Penn State University Home


The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 1:30 p.m.
112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING - Minutes of the March 25, 2003 Meetings in The Senate Record 36:6


Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of April 8, 2003 - Appendix A

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 8, 2003




Senate Self Study Committee

A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate [30-minute discussion] - Appendix B



Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course) - Appendix C

Intercollegiate Athletics

Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes - Appendix D


Faculty Affairs

Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement - Appendix E

Undergraduate Education

Defining Grading Standards - Appendix F


Curricular Affairs

Status of General Education Implementation: Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses - Appendix G
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Faculty Affairs

Time in Rank of Associate Professors - Appendix H
[5-minute presentation and discussion]


Update on Graduate Education - Appendix I
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Senate Council

Report on Spring 2003 College Visits - Appendix J
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

University Planning

Status of Construction - Appendix K
[10-minute presentation and 5-minute discussion]

Parking Rate Structure - Appendix L
[10-minute presentation and 10-minute discussion]

Report of Senate Elections

Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 2002-2003
Senate Chair-Elect for 2002-2003

Comments by Outgoing Chair Moore

Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Bise


Everyone is invited to attend a reception in the University Faculty Senate Office, 102 Kern Building, immediately following the Senate Meeting.

Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendix A

Date: April 8, 2003

To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report dated April 8, 2003, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID, on or before May 8, 2003. The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed at

Appendix B

Report of the Senate Self Study Committee

A concept for restructuring and for improving the operation and procedures of the University Faculty Senate

Second Interim Report

Forensic Session

April 2003

Since being established almost a year and half ago by then Senate Chair John Nichols, the Senate Self Study Committee has attempted to address its two-fold charge of:

(1)   “do some ‘blue sky’ thinking about how the Senate can do a better job and seek ways to give the faculty at large a greater sense of ownership in what the Senate does…”

(2)   and “make some specific recommendations about how to improve Senate organization and procedures.”

To that end, we have been meeting and discussing various approaches and suggestions made to the Committee.  We have twice solicited input from the university community, met with various individuals and groups and issued an interim report at the end of the last Senate year; we are now preparing a final report to the Senate, which we expect to have for the first meeting in the Fall.

However, before finalizing our recommendations, we propose a focused forensic session at the April 22, 2003 Senate meeting to raise certain key suggestions to ascertain preliminary opinions.  Consequently, following is a series of discussion points wherein we present a short background statement and topics for discussion.


In several meetings with former and current Senate chairs and committee chairs, the Senate Self Study Committee heard frustration expressed about the perception of Senate Council.  Some were of the opinion that it served as a gatekeeper, changing report content with some efforts directed at keeping reports from the floor of the Senate.  There was also considerable discussion about the need for Senate Council to be more proactive in discussing issues affecting the larger University community as well as communicating these issues to College/Campus constituencies. Further, there was sentiment expressed that committees should have greater decision-making authority, such as posting mandated/informational reports on the committee’s web space or referring a mandated report to the Executive Committee for further discussion or placement on the Senate Agenda. Currently, we are of the opinion that Senate Council should be eliminated to be replaced by two smaller councils (see Appendix A for organization chart):

A. Undergraduate Council:  This Council will be comprised of the chairs of five standing committees: 

1.  Undergraduate Education

2.  Curricular Affairs

3.  Student Affairs

4.  Intercollegiate Athletics

5.  Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid

B.  Council on Academics and Resources: This Council will be comprised of the chairs of the six standing committees:

1.   Faculty Affairs

2.   Academic and Resource Planning

3.   Outreach and International Programming

4.   Libraries and Information Systems

5.   Educational Equity and Campus Environment

6.   Research

The Undergraduate Council and Council on Academics/Resources will each meet a minimum of six times during the Senate year and will consider University and committee issues, review reports, and make recommendations on Senate Agenda items to the Executive Committee. The Councils will have delegated authority from the Executive Committee to determine the appropriateness and readiness of a report.  

The members of each Council will elect a Council Chair. The Senate Officers, the Executive Secretary and appropriate vice-provosts, representing the provost, will serve as members of the two Councils.  The two Council chairs will serve on the Executive Committee  


We are contemplating the creation of an Executive Committee that will replace the former Faculty Advisory Committee to the President but will continue to represent the Senate and the faculty at large as an advisory and consultative body to the President and Provost of the University. It will also assume some of the functions previously under the purview of the Senate Council.  In addition to discussing any topic initiated by the President, Provost, or the committee, the Executive Committee will determine the Senate Agenda.  In consultation with the Undergraduate Council and the Council on Academics/ Resources, the Executive Committee will review and advise the President and Executive Vice President and Provost on the establishment, reorganization or discontinuation of organizational units.  The Executive Committee may initiate legislation. 

The membership of the Executive Committee would be:

1.      Senate Officers [4] (chair, chair-elect, secretary, immediate past chair)

2.      President and Provost [2]

3.      Council Chairs [2]

4.      Faculty Member At-Large [1]

5.      Executive Secretary


Senate committees carry out much of the work of the Senate, and, in some cases, are authorized to act for and in the name of the Senate.  The current committee structure represents a division of concerns and duties based on the various functions of the Senate.  Over the years, however, some aspects of the committee structure have become out-dated and new structures have been created in the university that do not have Senate liaison.  This has resulted in some gray areas with respect to which committees handle certain issues, and the balance of workloads and power has become uneven.

As the Self-Study Committee developed the idea of forming separate councils for undergraduate issues and academics and resources, the division of committees into these two areas followed naturally.  We also attempted to balance and streamline committees through combining certain areas of concern and integrating certain issues across all committees.  Finally, as a means of making the Senate more efficient, we propose that the Senate delegate more responsibilities to councils/committees similar to the way Curricular Affairs operates.  The revised structure would be the following:

Undergraduate Council:
>Committee on Undergraduate Education  
  Standing Subcommittees – Academic Standards; Undergraduate Policy  
>Committee on Curricular Affair  
  Standing Subcommittees – General Education; Writing; Intercultural and International Competence; Bachelor of Arts Requirements  
>Committee on Student Affairs  
  Standing Subcommittees – Student Rights and Responsibilities; Student Experiences  
>Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics  
>Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid  
  Standing Subcommittee – Retention and Transfer  

Council on Academic/Resources:
>Committee on Faculty Affairs  
  Standing Subcommittees – Promotion and Tenure; Faculty Development; Faculty Rights and Privacy  
>Committee on Academic and Resource Planning  
  Standing Subcommittees – Benefits; Academic Planning; Physical Planning  
>Committee on Outreach and International Programming  
>Committee on Libraries and Information Systems  
>Committee on Educational Equity and Campus Environment  
>Committee on Research  


The Senate has grown substantially in size from 142 elected senators in 1971-72 when the current Constitution went into effect with the current ratio (one senator for every twenty faculty) to today when we will have a Senate of 239 elected Senators for 2003-04.  A view shared by many in the University community is that the current size of the Senate is too large and unwieldy.  The issue is to have a Senate that is representative of the entire university, provides sufficient numbers to staff the various committees of the Senate and, at the same time, does not become so large as to become inefficient and burdensome.  As part of our discussions and tentative recommendations, we will be proposing the elimination, consolidation, or downsizing of a number of committees.  Consequently, the final ratio recommended will, in part, be determined by the critical mass of senators needed to staff committees.  Additionally, we see no need to change the proportions currently in place for determining ex officio and student representation, which is 10%.  As part of our discussions, we reviewed various ratios (See Appendix B for grid of various scenarios of representation) as well as having a minimum and maximum number of senators for each voting unit. At this point in our deliberations, we are contemplating proposing a ratio of one senator for every thirty-five faculty.

