Other Institutional Governing Bodies

The Faculty Senate plays an important role in providing recommendations regarding policies and procedures to the faculty.  The Faculty Senate structure and purpose are described in the Faculty Handbook. The Senate is recognized as the governing board representing the faculty” (Section 2.7, Faculty Handbook, page 14). The University Senate provides the forum for the faculty to work with common purpose and effort with the University administration and the Board of Trustees. The University Senate offers full discussion and disclosure of items brought before it on behalf of the University.

The Faculty Senate consists of voting members who are faculty and non-voting members and ex-officio members who include the University President, the President’s Cabinet, Vice President of Planning and Assessment, Registrar, Library Director, Deans, and Student Government Association (SGA) representatives. Members of the Senate with voting privileges include every faculty holding rank and appointment in a department, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, College Deans, Department Chairs, Director of the Library, and library faculty, provided they hold faculty titles. The Senate has various committees that are charged to review, study, and report their findings and recommendations to the University administration as needed. The Senate Committees are as follows:

• 
  Executive Committee
  
• 
  Committee on Committees
  
• 
  Committee on Academic Policy
  
• 
  Committee on Faculty Affairs
  
• 
  Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics
  
• 
  Committee on University, Collegiate, and Student Relations
  
• 
  Committee on Research and Library-Information Center
  
• 
  Committee on University Planning and Budget
  
• 
  Committee on Promotion and Tenure
  
• 
  Committee on Academic Calendar and Honorary Degrees
  
• 
  Committee on Assessment of Teaching and Learning
  
• 
  Committee on Academic Technology
  

Both the Faculty Handbook and the collective bargaining agreement between the University and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) are on file in the Resource Room. The documents recognize the principle of shared governance as defined in AAUP’s Policy Documents and Reports (often referred to as the “Redbook”). Language in the CSU-AAUP collective bargaining agreement recognizes the complex, participatory, and dynamic nature of University governance, noting that “joint effort and shared responsibility will take a variety of forms as situations require. Initiative may emerge at one time or another from all institutional components and differences in the right of each voice will vary according to the matter at hand and the defined responsibilities of each constituent element.” (AAUP Agreement, Article 10.1)  In short, faculty and administrators share the responsibility of mutual consultation, and depending on the nature of the issue at hand, the most influential voices may be either administrators or faculty---or various combinations of both.

  Labor Unions: See AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement, AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement, and CSUSA Collective Bargaining Agreement 

There are three collective bargaining units on campus: The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the CSU Safety Association (CSUSA). Copies of the negotiated agreements with all three unions are on file in the Resource Room.  Each of these organizations periodically negotiates a collective bargaining agreement with the University (typically every three years). The collective bargaining agreements are published and available on the CSU website, www.centralstate.edu, on the Human Resources pages.

The process of communication of information and resources throughout the institution is handled through several mediums.  The institution’s committee structure is the primary process by which the University communicates and assesses what it is doing and whether or not it is meeting its goals.  These committees meet regularly and provide discussion and recommendations to the senior administration.  These recommendations, if approved, are then implemented by these committees or by the responsible divisions.  The following are a few of the major committees and their roles:

• 
  Enrollment Management Task Force - comprised of a cross-campus membership; charged with making recommendations to Cabinet regarding enrollment process improvements;
  
• 
  Safety Committee - comprised of volunteers; makes recommendations regarding safety and injury prevention policies and procedures, and encourages employee support of safety activities;
  
• 
  Revenue Subgroup - campus-wide membership includes VPs, deans, and directors; generates revenue scenarios based on enrollment projections, state funding and proposed fees; recommends revenue budget for Board approval.
  

Through these committees, the Cabinet and the Board, the institution is able to review all emerging and strategic issues and then reallocates resources as necessary.  This process links all areas of the institution together so that the mission critical issues are always at the forefront of deliberations.

CSU does not have a staff council. Staff is represented by three Unions who have agreements with the University. For example CSU Police are represented by the Police Association, unclassified are represented by AFSCME and faculty by AAUP. Since these are all external representation, CSU will explore forming an internal group which represents non-instructional staff.

