeting adjourned at 4:10.

Submitted by Fred Thomas

Approved by Senate Oct. 17, 2001