The current 4-year term was considered daunting to many and was believed by some as detrimental in attempting to recruit faculty to stand for election to the Senate.  In addition, we also had at least one suggestion that we entertain term limits. Our goal was to find a term length that would provide more frequent opportunities for faculty to become involved in faculty governance without sacrificing experience. The Committee recommends a three-year term.  

In order to allow currently elected Senators to complete the term for which they were elected, and to implement the recommendations for a different representation ratio and term length, a 3-year phase-in period will be recommended, beginning with the elections for the ’04-’05 Senate year


The formal relationship between the Senate and Graduate Council is as follows:  Graduate Council possesses delegated authority from the Senate on Graduate School matters, subject to review by the Senate.  The Dean of the Graduate School is an ex officio member of the Senate and is required to present an annual report to the Senate. The Senate has the responsibility to provide for liaison with Graduate Council (see Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, Bylaws, Article VII, Section 2).

However, the Self Study Committee has concluded that, although Graduate Council is formally an entity of the Senate, in actual practice the two bodies largely operate separately.  There is insufficient communication and coordination between them on matters of mutual interest.  For example, Graduate Council had little say regarding the recent Senate recommendations on the calendar revision and intellectual property policy, both of which have major implications for graduate education. Further, the committee structure of the two bodies significantly overlaps, resulting in inefficiency and duplication of effort.  In sum, the existing relationship weakens faculty governance and unnecessarily divides decision making on academic policy.

The Self Study Committee floated some proposals for improving coordination and communication between the Senate and Graduate Council.  They included giving the chair of Graduate Council a seat on the proposed Senate Executive Committee, allowing for some (or perhaps all) Graduate Councilors to become Senators with full rights and responsibilities, and revising the committee structure to reduce duplication and unify important functions of faculty governance in one body or the other.  While there were varying levels of support for the specific proposals, Graduate Council did not warmly receive the overall initiative.  However, since that meeting, Graduate Council held a forensic session to discuss the issue and has made several suggestions for a closer working relationship with the Senate.  The Self Study Committee is currently reviewing those proposals.



  1. The number of regular University Faculty Senate meetings shall be reduced to six per year, three each fall semester and three each spring semester.
  2. Most informational and mandated reports will not be presented orally on the floor of the Senate. Instead, in keeping with current practice, informational and mandated reports will be distributed to Senators as written reports over the web and in hard copy format.
  3. The proposed Councils and Executive Committee shall have the option to place particularly important informational and mandated reports onto the Senate Meeting Agenda for an oral report and discussion on the floor of the Senate.
  4. The proposed Councils and Executive Committee shall establish the Order of Business for the Agenda for each University Faculty Senate Meeting.
  5. The proposed Executive Committee and Councils shall decide if the first Senate meeting date each academic year will be a regular Senate meeting or Extended Senate Committee meetings. or a combination of extended Committee meetings and a shortened introductory Senate meeting.
  6. The length of each University Faculty Senate meeting shall be limited to 1-1/2 hours.  The Executive Committee has the right to announce in advance an extended Senate meeting on rare occasions where there is an issue that requires special and extended consideration.


  1. The Senate web site should be expanded to include links to more documents and information, including committee reports. Ideally, the Senate web site should include all published reports coming from the Senate and its committees.
  2. The Senate Newsletter should be designed to present information as efficiently as possible. One suggestion is to include a series of hot button items highlighted in each issue. These hot button items could include issues either currently under discussion or more forensic items that request information feedback.
  3. Committee chairs should be urged (when appropriate) to use the course management system, ANGEL, as a means of facilitating committee discussion. One of the attractive components of ANGEL is the ability to archive a conversation, which leads to a copy of a discussion that can be saved for future use.
  4. If the recommendation to replace the current Senate Council with the proposed Executive Committee is adopted, then caucus chairs should play a more prominent role in getting relevant information to caucus members and from their caucus members to members of the separate Councils. Specifically, caucus chairs will need to pay careful attention to the Senate agenda and the Senate Newsletter to alert their constituents of any pertinent issues.
  5. A Senate intranet should be considered to provide a forum for the discussion of confidential issues. Access to a Penn State intranet requires both a valid email account as well as an active password, and an intranet can be limited to only individuals who are faculty senators. This limited access would provide the confidentiality necessary for the discussion of sensitive issues.

Mark A. Casteel
George W. Franz, Chair
Harvey Manbeck
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Susan C. Youtz

(Appendix A)

Organization Chart

(Appendix B)

Appendix C


Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course)


[Implementation Date: Summer 2003]


Course credits registered for as "audit" are ineligible to be included in the determination of "full-time" status for many programs and agencies outside of the University. Some examples include federal student aid determination, veteran eligibility benefits, immigration reporting (SEVIS), and NCAA reporting. In addition, family health insurance companies and many outside scholarships exclude audit credits in their determination of full-time status.

The current Penn State definition of "full-time" as defined by Senate Policy 34-68 includes audit credits. Current policy may therefore produce a situation where a student is defined as being in full-time status (in the eyes of the University) yet not be considered full-time given the various mandates of outside agencies who exclude the use of audit credits. Confusion therefore results when a student's total credit load, excluding audit credits, places them below 12 total credits. This confusion has, in some cases, resulted in a disadvantage to our students.

The legislative recommendation that follows is to change the Penn State definition of "full-time" to exclude audit credits. In making this change, we will be consistent with commonly accepted national practices. If this change is adopted, there will be no change to the calculation of tuition. Courses taken as audit are charged regular tuition rates. Audit credits will continue to be included in the full-time tuition rate calculation.

The policy that follows is the current policy. Deletions are denoted by strikeout. Additions are indicated by UPPER CASE.

34-68 Auditing and Visiting Courses
1. Auditing. If a student wishes to audit a course officially and to have this fact appear on the academic record, that course must be entered on the student's schedule with the symbol AU shown under "credits." When a student audits a course, the credits become part of that semester's credit load and BUT are NOT used in the determination of full-time status (section 34-52). In addition, tuition must be paid for the audit. Audits are not considered in the determination of the credit standard for financial aid.

No course may be added for audit and dropped for credit, or vice versa, after the first ten calendar days of a fifteen-week semester or the same percentage of time if the course is offered under a different time schedule. A student enrolled for official audit may be required to participate in class discussion, do practicum work, submit written work, and take examinations. See also Section 48-80, symbols for Course Audit.

2. Visiting. Students who wish to visit a course may do so, even though they are not officially enrolled for credit or for audit in that course. To visit a course, currently registered full-time students must obtain permission in advance from the course instructor. No tuition is paid for a visit. Course credits do not become part of the semester's credit load and are not entered on the student's academic record. Paragraph 1 relating to official audit is not applicable to the student who visits a course.

Referenced Policies - for information only. No proposed changes.

34-10 Delivery Systems
Courses are available for scheduling through three delivery systems: Resident Instruction, Continuing Education, and Independent Learning.

34-52 Definition of Full-Time Students
A full-time student is defined as one scheduling course credits at the rate of 12 or more per semester in all delivery systems of instruction as defined by section 34-10.

The typical load for a full-time student is defined to be from 12 to 19 course credits per semester.

Edward W. Bittner
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Luen-Chau Li
Christopher J. Lynch
Paul Neiheisel
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager

Appendix D


Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes


[Implementation Date: Summer 2003]


The proposed revision to Senate Policy 67-00 was prompted by a case this past fall semester wherein one of our athletes fell into non-degree status during her junior year. A discussion ensued among the athletic compliance staff at the University as to whether or not she would be allowed to practice. (NCAA rules are clear in prohibiting competition but leave the issue of practice to local policies.) It was discovered that our 67-00 rules do not specifically cover such cases. Thus, the need for the revision.