Student Government and Organizations     

The Student Government Association (SGA) has executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and represents the student body by serving as the liaison between the students and the Administration. The SGA, faculty and staff share the responsibility of making decisions that affect campus life. The SGA represents the student body within and outside the University.  The SGA derives its authority and responsibility from the Board of Trustees.  SGA promotes campus life and encourages student academic success, leadership development, and organizational affiliations.  The Executive Board of SGA consists of the President, Vice President, Finance Chair, Personnel Board Chair, Chief Justice, and Public Relations Chair.  Miss CSU also serves as an ex-officio member of the SGA Executive Board.  The judicial branch includes sergeants at arms from each class (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) as well as the SGA Chief Justice. The legislative branch of SGA consists of the Student Senate, which consists of seven student senators and four class presidents. Each senator is responsible for participating in a standing committee and working on action reports for SGA.  The student body at large elects candidates for one-year terms to all of these positions, except for the class presidents, who are voted on by members of their respective classes.

CSU has two non-voting student members on its Board of Trustees as required under Ohio law. Student Trustees serve as ex-officio members of SGA. Student Trustees report regularly to the Board on issues of importance to students, and report back to SGA on issues of note discussed by the Board. Copies of student governance documents are on file in the Resource Room.  The SGA has the following seven standing committees:

• 
  Student Activities
  
• 
  Community Service
  
• 
  Student Affairs
  
• 
  Academic Affairs
  
• 
  Residence Life
  
• 
  Inter-Organizational
  
• 
  Pan-Hellenic Council 
  

The Chancellor of the University System of Ohio validated CSU’s mission recently in his plan for the University, stating that he "believes strongly in the importance of retaining Ohio's Historically Black Public University" and expressing "confidence in the mission of Central State."  CSU’s resources are dedicated to serve its unique student population.  As described earlier in core component 5.A., the senior administration determines the strategic priorities and funding allocations based on the available funding.  Each division develops a five-year strategic plan that provides details of how the division will meet the mission and strategic goals of the institution.  These documents are crucial to the discussions that senior administration has during the budget allocation process.  The initiatives are discussed, and the recommendation of funded initiatives is included in the budget either in the unrestricted funds or restricted funds (grants) category.

The budget process establishes the contingency fund, which serves as both an emergency fund and a special initiative fund if other funding sources cannot be identified.  This fund has funded projects such as Early Start and other student programs, along with major un-budgeted infrastructure repairs that periodically occur.  The contingency fund is instrumental in the plan to increase net assets, which will strengthen the University’s financial ratios.  This set-aside of funds, along with other fundraising initiatives, will be instrumental in reserving funds annually to help improve the institution’s net asset base and financial ratios.

In the last three years, CSU has also used any major budget increases to fund strategic initiatives.   At the budget mid-year point, after it has been determined that the fall and spring enrollment has met and exceeded the budget, the Cabinet allocates a portion of those additional revenues to strategic plans.  In this effort, each division submits a list of initiatives, and the Cabinet prioritizes the list and funds those that are the most needed at that time.  This list is brought to the Board of Trustees for a budget revision, and the University, by resolution from the Board, is given authorization to spend new revenues from increased institutional funds.  This process is called the mid-year budget adjustment.

CSU’s Institutional Management

• 
  The Conversion from Quarters to Semesters enabled the University to align its calendar with those of other HBCUs and other state schools in Ohio, bringing about more administrative efficiency and cost savings.
  
• 
  Strengthening Funds and Administrative Management provided training to personnel in the administration and finance division to more effectively manage the business and administrative affairs of the University, and assisted with the design and management of internal control systems and services for business and financial operations, resulting in greater productivity.
  

CSU, through its planning documents--SAEM, Speed-to-Scale (S2S), and Honoring Ohio’s Historically Black Public University-- follow an organized process through which the University developed initiatives that have been incorporated into action plans to advance the University.  The Cabinet, the central body of review and planning, uses these documents to guide its decisions and to integrate all components.  This body meets weekly to make sure all divisions are aware of the activities pertaining to the institution and that all actions are communicated effectively. Through the above review and planning processes, the University is able to link processes and support systems across campus to make changes and improvements in operations. 

