THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
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
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of April 8, 2003 - Appendix A
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 8, 2003
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS
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
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course) - Appendix C
Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes - Appendix D
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement - Appendix E
Defining Grading Standards - Appendix F
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Status of General Education Implementation: Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses - Appendix G
[5-minute presentation and discussion]
Time in Rank of Associate Professors - Appendix H
[5-minute presentation and discussion]
Update on Graduate Education - Appendix I
[5-minute presentation and discussion]
Report on Spring 2003 College Visits - Appendix J
[5-minute presentation and discussion]
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 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
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
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.
Date: April 8, 2003
To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular AffairsThe 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, on or before May 8, 2003. The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html.
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
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.
1. REORGANIZATION OF SENATE COUNCIL AND FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE PRESIDENT
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 committees 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
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
2. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN 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  (chair, chair-elect, secretary,
immediate past chair)
2. President and Provost 
3. Council Chairs 
4. Faculty Member At-Large 
5. Executive Secretary
3. SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
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:
|>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|
4. SIZE OF SENATE AND TERM LENGTH
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
5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENATE AND GRADUATE COUNCIL
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.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR GENERAL COMMENT:
MEETINGS OF THE SENATE, NEW APPROACHES TO HANDLING REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
SENATE SELF STUDY COMMITTEE
Mark A. Casteel
George W. Franz, Chair
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel
Valerie N. Stratton
Susan C. Youtz
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
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
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.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Geoffrey J. Harford
Christopher J. Lynch
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
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.
Commonwealthcampus 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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
James B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
Timothy M. Curley
Laurence M. Demers
James T. Elder
Kane M. High
Diana L. Kenepp
R. Scott Kretchmar
Mark A. Levin
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Susan J. Scheetz
Sandra R. Smith, Vice-Chair
Thomas C. Vary
Edgar P. Yoder
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Revision to Policy AD 53, Privacy Statement
[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.
To change Policy AD 53 Privacy Statement as indicated below, with changes to become effective when approved by the University President.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Sallie M. McCorkle (Vice-Chair)
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Kim C. Steiner (Chair)
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner
Policy AD53 PRIVACY STATEMENT
· 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,
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
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).
Accountability – Normally, in any application of the exception
clause the affected individual shall be notified in advance,
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:
Effective Date: February 22, 2000
Date Approved: February 21, 2000
Date Published: February 22, 2000
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
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 www.psu.edu/ufs/agenda/mar25-03agn/mar25-03agn.html. 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.