One other small editorial change is proposed to clarify the policy for non-University Park locations.


This revision formally implements the traditional unwritten policy at the University, which has been the practice for many years, of not allowing students in non-degree status to compete or practice as part of an athletic team. This change sends a message to athletes that baccalaureate candidacy and graduation are priorities. The exclusion from practice, as well as competition, gives the student athlete more time to get his or her academics in order. The policy is compatible with NCAA and Big Ten rules.

The change in the language to delineate University Park and non-University Park locations adds additional clarity to the policy.


The current policy should be amended to read as follows (the new language is italicized):

67-00 Athletic Competition

2. Eligibility of Athletes

1. Only full-time candidates for a baccalaureate degree are eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletic contests, with two exceptions. First, in their final semester, student-athletes may schedule fewer than the minimum requirements for full-time status if they need fewer than twelve credits to meet graduation requirements. Second, a full-time graduate student (attained a baccalaureate degree) with competitive eligibility remaining may also compete. In addition, courses offered through correspondence study may not be used to establish the minimum requirements for full-time status. If a student-athlete drops below full-time status any time during the semester (except as noted above), that student will be immediately ineligible to compete.

At the University Park Campus, provisional, non-degree regular, and non-degree conditional students are not considered baccalaureate candidates.  They are not eligible to practice or compete.

At the Commonwealth campus Ccollege locations only full-time students (except non-degree) are eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletic contests.  Exceptions to full-time status may also be made for associate degree students during their final semester if they need less than twelve credits to meet their graduation requirements. If a student-athlete drops below full-time status any time during the semester (except as noted above) that student will be immediately ineligible.

Effective Date: August 15, 2003

James B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
Timothy M. Curley
Laurence M. Demers
James T. Elder
Robert Gray
Kane M. High
Janis Jacobs
Diana L. Kenepp
R. Scott Kretchmar
Mark A. Levin
Douglas McCullough
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Susan J. Scheetz
Sandra R. Smith, Vice-Chair
Thomas C. Vary
Jerry Wright
Edgar P. Yoder

Appendix E


Revision to Policy AD 53, Privacy Statement

(Advisory/Consultative Report)

[Implementation: Upon Approval by the President]



With the rapid development of technology, it is important to define the position of the University on the use of video surveillance cameras in university spaces.  The use of video surveillance plays a critical role in establishing security in public spaces and in apprehending individuals involved in criminal activity.  Video surveillance can also inhibit academic freedom when it is employed in traditionally academic spaces such as classrooms, laboratories, or designated areas for assembly.  Faculty Affairs, in consultation with University Legal Counsel and University Police Services, has developed the following revision of Policy AD 53 that details the University position on the privacy of its employees and students.


The current AD 53 Privacy Policy establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy at the university and defines the process by which university authorities can initiate necessary actions to protect the security of the university and its employees and students.  The revision below of AD 53 would make clear that other means of monitoring the activities of employees and students through such technologies as video and sound recording likewise may abridge privacy expectations and may not be utilized except when necessary to protect the security of the University and its employees and students.  It is appropriate to extend this privacy policy to include the activity of video surveillance in order to more fully protect the academic freedom that is fundamental to the academic process in many university spaces.


To change Policy AD 53 Privacy Statement as indicated below, with changes to become effective when approved by the University President.

Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Judd Arnold
Kultegin Aydin
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Clay Calvert
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Debora Cheney
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Dwight Davis
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Amir Khalilollahi
Sallie M. McCorkle (Vice-Chair)
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner (Chair)
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner



·  Purpose

·  Policy

·  Cross References


To set forth the University's position regarding the privacy of its employees and students.


In the interest of promoting academic freedom and an open, collegial atmosphere, Tthis University recognizes its obligation not to infringe upon the reasonable privacy expectations rights of its members EMPLOYEES AND STUDENTS in their individually assigned offices, laboratories, classrooms, designated meeting and conference rooms, individually assigned offices, and personal residences, or in relation to their personal papers, confidential records and effects, and in all communications by mail, telephone, and other electronic means, subject only to the general law APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS and University regulations.

In invoking the exception clause ("subject only to... LAWS AND University regulations"), the following principles apply:

BA.   Necessary Action - Exceptions to the privacy policy may be authorized only when reasonably necessary to protect the security of the University, its communications system, and the academic process, and when there is good reason to believe that the individual faculty, staff EMPLOYEE or student has violated law or University regulations. For example, if the computer security officer has GOOD reason to believe that a specific user of the University system is endangering the technical integrity of the system, he/she may authorize entry into the user's files for an investigation reasonably necessary to protect the security of the computer network for all users.  IN GENERAL, audio recording or video surveillance of laboratories, classrooms, designated meeting and conference rooms, individually assigned offices, and personal residences SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYEE OR STUDENT TO WHICH THE FACILITY IS ASSIGNED.  However, bBlanket searches of faculty offices or random monitoring of written or electronic communications, for example, shall not be acceptable.

AB.   Consultation and Authorization - Only authorized and identifiable officers of the University (e.g., computer security officer) acting under provisions of the University policy or regulation (e.g. AD20) may invoke the exception clause.  The exception clause may be invoked only by persons with responsibility and authority for administering the law OR regulations within the University (e.g., computer security officer, University police) and only after consultation with the appropriate administrator (e.g., Dean or Unit Head). 

C.           AccountabilityNormally, in any application of the exception clause the affected individual shall be notified in advance, The responsible University officer shall notify the affected individual beforehand, unless conditions necessitate immediate access, for which such an exception must be authorized OR NOTIFICATION WOULD COMPROMISE AN ON-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.  Records of any exception should be kept; THE RECORDS SHOULD BE and made accessible to the affected individual, UNLESS SUCH ACCESS WOULD COMPROMISE AN ON-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Information collected should be kept secure and be used only for the intended purpose.


Other Policies in this Manual should also be referenced, especially:

(New policy.)

Effective Date: February 22, 2000
Date Approved: February 21, 2000
Date Published: February 22, 2000

Appendix F


Defining Grading Standards



At the March 25, 2003 meeting of the University Faculty Senate, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education submitted its Annual Grade Distribution Report.  This report can be found online at   The informational report presented explicit and detailed evidence of a steady increase in the University GPA over the past fifteen years.  Present trends are gradually muting the use of grades to designate gradations of achievement in student performance.  The committee predicted that, if standards are not reestablished, within a finite length of time all student grades will be A's.

To halt this trend, the committee's informational report presented three specific recommendations.  In response to suggestions made at the March 25th meeting, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education resubmits its recommendations in the form of an Advisory/Consultative Report.


  1. Grades shall continue to be assigned solely on the basis of the instructor’s judgment as to the student’s scholastic attainment as long as the assignment is consistent with university, college, division, and department standards.  University grading policies are described in Policy 47-20, Basis for Grades, and Policy 47-60, Definition of Grades.
  1. The President and Provost of the University in conjunction with the Deans and Department/Division Heads shall actively encourage faculty and undergraduate program heads to define, implement, and maintain the standards they deem most appropriate for achieving a vision like one of those depicted in the March 2003 Informational Report (Figure 1). 
  1. Units shall actively monitor grade changes over time, take the action necessary to fully understand the reasons for changes, and remedy the situation when it becomes apparent that standards are being compromised.

Figure 1:  Four visions for setting the future standards in distribution of grades at Penn State.