In the area of student learning, funds were appropriated through the budget to fund Early Start, University College, and the College of Science and Engineering.  Key metrics such as retention, course completion and graduation rates pointed to needed investments in student support services to improve these areas.  This information is provided regularly in Board meetings and Cabinet, thus elevating University attention to these areas.  These areas of assessment are also important to the institution because they are incorporated into the University’s state funding allocation.  As a result, the budget office and the assessment office in Academic Affairs meet regularly to analyze and review the data.

The University has also engaged external consultants to conduct two studies of University operations (Sightlines and Shared Services).  These two studies identified deferred maintenance issues, staffing optimums, and effectiveness of back office systems.  As a result, changes were made and budget reallocations were identified to make more critical changes.

Finally, the University has developed an institutional metrics report that is presented annually to the Board of Trustees to track and compare trends in the major indicators of wellness and health.  This report will help the University to focus on key areas that are important to institutional stability as improvements are made in dining services, academic programming, recreation/intramurals sports and security.

5. C.3: The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups.

Internal Groups

The planning process at CSU involves all divisions and students.  Through the University’s many committees, unions, and student groups, no one is excluded from the process.  These groups have open access to the administration, and are encouraged to be engaged in the initiatives of the institution.  On campus, internal stakeholders communicate and engage in institutional planning as follows:

• 
  The University Institute – annual all-staff meeting (i.e. State of the University)
  
• 
  Convocations – special programs open to the general public
  
• 
  Gold Torch (student newspaper)
  
• 
  Board Meetings (open to the public)
  
• 
  University Senate – all faculty member general assembly
  
• 
  Marauder Magazine – quarterly campus magazine
  
• 
  University Website – repository of all campus information
  
• 
  Alumni Meetings 
  
• 
  Town Hall Meetings – open, all-campus meetings to discuss emerging or critical needs
  
• 
  Strategic Plan
  
• 
  Master Plan – document developed by multiple constituents outlining physical/structural improvements and updates
  

External Groups

As a state institution of higher learning, CSU is charged with meeting the needs of several external constituents, including the state of Ohio, CSU alumni, local communities, business partners, etc.  The University accomplishes this through many different activities and processes, including the following:

• 
  Senior administrators meet bi-monthly with their counterparts in the University System of Ohio
  
• 
  CSU’s President and Provost meet regularly with local presidents and provosts via the Miami Valley Higher Education Consortium
  
• 
  CSU is a member of the Southwestern Ohio Council of Higher Education (SOCHE) and regularly participates in SOCHE meetings
  
• 
  CSU is currently collaborating with local community colleges to develop articulation and dual enrollment agreements, and with four-year institutions to develop joint degree programs, achieve greater efficiencies, and otherwise enhance CSU’s programs and operations
  
• 
  The President and senior administrators meet periodically with the CSU Alumni Association to discuss University issues, plans and solicit alumni input and support
  
• 
   The President meets with the University’s lobbyist, who is responsible for keeping the University informed on upcoming legislation
  
• 
  CSU works closely with Sodexo, the University’s dining partner, to develop special programs and healthy initiatives for CSU students. 
  
• 
  CSU’s administration serves on local community boards and participates in numerous local activities.
  

CSU fully understands its current capacity and governs all aspects of its operations accordingly. The University knows that financial resources must be tied to planning and institutional initiatives.  However, in recent years, many unexpected actions have caused the University to adjust its plans and redefine its goals.  State initiatives such as tuition restraint, reductions in state funding, and changes in the funding formula, to name a few, have all had a significant impact on the University’s financial resource projections and institutional plans.  However, the University has been flexible and agile enough to handle all of these changes and not sacrifice educational goals or academic quality. CSU’s budgeting process incorporates several "what if" scenarios that take into account state funding changes, enrollment changes, and even tuition limitations.  These projections allow the institution to make plans and adjust quickly if unexpected events occur.  The institution also budgets very conservatively, and sets aside a 3% contingency fund for emergencies, contractual requirements, and unbudgeted initiatives.  This approach allows the institution to handle minor unanticipated events without making any adjustments to the current budget.

