Appendix B

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules,
Constitution, Article II, Section 4
Faculty Senator Representation Ratio

(Legislative)
Implementation: Spring 2005 Senate Elections and Upon Approval by the President

On October 28, 2003, the University Faculty Senate voted to change the faculty representation ratio from one Senator for each twenty (20) members of the electorate to one Senator for each twenty-five (25) members of the electorate.

Discussion and Rationale
This amendment introduces the ratio change into Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. This change is introduced with the understanding that the ratio change will be phased in over four years, and that the 1:25 ratio will be attained in the 2008-2009 academic year.

Recommendation

The text that follows is from the current Constitution. Recommended deletions are denoted by strikeout. Recommended additions are indicated by UPPER CASE.

Constitution, Article II, Section 4

The University Faculty of each unit shall elect one Senator for each twenty (20) TWENTY-FIVE (25) members of the electorate (as defined in Section 1) and major fraction thereof in that unit, except that each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) Senator. The normal term of elected faculty Senators shall be four (4) years. One-fourth (1/4) of the total number, as nearly as practicable, of faculty Senators from each voting unit shall be elected each year. To balance membership terms in any unit, the Elections Commission may on request permit the voting unit to elect a Senator for a term of less than four (4) years.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
W. Travis DeCastro
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
George W. Franz
Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
Jamie M. Myers
Robert N. Pangborn
Andrew B. Romberger
Kim C. Steiner

Implementation Principles and Guidelines
for the Phase-In of the 1:25 Representation Ratio

Implementation: Spring 2005 Senate Elections and Upon Approval by the President

For the 2004-2005 academic year, the faculty of each voting unit shall elect one Senator for each twenty (20) members of the electorate. Beginning with the Spring 2005 elections (for the 2005-2006 AY) voting units will have the authority to determine the process for the incremental or immediate implementation of a unit’s representation ratio to 1:25 based on the current census.

Voting units will submit implementation plans to the Senate Elections Commission by October 15, 2004. The implementation plans are subject to the review and approval of the Elections Commission. Each year an annual faculty census is conducted and units will submit a revised implementation plan based on the current number of faculty in the voting unit.

Attached to these principles is a spreadsheet providing a suggested incremental implementation based on the Spring 2004 census. As can be seen, voting units reach the 1:25 ratio in 2008-2009. The following principles will serve as a guideline for units to use in preparing their implementation plans.

1. Units are encouraged to use attrition as a strategy for reducing the number of Senators in a unit, e.g., retirements, resignations, sabbaticals, etc.
2. The implementation plan should allow for an equal distribution of Senators over four years.
3. The plan will allow for modification as a unit’s census changes.
4. The reduction may be incremental and gradual or immediate.
5. Units may reduce the terms of elected Senators, e.g., from four years to two years, to achieve an equal distribution of Senators over four years.
6. Units may not extend the length of Senators terms beyond four years.

Phase-In Schedule for the 1:25 Faculty Representation Ratio, Based on 2003-2004 Faculty Census

Appendix C

See Corrected Copy in Senate Record.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement

(Legislative)
Implementation: Summer 2005 upon Approval by the President

Introduction

In response to the 1997 Senate General Education legislation that called for the continuous review of each component of the requirements, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education in September 2002 formed a subcommittee to review the current Intercultural/ International Competence Requirement (GI). Membership on the subcommittee included representatives from Undergraduate Education, Curricular Affairs, Gye N’Yame, Undergraduate Student Government, and the departments of African and African-American Studies, Music, Religious Studies, and Women’s Studies. The subcommittee consisted of the following members: Cheryl L. Achterberg, Major C. Coleman, Michael J. Johnson, Nakeia L. Oliver, Judith Ozment Payne, William L. Petersen, David W. Russell, Julia B. Simon, Chair, D. Joshua Troxell, Eric R.White, and M. Daniel Yoder. The charge to the subcommittee asked that it “review and clarify the current description of GI.” The charge further indicated that “guidelines and criteria must be written to give clear guidance to departments submitting a GI proposal and to the Committee reviewing the GI proposals.”

In November 2003, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education formulated a preliminary report based on the work of the 2002-2003 subcommittee, discussions within the parent committee, and consultation with the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs.

In December 2003, Christopher J. Bise, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, formed a Conference Committee composed of members of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and members of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education so that the two committees could work together to bring to completion their review of the GI requirement. Chair Bise charged this special committee to recommend whatever changes to the GI requirement the Conference Committee deemed necessary. In addition, he directed the committee to consider the original purpose of this requirement. In early March, the Conference Committee submitted its report and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. On March 16, 2004, both committees approved the report.