Cheryl L. Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Laura M. Beck
Thomas E. Boothby
John P. Cancro
Paul F. Clark
Terry Engelder
Cheryl Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Robert S. Hill
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
John H. Kramer
Amy E. Locke
Nancy S. Love
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
David W. Russell
Dhushy Sathianathan
Dennis C. Scanlon
Julia B. Simon
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
Susan C. Youtz

Appendix G


Status of General Education Implementation:

Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses



The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs was charged with implementation of the General Education requirements, as legislated in December 1997.  The General Education Implementation Committee recommended a procedure in which all General Education knowledge domain courses (GA, GH, GHA, GN, GS) and intercultural/international competence courses (GI) had to be certified as meeting the new requirements.  A deadline for completion of the recertification was set for fall semester 2002, five years after the legislation.  As of August 2002, about forty percent of courses had been certified.

Process and Status of Certifications

In order to facilitate the timely review of the proposals, collaborative message boards were established in ANGEL at the beginning of fall semester 2002.  This enabled the rolling review of the proposals by the General Education Subcommittee, rather than requiring delay until scheduled meetings.  An integrated electronic course proposal system is still not available, however.  Faculty responsible for the courses have prepared and submitted the remaining proposals during this academic year.  As shown in Table 1, the certification process is almost complete.

Table 1.  Number of General Education Courses Approved Per Legislation of December 1997 as of March 29, 2003






Health & Physical Activity


Natural Sciences


Social & Behavioral Sciences


Intercultural and International Competence



In Review


In Review


In Review


In Review


In Review


In Review

Courses Recertified, Changed, or Replaced













New Courses





















Not in Plans

Courses Not Submitted














1GI courses may also be approved as knowledge domain (GA, GH, GHA, GN, GS) courses.


The courses shown as “in review” in Table 1 may be recent submissions, but also include courses for which additional documentation and changes have been requested, and the proposal process is ongoing.  These courses will not be decertified and will be available for registration, until the approval process in complete. 

Lists of the courses not yet submitted were sent to the colleges on March 3, 2003.  Those courses that will not be submitted will be listed on the June Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for removal of the General Education certification; in general, this is with the concurrence of the colleges and departments.  Some of those courses are no longer offered, and course drop proposals are anticipated in the future.  The 45 diversity-focused (DF) courses not submitted for certification as intercultural/international competence (GI) represented only 3% of last year’s GI/DF enrollments.

Adequate course selections are available to accommodate all student enrollments.  In some areas, more course selections now exist for students than were originally planned.  The new requirements will be fully implemented for Spring Semester 2004; all old designations will be removed before the registration period.

The efforts of the faculty to complete the course certifications have been extraordinary.  In many cases, the certification process represented the final step in incorporating and refining active learning or revised objectives into the courses.  The reviewers on the General Education and Intercultural/International Competence subcommittees, including many who are not senators, have conscientiously reviewed hundreds of proposals during the current academic year, while attempting not to compromise the quality standards established by previous subcommittees. 

The use of ANGEL for collaborative reviews also provided an important trial.  Future course documentation, consultation, and review could be assisted by an electronic course proposal system.  This would also allow access to course proposals by all locations and units choosing to offer a course, reducing the time and paper expended for consistent curricular processes.


Phyllis F. Adams
Lauren M. Applegate
Laurie P. Breakey
William S. Brockman
Douglas K. Brown
Barton W. Browning
Garry L. Burkle
Chao-Hsien Chu
Jeremy Cohen
Robert G. Crane
Roger A. Egolf
Christopher J. Falzone
Gary J. Fosmire
George W. Franz
Sally A. Heffentreyer
Brandon B. Hunt
Ravinder Koul
Robert A. Novack
Mary Beth Oliver
Sylvester Osagie
Judy Ozment Payne, Vice-Chair
Howard G. Sachs
Richard J. Simons
Summer Spangler
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair
Bonj Szczygiel
Rodney L. Troester


Frank Ahern
Douglas Brown
Barton Browning
Paul Clark
Roger A. Egolf
Christopher Falzone
Ronald Filippelli
Gary Fosmire
George Franz
Tanya Furman
William Harkness
William Kelly
Tony Lentz
Donald Leslie
Deborah Medeiros
Robert Novack
Anthony Olorunnisola
William L. Petersen
Rebecca Peterson
John Pfau
Shelley Stoffels, Chair
James Strauss
Rodney Troester
William Waterhouse
George Young


Phyllis F. Adams

Chao-Hsien Chu

Lewis Jillings

Kathleen Mastrian

Judy Ozment Payne, Chair

John P. Sanchez

Julia B. Simon

Arkady Tempelman

D. Joshua Troxell

Geri Weilacher

Appendix H


Time in Rank of Associate Professors



This report provides information on the time that associate professors are spending in rank, beginning with appointment or promotion to that position. The report is the product of discussion and analysis within the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs during 2001-02 and 2002-03.  The data contained herein were provided, at the Committee’s request, by the Office of Planning and Institutional Analysis.[1]

Discussions about how faculty experiences differ by gender and/or minority status are common in academia, and information on issues of retention, tenure rates, promotion rates, and career satisfaction may be found in the professional and educational literature.  Penn State’s interest in these matters is, of course, not new.  In particular, two University-wide commissions – the Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity and the Commission for Women – have been in place since 1989 and 1981, respectively.  These two commissions have assisted in identifying various issues of concern.  In the Commission for Women’s report that was presented to the Senate in March 2001, advancement of women to the senior rank was identified as an area of concern.

This document presents a snapshot of the number of faculty who were associate professors in Fall 2002 with information on how long they had been in that rank, by gender and minority status and by University Park vs. other locations.  It also summarizes the progress of two cohorts of associate professors: those who were new to the rank in 1995 and 1996, respectively, again by gender and minority status and by location.  The data reflect a broad but systematic perspective appropriate to this institution and to the sample sizes; more detailed breakdowns than are presented here were not possible because the means would not have been reliable.  We hope that this report, developed in response to a specific inquiry, establishes a baseline for continued inquiry and discussion.

National Context and Background

Questions about rates of progress up the academic ladder are not unique to Penn State; in fact, the American Association of University Professors has no recommendations on qualifications needed for promotion in rank, much less a timeframe in which a promotion occurs. There is a substantial literature on how academic career experiences – retention, tenure rates, promotion rates, career satisfaction, and related issues – differ by gender and/or minority status.  The research literature suggests that women in academe, for example, progress less rapidly in their careers, experience a higher attrition rate, and earn lower salaries, on average compared to men in comparable positions, – but that women also appear to have different publication patterns, tend to focus more on teaching than on research, spend more time and effort on service, and are distributed differently across disciplines (Creamer, 1998; Hensel, 1991; Tack & Patitu, 1992). Minority faculty also have different experiences in higher education; some of the obstacles they encounter include overburdening with teaching, committee work, and community service that is not valued and recognized at the same level as research and publications (Baez, 1998; Bellas, 1999; Perna, 2001).   In short, the concerns are widespread through institutions of higher education, but the issues are complex, the reasons for differences are not necessarily clear cut nor are the solutions obvious.  Understanding all of the challenges to promotion can lead to multiple interpretations of causes.

Penn State’s interest in these topics has already been noted; that interest is consistent with developments around the country.  A number of analyses specific to various institutions, disciplines, or demographic cohorts have been released recently:

Penn State Data on Time-in-Rank[2]

How markedly do various demographic cohorts differ in time-in-rank as associate professors?  Two data slices help address this question.  The first is a snapshot of all associate professors on the Penn State faculty in Fall 2002 that shows how long they have been at this rank.  The second is a simple flow model that begins with individuals who became associate professors in 1995 and 1996 and looks at their progress six years later, through 2001 and 2002, respectively.