It is not possible, of course, to account for every scenario or significant financial change. Therefore, the institution has developed two processes that are used in instances of either a major increase or a major decrease in revenues.  In the case of a major revenue increase over the current budget revenue, the Cabinet can recommend to the Board of Trustees a mid-year budget adjustment, and the additional revenue can be allocated to strategic initiatives.  In FY 2012, for example, the institution recommended a mid-year adjustment, and several academic priorities were addressed with this action.  Each division submitted proposals to the President and the Cabinet which were reviewed and ranked, and then recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval.  The Board approved these projects, and the institution was able to complete much-needed projects.

In the case of a significant shortfall which exceeds the budgeted contingency fund, the University can take several actions to maintain a balanced budget and protect academic quality.  A significant shortfall occurred in FY 2011, for example, when enrollment dropped by 8.5%, state funding was also reduced by $500k.  In response, the Cabinet met and discussed several options, and the Budget Office developed the cost impact of these options.  The Cabinet reviewed these options, and with the Board of Trustees' approval, the following actions were taken to close the budget gap:

• 
  Eight day furlough were imposed on staff but not faculty;
  
• 
  A hiring freeze was implemented for all vacant positions;
  
• 
  CSU retained more students in spring semester;
  
• 
  Student participation in summer term increased;
  
• 
  Greater efficiencies and savings in utilities were realized;
  
• 
  Grant revenue increased.
  
• 
  The 2.5% merit fund increase for monthly staff was delayed.
  

Table 5.C.1: Alignment of Academic Affairs Objectives with the Six Compelling Priorities

Table 5.C.2: Examples of Quality Collegiate/Academic Experiences through Funded Research (October 2012 – January 2013)

Information Technology

The University’s Information Technology (IT) Plan, developed in 2011, is based on creating an environment that will enable CSU to keep pace with an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world, using technology to meet the academic, student services, and administrative goals of the University. The plan creates a learning environment that promotes seamless access to data, information and knowledge.  Plan goals include the renovation of campus systems, including servers, computer labs, and the phone system.  The completion of these goals will remove the disparity between Central State and other institutions, and facilitate both student recruitment and retention.  The access and usability of administrative systems will improve student interaction with Enrollment Management functions.  These upgrades will improve utilization of campus resources and provide a better educational experience for faculty, students, and staff.  Using the University’s Six Compelling Priorities, in 2012 IT began implementing improvements in technology based on the following goals and objectives:

Table 5.C.2: Alignment of Information Technology (IT) and Services Operations with Compelling Priorities

The enrollment projections for the University anticipate a 3% increase for each year in the next five years.  An increase in retention rates and number of first time freshmen and transfer students will facilitate the plan.  Based on this projection, the University should reach the optimal enrollment of 3,000 students by fiscal year 2016, provided the following contributing factors to enrollment growth are considered:

• 
  Access to aid/scholarships
  
• 
  Housing/physical plant capacity
  
• 
  Online and Dayton campus growth
  
• 
  Competition
  
• 
  University College
  
• 
  Increase in retention and persistence rates
  
• 
  Course availability and advising
  
• 
  Partnerships
  
  • 
    NEOUCOM
    
  • 
    Beacon - Wright State
    
  • 
    Cleveland Metro/Aliquippa, PA/Mansfield, OH
    
  • 
    Job Corp
    

CSU-Dayton

The CSU-Dayton satellite location primarily serves mainly non-traditional students.  Its location is ideal for the re-training of adults previously employed by the manufacturing industry, which was such a large part of the area's economy until the downturn several years ago.  The Dayton campus offers an academic program that is designed to help area residents respond to the region's economic challenges through educational development. In order to provide access to higher education and beyond, CSU-Dayton is:

• 
  Offering courses leading to selected baccalaureate degrees
  
• 
  Teaching more courses in degree related areas
  
• 
  Increasing access by offering distance education
  
• 
  Partnering with Sinclair Community College to enable the seamless transfer of credits toward a four-year degree
  
• 
  Increasing the number of general education and elective course offerings
  
• 
  Diversifying class starting times
  
• 
  Creating opportunities for student seminars with a focus on personal and intellectual development along with career counseling and internship opportunities
  
• 
  Strengthening the University's engagement with the local community
  

Global Experiences

As mentioned previously, Central State seeks to foster a culturally enriched learning environment and to offer programs with multi-cultural and global perspectives.  In this regard, the University recently hired a Director of Global Experiences. This appointment demonstrates the institution's belief in the importance of creating and fostering international relationships and opportunities for CSU students.   