History of the GI Requirement

The history of the GI requirement is relevant for understanding the current recommendations.

1990 legislation, revised in 1994. On March 20, 1990, the University Faculty Senate established a Cultural Diversity graduation requirement. Baccalaureate degree students were required to take either 3 credits in Diversity Focused (DF) courses or 12 credits in Diversity Enhanced (DE) courses. Subsequently, on April 26, 1994, the Diversity Enhanced option was eliminated so that the requirement consisted of 3 Diversity Focused credits.

According to the 1990 Guide to Curricular Procedures, “the goal of Cultural Diversity courses is to encourage students through their studies in many disciplines to (a) consider the various historical backgrounds, cultural and scientific contributions, economic, psychological, and political situations of a wide range of other peoples; and (b) appreciate the impact of the developing global community on American Society.” (SR: 3/20/90 – quoted in the Guide to Curricular Procedures, Section 1, Item G).

“Cultural Diversity” was specifically defined as, “(1) a focus on the study of groups whose experiences and culture are underrepresented in the curriculum; such groups include those distinguished by characteristics related to ethnicity, race, religion, gender, physical/mental disability, and/or sexual orientation; or (2) a focus on the development of a global perspective through study of the impact of other countries and their peoples on society” (Guide to Curricular Procedures, Spring 1996).

1997 legislation (current legislation). As part of the University-wide reconsideration of General Education enacted during the 1997-1998 academic year, Senate legislation of December 2, 1997 replaced the “Cultural Diversity Requirement” with the current “Intercultural and International Competence Requirement” (GI). The requirement remained at 3 credits. As before, a range of courses in various knowledge domains could carry the GI (formerly Diversity) designation. One of the objectives of the GI requirement was “to emphasize student engagement and active learning.” (Senate Agenda, December 2, 1997, Final Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on General Education, p. 21.)

Current GI Legislation

The following legislation is now in effect:

“The SCGE [Special Committee on General Education] actually makes two recommendations in relation to the intercultural and international competence component of general education. The first is to include this competence in the list of elements that can be selected for integration into all the domain knowledge-based courses (Recommendation #4). The second, outlined here, is to refine the focus of the current cultural diversity requirement. There are several factors to this:

1. To retain the 3-credit cultural diversity requirement for both baccalaureate and associate degree candidates—but to rename it the Intercultural and International Competence component—and establish it as an integral part of the general education program, rather than as an add-on;

2. To sharpen its focus by developing guidelines for approval of diversity-focused courses or experiences (study abroad, in-service work, etc.) that pertain to what students come to know and also learn to do;

3. To place an emphasis on active student involvement in the learning process and to encourage students to take these courses early in their academic experience;

4. To assess the impact of these courses through students’ or graduates’ perspectives on the influence the courses had on their attitudes, behavior or academic choices.”

Senate Agenda December 2, 1997, Final Report and Recommendations of the Special Senate Committee on General Education, p. 22.

Since 1997, as part of the University-wide process of General Education course recertifications, 580 courses have either been recertified as GI (these were courses that had formerly had the Cultural Diversity designation), or newly certified as GI (these were courses, including courses newly added to the curriculum, that had not formerly had the Cultural Diversity designation).

Justification for Changes

For the reasons detailed in the recommendations below, we propose that the Senate replace the Intercultural/International Competence (GI) General Education requirement with two separate requirements, one that focuses on United States Cultures and another that focuses on International Cultures.

1. The revised requirements will provide our students with a better education by ensuring that students have both United States and international coursework.

The 1997 legislation that established the Intercultural/International Competence requirement saw a clear value in studying both topics, but at the time the committee could not find a way of incorporating both within the General Education framework. Events of the past few years, including 9/11 and the student concerns expressed during the Village meetings of April 2001, indicated that both were important to our students and that both had to find a place within our program of study. The either/or arrangement was no longer what we needed.

For that reason, the committees that have recently examined the GI issue have concluded that it was necessary to do what the 1997 Task Force also desired: to incorporate within our requirements a knowledge of both United States cultures and of international cultures. For that reason, we are proposing one requirement called United States Cultures and another called International Cultures (3 credits each).

2. The titles of the revised requirements will be more readily understandable than the current requirement that is entitled Intercultural/International Competence.

(a) The term Intercultural/International has created some confusion since the requirement was adopted. The term United States Cultures states clearly that a course in that category will deal with cultural issues within the United States. The term International Cultures states clearly that the course will deal with cultural issues in nations other than the United States.

(b) The term Competence has also created some misunderstanding. We do not claim that one course, or two, will make students competent, or that we can measure such competence. The proposal has replaced that term with the word knowledge.