The College of Medicine at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and the Dickinson School of Law are excluded from this analysis.  Each of these units has a unique information system, and differences between those systems and those of other Penn State colleges complicate comparisons.  The major organizational changes at Hershey during the 1990s are problematic for time-in-rank studies, which require consistent longitudinal data for a decade or more.  At present, available data do not permit inclusion of Hershey in the analyses presented here, but it is expected that this will change in the future.  Dickinson School of Law statistics are not included because the decision to promote to full professor in that unit is normally coincident with the tenure decision in the sixth-year of the tenure-track process.

Fall 2002 Snapshot.  There is no well-defined convention on how many years someone should take to progress from associate professor to professor. Institutional research in at least two other universities – UC Davis and the University of Missouri – has used six years as a reference point (Eimers, 1995; UC Davis, 2000). 

Penn State’s data also suggest that six years is a plausible norm for time-in-rank as associate professor, as shown in Table 1.  In fact, six years was exactly the average University-wide as of Fall 2002.    Minority and female faculty members have, on average, spent less time in the rank of associate professor (four to five years each), while campus college associate professors have spent more time in that rank (eight years on average).  Of course, a six-year average time-in-rank does not necessarily mean that the average associate professor is promoted after six years.  The data do not address the question of average time-to-promotion, but that number will necessarily be somewhat higher than six years. 

The data indicate that associate professors who have been in rank longer than 10 years are not as frequently promoted.  The data provide no clear inflection point as to exactly when that happens; for the purposes of this analysis, 10 years is used (somewhat arbitrarily) as a point of reference.  Table 1 shows that University-wide, 22 percent of associate professors have been in rank more than 10 years.  Only 10 percent of minority associate professors and 17 percent of female associate professors have been in rank more than 10 years.  Twenty-nine percent of campus college associate professors have been in rank for more than 10 years. 

Table 1 suggests that female, minority, and University Park cohorts are progressing more rapidly into the professor rank than their male, non-minority, and campus college colleagues.  This may or may not be the case, because historical patterns of hiring and promotion could conceivably have influenced these numbers.  That is, if (hypothetically) twenty to thirty years ago most of the people getting associate professor appointments were white males, it is possible that a disproportionate number of white males would be long-term associate professors. 

1995 – 2001 and 1996 – 2002 Cohort Flows.  Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c give a useful alternative perspective, although limited to a relatively small population.  The simple flow model begins with all individuals who became associate professors in 1995 or 1996, and asks whether they had become professors six years later (that is, by 2001 or 2002). 

Attention should be focused on Table 2c, which contains composite data for the two cohorts, because the sample sizes are larger and, thus, more reliable.  These data show that of the 193 new associate professors, 52% were still associate professors six years later.  The percentages were slightly smaller for females (49 percent), minorities (48 percent), and University Park faculty members (45 percent).  Consistent with the snapshot data, these results suggest that individuals in those three groups are less likely than their male non-University Park colleagues to remain in the rank of associate professor.  Also consistent is the finding that 65 percent of new associate professors at campus colleges were still associate professors six years later.

In terms of having a positive outcome – namely, promotion to professor – within six years, Table 2c again shows that minorities (34 percent) and University Park faculty members (28 percent) exceeded the University-wide average (21 percent).  Only 14 percent of female associate professors were promoted within six years – less than the University-wide average.  However, those not promoted after six years include a substantial number of persons who left the University (27% of the total 1995 and 1996 cohorts), and women were disproportionately represented in this group (37% of females left).  Still, of those who stayed, the pattern is the same:  the percentages of minorities and University Park faculty members who achieved promotion after six years were higher than average, and the percentage of females who did so was lower than average.


The data presented here do not explain why things have happened, or whether a given outcome is desirable or undesirable.  They do suggest that:

As noted, these findings are probably most useful in combination with other information, such as input to ongoing discussion, evaluation, and decision-making.  The small sample sizes for some groups limit the strength of our conclusions, and data for additional years should be collected in the future.


Alstete, J. (2000) Posttenure faculty development: Building a system of faculty improvement and appreciation.  ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report vol 27 no. 4.  San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Aquirre, A. (2000) Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention and academic culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report volume 27 no. 6.  San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Baez, B. (1998) “Negotiating and resisting racism: How faculty of color construct promotion and tenure.”  ERIC document ED430 420.

Bellas, M. & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999) “Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects.”  The Review of Higher Education 22 (4), 367-390.

Creamer, E. (1998). “Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity.” ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Eimers, M.T. (1995). “Exploring faculty career progression: A retention and tenure perspective”. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum.

Hensel, N. (1991). “Realizing gender equality in higher education: The need to integrate work/family issues.” ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Mangan, K.S. (February 11, 2000). “Female medical professors face poorer prospects for promotion, study finds.” The Chronicle of Higher Education.

MIT (March 1999). “A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT.” MIT Faculty Newsletter, XI (4), 1-15.  Verified March 22, 2003

MIT (January 30, 2001) “Leaders of 9 universities and 25 women faculty meet at MIT, agree to equity reviews.” X MIT News, 1-3. 

Penn State Commission for Women. Retrieved December 17, 2001.

Penn State Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity. Retrieved December 17, 2001.

Perna, Laura W. (2001) “Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion.”  Research in Higher Education 42 (5), 541-567.

Schneider, A. (November 10, 2000). “Support for a rare breed: Tenured women chemists.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, A12.

Tack, M.W. and Patitu, C.L. (1992). “Faculty job satisfaction: Women and minorities in peril. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Turner, C. S. V. and Myers, S. L.  Jr. Faculty of Color in Academe: Bittersweet Success.  Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

UC Davis (2000). Report of the Academic Senate Special Committee on academic personnel processes. Office of the Vice Provost.

UM-Dearborn (July 2000). “Agenda for women 2000.” Submitted to Chancellor Daniel Little by the Committee on the Agenda for Women.

West, M. (November 2, 2001). “Working in a hostile environment.” The Arizona Republic.

Woodhams, F. (September 18, 1998). “Minority medical professors are less likely to hold senior posts, study finds.”  The Chronicle of Higher Education, A15.

1 The committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by Mike Dooris for this report.

2 The source for Penn State time-in-rank data is the central human resources data file as of Fall 2001 and Fall 2002.  The Penn State data for associate professors and professors include librarians of equivalent academic ranks.


Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Judd Arnold
Kultegin Aydin
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Clay Calvert
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Debora Cheney
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Dwight Davis
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Amir Khalilollahi
Sallie M. McCorkle (Vice-Chair)
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner (Chair)
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner
Click here to view Standing Appointment tables 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c.

Appendix I


Report on Graduate Education


Major Trends in Graduate Enrollment

After enrollment declines in the late 1990s, total graduate enrollments have increased by 6.5% over the last five years, from 9,994 (1997) to 10,646 (2002).  Of this total number, 49.5% are master’s category, 37.4% are doctorate, and 13.1% are non-degree.  The majority of the increase in total enrollment (50%) occurred at University Park, with Great Valley, Harrisburg, the College of Medicine, and the Commonwealth and other colleges accounting for the remainder.  At University Park, several colleges experienced level or declining enrollments, with net declines since 1997 being greatest for Business (12.7%), Education (11%), and Liberal Arts (4.7%), whereas non-degree students (44%), Agricultural Sciences (20%), Communications (20%), Science (18%), Engineering (12%), and Earth and Mineral Sciences (11%) accounted for the largest increases.  University wide, the percentage of women enrolled has changed gradually over the period, from a female to male ratio of 47.5% to 52.5% in 1997 to 49.6% to 50.4% in 2002, whereas enrollment of students from underrepresented groups has increased 8.5% from 1997 to 2002.