Recognizing the critical role that fast-growing economies like China are playing in the global marketplace, a delegation from Central State, led by the former President, John Garland, and previous Provost, Juliette Bell, traveled to China to explore partnerships with Chinese institutions of higher education. The purpose was to enable the transfer and exchange of students and faculty between CSU and Chinese partner institutions, with the ultimate goal to ensure that the workforce we are training is prepared to compete and produce in the global marketplace.  The Central State delegation visited three institutions of higher education: Tongji University and East China University of Science and Technology in Shanghai and TEDA Polytechnic, a three-year technical college near Tianjin. The group also met with the principal of a high school in Beijing to explore the feasibility of an agreement that would facilitate the enrollment at Central State of recent graduates of that high school.

CSU’s visit to TEDA Polytechnic culminated with the signing of a memorandum of understanding calling for development of a formal agreement to enable students from TEDA to transfer to CSU to earn their baccalaureate degrees. A formal agreement was signed in November 2010 during a visit to CSU by a delegation from TEDA led by its president, Jiang Bingkun. Academic committees from both institutions are working on the requirements students from TEDA will have to meet in order to transfer to and receive a CSU degree. These include demonstration of English proficiency and completion of both the general education requirements and course work associated with their major.

The articulation agreement also sets the stage for the development of agreements that will allow for faculty and student exchanges between the two institutions. Other possibilities for the CSU/TEDA partnership include opportunities for student/faculty collaboration with companies in the Tianjin region as well as establishment of a CSU branch campus in the Tianjin area devoted to workforce development.

The TEDA partnership was seen as the first step in a larger initiative aimed at increasing enrollment of international students at CSU and providing more opportunities for CSU students and faculty to gain international experience through study and research in other countries. These efforts will be coordinated through CSU’s new Center for Global Education, which began operation, under its new director, in 2012.

 Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

A separate College of Science and Engineering was created to focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, otherwise known as STEM, in recognition of the need to produce graduates equipped for technological careers.  Additionally, the Chancellor's plan for CSU—Honoring Ohio’s Historically Black Public University-- calls for the University to identify STEM degree partnerships with other local institutions.  The state and local area has recently seen the creation of STEM high schools. The growth of the University’s STEM program will afford Ohio residents the opportunity to transition directly from these various programs into CSU.

Through all of the above initiatives and many others, CSU is anticipating emerging factors and is planning strategically for its future.

In 1997, CSU was on “fiscal watch,” and under the microscope of the state auditor. The University was removed from fiscal watch in 2002, and received an “A” rating from the state auditor for what it had achieved with respect to stabilizing the financial health of the institution. The auditor also acknowledged that his initial estimate of the deficit in 1996 had been incorrect.

CSU’s Ohio Senate Bill 6 Ratio, a standard set of measures utilized by the state to monitor the fiscal health of its public colleges and universities, increased from 2.5 to 4.0 from 2001 to 2011 (a ratio of 1.75 is required by the state), and audits by the University’s external auditors for each of those years resulted in an unqualified opinion.  Revenue increased by 64.9 percent, from $39.8 million in FY2001 to $65.5 million in FY2011. This occurred despite cuts in state appropriations, which decreased by 9.3 percent over the same period, from $20.6 million to $18.6 million.  Increases in enrollment as well as sound fiscal management offset these cuts and contributed to revenue growth.  CSU’s expenses increased by 56.7% from $38.5 million in FY2001to $60.4 million in FY2011 as a result of the increased investment in academic operations. Instructional expenses increased from $10.4 million to $23.8 million during the 11-year period, representing a 129.8% increase and CSU’s net assets increased by 43.1%, from $57.6 million in FY2001 to $82.4 million in FY2011. Net assets for FY2011 comprise net capital assets of $74.5 million and unrestricted net assets totaling $7.9 million.