3. The revised requirements will allow students to choose from a richer array of courses.

As a result of the changes detailed in the recommendation below, students will be able to choose from a wider number of courses to fulfill the United States Cultures and the International Cultures requirements.

(a) All courses currently identified as GI will satisfy the revised requirements. Curricular Affairs will give these existing courses one or both of the new designations via a streamlined redesignation process.

(b) Departments offering General Education Skills courses that are not now included in GI will be encouraged to designate a limited number of sections in which at least 25% of the material satisfies one or the other requirement. For example, several specific sections of English 15 or English 30 could be so identified, as well as sections of CAS 100. Such sections of skills courses will be taught primarily by faculty or by specially trained instructors. This option will be primarily useful for those locations where it may be hard to meet the requirement by way of Knowledge Domain courses. It will also be helpful to students in certain highly-structured degree programs.

(c) Additional courses at any level may be proposed by their academic units and approved by Senate procedures as either United States Cultures or International Cultures. Departments that now offer 400 level courses in one or both of these areas will be encouraged to submit those courses for designation.

(d) The strategies above will encourage departments to make available more courses that will satisfy the United States Cultures or the International Cultures requirement. Strategies for making adequate spaces in such courses available to students at all locations, without a major increase in instructional costs, include expanded use of Campus Course Exchange or World Campus offerings, greater use of advising networks to make sure that available seats are filled and that students are aware of all options, and consultation with individual departments in the scheduling process.

Feasibility

These revised requirements are not only educationally desirable but also feasible.
Because it is anticipated that these requirements can be double-counted within the range of existing requirements, they will not necessarily increase the number of credits needed to graduate.

Just as students currently fulfill the Intercultural/International Competence requirement by double-counting it with a General Education Knowledge Domain course or with a course in their major or with Study Abroad etc., so students may fulfill the revised requirements by double-counting both the United States Cultures and the International Cultures courses if permitted by their college, major, or degree program. To make it easier for students to find courses to fulfill these requirements, as noted above the pool of courses or sections to be made available for such double-counting should be greatly increased.

This proposal does not preclude colleges, majors, or degree programs from requiring more specific course work in United States Cultures or International Cultures, just as academic programs can now require further course work in any other category of General Education and often do.

We should think of the revised requirements as a way of fulfilling existing components of the baccalaureate degree.

1. For many, indeed perhaps nearly all, students, the courses used to fulfill both requirements may be double-counted with special sections of required Skills courses, Knowledge Domain courses, and courses within the major or minor.

2. In addition, approved courses taken as electives, internships, individual study, Study Abroad, Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach America, and first-year seminars, etc. may also be used to fulfill the United States Cultures or International Cultures requirements.

3. Appropriate courses at all levels will count. The rule precluding students from using courses in their major to fulfill General Education requirements will not apply to courses used to fulfill either of these two requirements. This situation will be the same as now exists for W courses or First-Year Seminars, where courses in the student’s major may be used to fill these requirements.

4. A few examples of student choices follow. In all cases, overlap with another requirement occurs, so that additional credits are not needed:

a. A student majoring in Psychology uses a First-Year Seminar within the College of the Liberal Arts to meet a United States Cultures requirement and, simultaneously, a General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences requirement.

b. A student majoring in Biology uses Sociology 119: Race and Ethnic Relations to meet a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences requirement.

c. A student majoring in Spanish or Japanese uses a 400-level Spanish or Japanese culture course, within the major, to meet the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously a major requirement

d. A student majoring in Chemical Engineering uses English 139: Black American Writers to meet a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Humanities requirement.

e. A student beginning her education at Hazelton and majoring in HDFS, uses History 121: History of the Holocaust to fulfill the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Humanities requirement.

f. A student majoring in Comparative Literature uses an Education Abroad semester in Germany to meet the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously to meet requirements for a minor in German.

g. A student majoring in Secondary Education uses a semester-long internship in an inner-city school district to fulfill a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously fulfill electives within her degree program.

Recommendation

Replace the current Intercultural/International Competency requirement (3 credits) for baccalaureate degree students with the following two requirements: United States Cultures (3 credits) and International Cultures (3 credits) as described below and as implemented according to the Principles of Implementation stated below. Associate degree students will continue to have a three-credit requirement and may choose either a United States Cultures course or an International Cultures course.

United States Cultures (3 credits)

A wide variety of social, cultural, and political forces have shaped the culture and institutions of the United States. As a result, it is important for university students to be exposed to the historical background, development, and current configurations of various groups in our pluralistic American culture. Such exposure will promote an understanding of the many complex issues of inter-group relations and the many kinds of cultural contributions that have shaped our nation.