Diversity Efforts in Graduate Education

Recruiting and graduating a diverse population of graduate students is one of the most important objectives of the Graduate School.  In concurrence with that objective, the staff and administrators have invested and continue to invest significant time and effort into designing strategies and programs to meet this objective.  We continue to refer to the Ad Hoc Committee on Minority Recruitment and Retention report conducted three years ago to analyze our processes for recruiting and retaining underrepresented students. We have made much progress in responding to the recommendations of that committee.  More important, the Graduate School has explored many new programming opportunities and implemented new programs.  We are beginning to see some positive results from these new programs and benefits from old programs that have proven beneficial over time.  Our applications and enrollment numbers for students from underrepresented groups were up for fall 2002 (6.3% from the previous year) and we are working hard to continue that trend this coming fall.

The Graduate School, in concert with the CIC, hosted the 2002 Summer Research Opportunity Program (SROP) national conference.  This was the first time Penn State has hosted the SROP conference and it was a great success.  In addition, the first Graduate School Visitation Day program was launched last year, and a visiting scholar program with Howard University’s graduate programs is in development.

The Graduate School’s goal is to continue to support programs and activities that yield results in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students and to add new programs that would provide more aggressive recruiting mechanisms.

Technology Efforts

The capability for applying to the Graduate School online was implemented July 1, 1999.  Data on “e-application” usage were available beginning June 2000.  These data indicate progressive increases in the percentage of total applications filed electronically from an initial 12.1% (fall 2000), 23.7% (fall 2001), 55.5% (fall 2002) to preliminary estimates of over 70% for fall 2003.  The Graduate School is beginning an aggressive campaign to eliminate paper applications.  No new pre-printed paper applications are being ordered for the coming academic year, as we proceed towards this goal.  Paper applications can still be obtained by printing them from the web, but complete phase out of this process is planned over the next year, and all graduate programs have been informed of these timelines.

In fall 1998, the Graduate School, the Center for Academic Computing, Library Computing Services, University Press, the Graduate Student Association, and the University Libraries launched the Electronic Theses and Dissertations (eTD) pilot project to allow doctoral students to produce and submit dissertations in electronic form. During the pilot period from summer 1999 to summer 2000, a total of 32 eTDs were submitted. The eTD option has now been available to all doctoral candidates at Penn State since fall 2000. From fall 2000 through fall 2002, 203 dissertations were submitted electronically (approximately 16% of all submissions). The eTD Committee, with representatives from each of the above units, is continuing to review and refine the eTD process, including consideration of intellectual property issues and technical support needs.

Funding Programs

·     Alumni Association Dissertation Award

In 2002, the Alumni Association Dissertation Award program was established.  The Penn State Alumni Association generously gave the Graduate School $1 million to provide funding and recognition to outstanding full-time doctoral students who have passed their comprehensive exams or to M.F.A. students in their final year.  In addition, these students need to have received approval of the dissertation topic.  Each college may forward up to two nominations to the Graduate School.  Annually 10 awards are available, two awards in each of the following categories: Fine Arts and Humanities; Social Sciences – Applied and Basic; Physical and Computational Sciences – Applied and Basic; Life and Health Sciences; and Engineering.  Awards are disbursed directly into the students’ accounts and do not replace existing college or departmental support. 

·     Honorary Awards 

Each year the Office of Fellowships and Awards oversees the selection of a number of faculty and student awards to recognize contributions to graduate education, including outstanding teaching and mentoring.  In 2002 the Graduate Program Chair Leadership Award was established.  This award recognizes faculty members for exemplary leadership benefiting graduate students and faculty in an existing graduate program.  The solicitation of nominations takes place in the fall.  A subcommittee of the Graduate Council Committee on Fellowships and Awards reviews nomination packets for these honorary awards.  Winners are presented at the spring faculty staff awards luncheon.  

·     New Fellowships Administered by the Graduate School

In 2001, the first Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (APCI), fellowship was awarded for the first time.  This fellowship recognizes an outstanding, full-time graduate student from the colleges of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Engineering or Science.  In addition to tuition and a stipend, the fellowship allows the recipient to experience a summer internship at the APCI corporate headquarters.  The Waddell Biggart fellowship recognizes outstanding full-time graduate students exhibiting academic excellence with preference given to students in the arts and humanities.  This fellowship began in 2001.

·     Summer Tuition Assistance Program

Beginning in the summer of 2002, this program was opened to students who had been on restricted budget assistantships and fellowships.  In addition, the program was decentralized in 2002 with each college receiving an allocation based upon the number of assistantships and previous summer tuition expenditures. 

Graduate Council Highlights (Fall 2001- Spring 2003)

In addition, the following new programs were approved:

The following programs were dropped:

A total of 210 new courses were approved during the period September 2001 and March 2003.

Graduate School Enrichment Activities

Summer Research Opportunities Program

Graduate School Alumni Society

Mentoring Program Pilot – Environmental Pollution Control graduate students and alumni

Alumni Fellow Lecture

Fall Convocation

Professional Development and Retention Conference


Graduate student and postdoctoral workshop


Grant Writing

Program Management

Faculty workshop

“International Opportunities in Graduate Education”

Coffee with the Dean

Graduate School Exhibition


Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Fellow Lecture

Inclusiveness Lecture

Schilling Lecture

Anthony A. Atchley
Guy F. Barbato, Chair
Paul E. Becker
Leonid V. Berlyand
John H. Challis
Paul J. Eslinger, Vice-Chair
Christine Clark-Evans
Charles R. Fisher
Joyce A. Furfaro
David S. Gilmour
Irene E. Harvey
Leif I. Jensen
Ernest W. Johnson
Robert A. Killoren
Digby D. Macdonald
John M. Mason
Rajen Mookerjee
Carla Mulford
Eva J. Pell
Frank Pugh
Dawn E. Rupp
Evelyn A. Thomchick
Gary W. Weber
Douglas H. Werner
Candice A. Yekel

Appendix J


Report on Spring 2003 College Visits


Each Spring Semester, the Senate Officers visit half of the colleges/academic units at University Park to meet with students, faculty, and administrators. Between January 27, 2003, and March 24, 2003, Chair John Moore, Chair Elect Chris Bise, Secretary Mel Blumberg, and Executive Secretary Susan Youtz visited the Colleges of Agricultural Sciences, Arts and Architecture, Engineering, Education, Earth and Mineral Sciences, Schreyer Honors College, the Graduate School, and the Division of Undergraduate Studies. We are pleased to present this brief summary of the issues most frequently mentioned during our visits:



First-Year Seminar 

Space Problems

Course Prerequisites

Interaction with Faculty


Resolution of Issues:  These issues will be reported to the Provost and to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs. In addition, the First-Year Seminar issue will be sent to the First-Year Seminar Review Committee.

Anthony A. Atchley
Guy F. Barbato, Chair
Paul E. Becker
Leonid V. Berlyand
John H. Challis
Paul J. Eslinger, Vice-Chair
Christine Clark-Evans
Charles R. Fisher
Joyce A. Furfaro
David S. Gilmour
Irene E. Harvey
Leif I. Jensen
Ernest W. Johnson
Robert A. Killoren
Digby D. Macdonald
John M. Mason
Rajen Mookerjee
Carla Mulford
Eva J. Pell
Frank Pugh
Dawn E. Rupp
Evelyn A. Thomchick
Gary W. Weber
Douglas H. Werner
Candice A. Yekel

Appendix K


Status of Construction


The Committee on University Planning presents to the Senate informational reports on the status of University construction projects in both the Fall and Spring semesters. The Fall report addresses projects at the University Park campus and the Spring report focuses on the projects outside of University Park. Bill Anderson, Associate Vice President for Physical Plant, and Mark Bodenschatz, Director of Commonwealth Services for OPP, will provide a photo report on various projects outside of University Park including:

P. Richard Althouse
William Anderson, Jr.
Christopher T. Baker
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair
John P. Boehmer
Dan T. Brinker
Eric B. Cowden
Gordon F. De Jong
Peter B. Everett
William M. Frank
Roger L. Geiger
Daniel R. Hagen, Vice-Chair
Judith E. Hupcey
Rodney Kirsch
Robert N. Pangborn
Paula J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Gary C. Schultz
Timothy W. Simpson
Edward C. Smith
Gregory R. Ziegler

Appendix L


Parking Rate Structure


The Committee on University Planning presents to the Senate informational reports on the Parking Rate Structure. Over the next several months, significant changes will occur in both the rate structure for parking at University Park as well as the location of parking facilities. These changes occur as the construction of new buildings is begun, forcing relocation of existing parking facilities. The rate structure will be changed to fund the addition of new parking facilities and to encourage the use of facilities outside of the core campus. This report presented by the Parking Office provides a review of the upcoming changes and the plans for the future as well as the guiding principles used to develop the new plan.