Financial Statement Audits

For the FY2010 CSU Audited Financial Statements, there were no findings issued for the Financial Statement audit and six findings issued for the Federal Program Audit. All the findings were related to Title IV funds. Each finding includes a recommendation by the auditors and a management response which includes a corrective action plan. Because of the findings, the Department of Education implemented a post audit review of all Title IV transactions for the 2009-2010 academic year. A reserve was established for any funds to be returned and fines assessed.

The Foundation FY2010 Audited Financial Statements included one finding for the financials, concerning Cash Management. As a result of the finding, the Foundation’s financial records and transaction processing were transferred to the Banner ERP.

For the FY2011 CSU Audited Financial Statements, there were no findings issued for the Financial Statement audit and two findings issued for the Federal Program Audit. The two findings were carried forward from FY2010 findings that had not been 100% corrected.  The Financial Aid Office has been working diligently to implement all corrective action. The Department of Education conducted a current year Program Review for FY2012. The exit conference indicated they were satisfied with the transactions reviewed and an official report will be issued.

CSU's Financial Ratios:

CSU is measured by two sets of ratios. The first is mandated by the Ohio State Legislature and is referred to as Senate Bill 6 (SB6). These ratios are administered by the Ohio Board of Regents. The second is a set of ratios that are required by the HLC These ratios reference a Composite Financial Indicator (CFI). Details concerning the CFI are available in the sixth addition of the “Strategic Financial Analysis for Higher Education” by KPMG, Prager, Sealy & Co., LLC and BearingPoint. The Key Financial Ratios used at CSU are as follows:

A ratio of 1:1 or greater indicates sufficient net assets to cover debt. A lower ratio indicates the institution is less self-reliant and has less operating flexibility. The “right” or ideal ratio is institution specific and dependent upon growth strategies in place.

The ratios used for reporting requirements are the HLC CFI and Ohio Board of Regent’s SB6. Table 5.D.1 below provides CSU’s financial ratios on the two measures.

Table: 5.D.1. CSU Ratio Trend

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
HLC CFI	0.6	1.4	2.4	1.5	0.3	2.68	0.52	1.4
SB6	2.4	3.2	3.2	2.4	2.7	4.0	3.1	4.0

Chart 5D1-1 Source:  Controller’s Office

The HLC and OBR ratios are essentially the same except for the following key differences. The HLC ratios include Foundation’s funds while Senate Bill 6 ratios include University funds only. Second, the HLC ratios include additional ratio of Return on Net Assets while SB6 includes weighting differences. Third, the HLC puts its institutions on fiscal watch if Composite Financial Index (CFI) for an institution falls below 1.0 for two consecutive years while the State of Ohio puts its public institutions when the composite Financial Index falls below 1.75 for two consecutive years. Fiscal year 2008 was the first time CSU’s investments went underwater. This resulted in a significant impact on Foundation’s net assets, resulting in negative unrestricted net assets. The increase in 2009 is attributed to the investment by the state in constructing the Center for Education and Natural Sciences (CENS). This investment favorably impacted both reportable measurements. The HLC index dropped significantly in 2010 because the investment impact of CENS was no longer reflected in the operational driven ratios. This material has been presented to the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees in various formats.

Peer Benchmarking
CSU evaluates its operations through comparative analyses with other universities.  There are three peer groups to which CSU is typically compared – the Inter-University Council (IUC), which includes all of four-year Ohio Public Universities; a group of Speed-to-Scale aspirational institutions; and specialized peers comprised of local universities of similar size.  A list of all of the peer groups is included below and in the evidence files. 

As part of CSU’s Strategic Academic Enrollment Management Plan (SAEM), a group of peer institutions with characteristics similar to the objectives that CSU is targeted to achieve was identified.  These “aspirational” peers have been mainly used to provide the campus with information to gauge its progress in key areas such as student persistence, and to compare its programs and processes with these aspirational institutions, such as:

• 
  Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
  
• 
  Alcorn State University
  
• 
  Jackson State University
  
• 
  Elizabeth City State University
  
• 
  North Carolina Central University
  
• 
  Shawnee State University
  
• 
  Norfolk State University
  
• 
  The chart below provides a comparison between CSU and its peers relative to percent of spending for instruction and academic support, as compared to each of the peer groups.
  

Figure: 5.D.1: CSU’s Instructional and Academic Support FY 2012.