P. Richard Althouse
William Anderson, Jr.
Christopher T. Baker
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair
John P. Boehmer
Dan T. Brinker
Eric B. Cowden
Gordon F. De Jong
Peter B. Everett
William M. Frank
Roger L. Geiger
Daniel R. Hagen, Vice-Chair
Judith E. Hupcey
Rodney Kirsch
Robert N. Pangborn
Paula J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Gary C. Schultz
Timothy W. Simpson
Edward C. Smith
Gregory R. Ziegler

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

Tuesday, April 8, 2003 - 1:30 p.m.
102 Kern Graduate Building


Members Present:  C. D. Baggett, C. J. Bise, M. Blumberg, W. R. Curtis, C. D. Eckhardt, R. A. Erickson, J. R. Esposito, D. S. Gouran, E. A. Hanley, P. C. Jurs, S. A. Marsico, R. L. McCarty, D. G. Mills, J. W. Moore, J. S. Nichols, J. L. Pytel, P. P. Rebane, W. A. Richards, A. W. Scaroni, L. Semali, J. C. Spychalski, , B. B. Tormey, S. C. Youtz 

Members Accounted For:  T. DeCastro, A. Leure-duPree, L. Milakofsky G. B. Spanier, S. W. Stace

Members Absent:  R. L. Burgess

Guests:  G. Barbato, G. Franz, D. Hagen, M. Pietrucha, S. McCorkle, L. Pauley, J. Romano, R. Secor, S. Stoffels


Chair John Moore called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.


The minutes of the March 4, 2003 meeting were approved as presented on a Tormey/Esposito motion.


Chair Moore announced that the Senate election was on-line this year and encouraged members to cast their votes.

Following the April 22 Senate meeting all members of the Senate are invited to a reception in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

Chair Moore acknowledged that Elizabeth (Betz) Hanley ended her term on Faculty Advisory Committee earlier that day and thanked her for the dedication and good cheer that she has brought to the FAC and Senate Council meetings.  April 8 also marked Immediate Past Chair, John Nichol’s last FAC and Council meeting.  Chair Moore recognized Nick for his intelligence, seriousness of purpose, and vigilance in safeguarding the privileges of intellectual freedom.  Chair Moore congratulated Dr. Nichols on his recent appointment as Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Study in the College of Communications. The chair then thanked Senate Councilors for fulfilling their responsibilities with attentiveness and insight.

Chair Moore announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on April 8.  The following items were discussed: Penn State Pulse Survey on Required Text Books; Public Display of Teaching Evaluations; 8:00 a.m. Classes; Discussion of Derek Bok’s Essay “Academic Values and the Lure of Profit”; Intercollegiate Athletics; Recertification Update; Campus College Autonomy and Consultation with UP Departments; Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate; THON, MLK, and Excused Classes; The Growing Role of Undergraduate Research; and Faculty Offices and Lab Buildings Require Loading Docks.

The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President will be scheduled during the summer. Any items for discussion at FAC may be submitted to a Senate Officer or one of the three elected members: Wayne Curtis, Elizabeth Hanley and Peter Rebane.

The Senate Officers visited the Division of Undergraduate Studies and the Schreyer Honors College on March 24 and the College of Agricultural Sciences on March 31.  These visits conclude the officers’ visits for this year.  Beginning next fall the Campus and College visits will be piloted on a one visit every three-year basis.  This new rotation will assist in decreasing costs and improving efficiency.  

Chair Moore invited Provost Erickson to make comments.  Dr. Erickson noted the leadership of John Nichols, Lou Geschwindner, John Moore, and Shelly Stoffels for their work in assuring that General Education course recertification was completed in a timely manner.

Immediate Past Chair Nichols thanked Council members for their collegiality and friendship over the years.  Executive Secretary Susan Youtz introduced Patty Poorman, the new administrative assistant in the Senate Office. Prior to Patty’s appointment, she worked in the Commonwealth College.   


Professor Caroline Eckhardt encouraged Councilors to review the special report from the Graduate Council.  At a Forensic Session, Graduate Councilors debated issues following a meeting with Senate Self Study committee members, John Nichols and Bob Secor.  Three recommendations were made.   

Forensic Business

Senate Self Study – “A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a

Marsico/McCarty motion.  Committee chair George Franz made opening comments and responded to questions in the following areas:

  1. CC&R should have representation from campus colleges and should not be a stand-alone committee.
  2. How were committees assigned to Councils?
  3. Continue working to promote the integration of Graduate Council into the larger Senate.
  4. Concerns about decreasing the size of Senate and student representation.
  5. Senate has an important unifying role across University locations; we don’t want to lose that.
  6. Concerns about Executive Committee membership.

George Franz will present the report.  Senate Council allocated 30 minutes for presentation and discussion.  

Legislative Reports

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course)”—This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Jurs motion.

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a Scaroni/Pytel motion.  Scott Kretchmar will present the report.   

Advisory and Consultative

Faculty Affairs – “Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement” – This report was placed on the Agenda on a Spychalski/Esposito motion.  Vice Chair McCorkle noted there was extensive cooperation and collaboration among University administrators and committee members in the preparation of this report.  Kim Steiner and Jamie Myers will present the report. 

Undergraduate Education – “Defining Grading Standards”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Esposito motion. Councilor Pytel suggested that this report should more appropriately be legislative.  FAC member Rebane asked if it was the intention of the report to monitor and/or assign mandated grade distributions. Councilor Scaroni urged that Policy 47-20 (Basis for Grades) be referenced in the report and that a statement be included that “Grades shall continue to be assigned according to policy 47-20.” Chair Laura Pauley will present this report.

Informational Reports

Curricular Affairs  – “Status of General Education Implementation: Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Scaroni motion.  Chair Stoffels noted that the 46 courses not submitted for review are currently not being offered and will be dropped from course offerings spring 2004.  Councilor Pytel asked if the degree audits would be adjusted to reflect the course drops and the removal of the General Education designations. Dr. Stoffels said this is already in place. Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.

Chair Moore offered congratulations to Committee Chair, Shelley Stoffels and all the Curricular Affairs General Education review committees.  Chair Moore noted that more courses were certified in the last two semesters than in the previous three years.

Faculty Affairs – “Time in Rank of Associate Professors”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a Tormey/Esposito motion. Councilor Pytel and FAC member Rebane asked questions about the data on time in rank on the Dickinson School of Law and suggested revision in the wording in the paragraph on “associate professors…in rank so long that promotion is unlikely.” Kim Steiner and Mila Su will present the report and Mike Dooris will be available for questions.  Senate Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion. 

Research – “Update on Graduate Education”—This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Jurs motion. Councilor Esposito requested that data on immigrations concerns and graduate assistantships be added to the report. Provost Erickson observed there are almost 3,000 graduate students without funding. Committee Chair Barbato said he would share these concerns with Dean Eva Pell.  Dean Pell will stand for questions. Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.

Chair Moore acknowledged Guy Barbato’s three years of service in chairing the Research Committee.       

Senate Council – “Report on Spring 2003 College Visits”—This report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Spychalski motion. Senate Secretary Melvin Blumberg will present the report.  Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.  

University Planning – “Status of Construction”—This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/McCarty motion. Bill Anderson, Associate Vice President for Physical Plant, and Mark Bodenschatz, Director of Commonwealth Services for OPP, will give a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation followed by five minutes for discussion.

University Planning—“Parking Rate Structure”—This report was placed on the agenda on a Pytel/Rebane motion.  Teresa Davis, Director of Transportation Services, and Doug Holmes, Assistant Director for Parking, will give a ten-minute PowerPoint presentation followed by ten minutes of discussion.


The Agenda was approved on a Tormey/McCarty motion.


There were no action items.


There was no new business.


Senate Chair Moore thanked Council members for their attendance and participation and accepted a motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:55 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,
Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary     

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012


DATE:    April 7, 2003

TO:         Senate Council Members

FROM:   Caroline D. Eckhardt, Senate Liaison to the Graduate Council


The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building, with Dean Eva Pell presiding.


1.   Richard Ready, representing the Committee on Academic Standards, reported that the Committee is reviewing Appendix II (Resolution of Problems), especially the question of jurisdiction for student grievance issues, as there is no central office that presides over all policies.

2.   Mukund Kulkarni, representing the Committee on Fellowships and Awards, reported that the Committee had completed its deliberations for the various Graduate School awards.   Dean Pell noted that when she recently met with the Graduate Student Association, concern was raised about the impact of the budget cuts on student support.  She reported that student assistantship and fellowship levels would not be affected.

3.  Michael Verderame, representing the Committee on Graduate Research, reported
on planning for the Graduate Exhibition (March 28 and March 30).

4.  Michael Eracleous, representing the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty
, reported on plans for future faculty and graduate student workshops.  A faculty workshop, tentatively scheduled for the week of November 3 (2003), will deal with stress among students (identifying signs, etc.). A student workshop will be held the week of October 6 (2003) on grant writing, with a second workshop tentatively scheduled for the week of February 8 or 15 (2004).

5.  Mark Wardell, representing the Committee on Programs and Courses, presented a proposal to drop the Special Individualized Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program.  After discussion, the proposal was approved unanimously.


Forensic Session on the Faculty Senate Self-Study Committee Report

Dean Pell provided an overview of the discussion held at the February Graduate Council meeting, including the lack of support for the idea that Graduate Council members would also be Faculty Senators (because of the total time commitment).  She noted that collaboration with the Senate could provide opportunities for graduate education to be more visible at Penn State.  Graduate Council agreed that some collaboration should occur.

Dean Pell noted that she would be willing to sit on the Senate Executive Committee as proposed.  She also remarked that the Senate Committee on Research (SCOR) is an important committee with regard to the Office of the Vice President for Research.  The Senate has proposed merging this Committee with the Graduate Council Committee on Research.    Subcommittee membership would not be limited to Graduate Council members and could include Faculty Senators.

It was suggested that Graduate Council recommend merging the two research committees.  However, if Graduate Council takes on the responsibilities currently carried by SCOR, Council also be afforded the authority to officially make recommendations on research policy currently handled by the Senate as an outgrowth of SCOR. 

Caroline Eckhardt reminded the Graduate Council that there is also a Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) to the President and the Provost, which includes the Faculty Senate officers and three faculty representatives elected by the Senate.  This body too could address research (among other topics) and could offer another opportunity for research to become more visible. Graduate Council proposed that one of FAC's faculty representatives be elected by the Graduate Council (replacing one of the three faculty representatives elected by the Senate). 

Council agreed that Dean Pell should forward the following recommendations to the Faculty Senate:

  1. The Graduate Council Chair (or the Chair's designee) would be pleased to serve on the Executive Committee;
  2. The Graduate Council’s Committee on Graduate Research and the Senate’s Committee on Research would be  merged, with authority to act on research policies, etc. given to the Graduate Council;
  3. A representative of the Graduate Council would be added to the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC), unless the Executive Committee being proposed in the Senate self-study would replace the Faculty Advisory Committee.


1.  Dissertation/Thesis Signatory Pages. 

Regina Vasilatos-Younken reported that when a dissertation is submitted electronically, only a blank copy of the signatory page, not a signed copy, is posted on-line.  However, the hard copies of dissertations and theses that are deposited in the University Library include signed signatory pages.  Given new technology, these pages could be scanned, with the risk that the scanned signatures could be used for other purposes.  Council approved a recommendation that henceforth, for either format, signed pages be kept on file in the Graduate School (and that only unsigned pages be posted online or sent to the University Library).

2.  Revisions to Options for Access to Electronic-Submitted Dissertations and Theses (eTD)

Dean Younken presented information about changes in the options available to students about access to their dissertations submitted electronically.  Students can choose the option of restricting access for a two-year period (allowing no-access, or PSU-only access, to the full dissertation), after which worldwide access would be permitted, unless an extension of the limitation were granted.  A question was raised regarding why Penn State-only access should be an option.  Dean Younken responded that this has to do with intellectual property and public disclosure (pending patents). 

Another concern raised was that intellectual property company agreements may have a claim on a patent that exceeds the two-year limited access.  It was noted, however, that graduate students should not be doing research that cannot be published. 

There being no further discussion, Graduate Council adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012


DATE:       April 9, 2003

TO:            All Senators and Committee Members

FROM:      Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary


Please note the scheduled time and location of your committee. If you are unable to attend, notify the Senate Office prior to Senate Day, if possible.

Monday, April 21, 2003                                

            7:00 p.m.

            Officers and Chairs Meeting, 102 Kern Graduate Building

            8:30 p.m.

            Commonwealth Caucus Meeting, Penn State Room

Tuesday, April 22, 2003                                

            7:30 a.m.

            Intercollegiate Athletics, 233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

            8:00 a.m.

            Faculty Affairs, 129A HUB/Robeson Cultural Center   

            Outreach Activities, 502 Keller Building

            8:30 a.m.

            Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, 203 Shields Building

            Curricular Affairs, 102 Kern Graduate Building

            Committees and Rules, 16 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

           Intra-University Relations, 325 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

            Research, 106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

            Undergraduate Education, 221 Chambers Building (NOTE LOCATION CHANGE)

            University Planning, 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

            9:00 a.m.

            Faculty Benefits, 114 Kern Graduate Building

            Libraries, 510A Paterno Library

            Student Life, 107 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

            9:30 a.m.

            Computing and Information Systems , 201 Kern Graduate Building

            1:30 p.m.

            University Faculty Senate, 112 Kern Graduate Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, in the Assembly Room of the Nittany Lion Inn.  A buffet luncheon will be served at approximately 12:15 p.m. in the Alumni Lobby.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012


Date:  April 10, 2003

To:     Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

From: Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman


MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003 – 8:30 p.m.

Speaker: Chris Bise, Faculty Senate Chair-Elect

TUESDAY, April 22, 2003 – 11:30 a.m.

A buffet luncheon will be served at 12:15 p.m.

     The tentative Agenda includes:

              I.      Call to Order

           II.      Election of Co-chairs

         III.      Announcements and Reports from Co-chairs of the Caucus

        IV.      Reports from Committee Chairs

           V.      Other Items of Concern/New Business

        VI.      Adjournment and Lunch