A course that fulfills the United States Cultures requirement must strive to increase students' understanding of contemporary United States society. Such a course need not focus exclusively on the present and may concern a historical subject.

Courses with the United States Cultures designation will include two or more of the following components and will include those components in the graded evaluation of student performance.

United States Cultures courses will:

1. Cultivate student knowledge of issues of social identity such as ethnicity, race, class, religion, gender, physical/mental disability, age, or sexual orientation;

2. Convey to students a knowledge of different United States values, traditions, beliefs, and customs;

3. Increase student knowledge of the range of United States cultural achievements and human conditions through time;

4. Increase student knowledge of United States social identities not in isolation, but in relation to one another (for example, the interaction of race or gender with socioeconomic status).

International Cultures (3 credits)

A wide variety of social, cultural, and political forces have shaped the cultures, nations, and institutions of the modern world. As a result, it is important for university students to be exposed to the historical backgrounds, cultural and scientific contributions, and economic, social, psychological, and political circumstances of civilizations, cultures, and nations outside of the United States, to promote understanding of the variety of world cultures.

A course that fulfills the International Cultures requirement must strive to increase student knowledge of the variety of international societies and may deal to some extent with U.S. culture in its international connections. It need not focus exclusively on the present and may, indeed, be a historical subject. Courses with the International Cultures designation will do two or more of the following:

1. Cultivate student knowledge of the similarities and differences among international cultures;

2. Convey to students a knowledge of other nations' cultural values, traditions, beliefs, and customs;

3. Increase students' knowledge of the range of international cultural achievements and human conditions through time;

4. Increase students' knowledge of nations and cultures not in isolation, but in relation to one another.

Principles of Implementation

A. These requirements--United States Cultures (3 credits) and International Cultures (3 credits)--may be fulfilled by double-counting with other General Education courses, courses in the major or minor, electives, or such approved three-credit options such as Study Abroad, internships, etc., to the extent permitted by the student’s college, major, or degree program.

Courses will be designated as 1) United States Cultures, 2) International Cultures, or 3) United States and International Cultures. A student may use a course in the third category to fulfill either the United States Cultures requirement or the International Cultures requirement. Since 6 credits are required, a single 3-credit course may not fulfill both requirements.

B. The following principles will be adopted to make the approval criteria clear, the approval process as quick as possible, and the course designations readily understandable to both students and advisors. The following criteria will be used in determining course designations:

(a) The course is designed to fulfill the required objectives, as indicated in the previous descriptions.

(b) At least one-quarter of the course is oriented toward fulfilling the objectives of the requested designation as United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures. For a course seeking both designations, each 25 percent must be satisfied for a total of at least 50 percent.

(c) The objectives are included in the graded evaluation of student performance.

(d) Every undergraduate course meeting these requirements will be eligible for the appropriate designation(s), regardless of course level, offering unit, or other University designations.

1. Existing GI Courses: All existing GI (Intercultural/International Competence) courses will be grandfathered and designated as filling either the United States Cultures or the International Cultures requirement (or, where appropriate, both). Responsibility for determining which of the designations that each existing GI course should receive will be delegated to the college that submitted the GI proposal for this course.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

2. Other Existing Courses: A simplified and timely procedure will be developed for the speedy and efficient designation of additional existing courses, including courses within majors, to support the goal of the rapid integration of these requirements throughout the curriculum. Responsibility for determining which of the designations each such course should receive will be delegated to the college that submitted the proposal to establish this course. For offerings of the same course at multiple locations, the college offering the course will determine the designation. For example, the designation for a faculty-taught section of English 15 at Penn State DuBois will be determined by the Commonwealth College.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

Departments offering General Education Skills courses that are not now included in GI will be encouraged to designate a limited number of sections in which at least 25% of the material satisfies one or the other requirement. Such sections of skills courses will be taught primarily by faculty or by specially trained instructors. This option will be primarily useful for those locations where it may be hard to meet the requirement by way of Knowledge Domain courses.

3. One-Time Offerings: A streamlined approval process will be developed to add the appropriate designation(s) to one-time offerings of sections of existing courses not otherwise permanently listed for United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures. Responsibility for determining which of the designations each such course should receive will be delegated to the college offering the course.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

4. New Courses and Course Changes: Proposals for newly created courses, however, and for substantive course revisions will go through the regular Curricular Affairs processes.

5. Designations: Designations which are unambiguous and not easily confused with other university designations will be implemented for the United States Cultures and International Cultures requirements.

6. Multiple Bulletin Listings: Some courses may be listed in the Bulletin in multiple versions. For example, one version may bear the United States Cultures and/or the International Cultures designation, and another version may not--just as courses may now have a separate “W” version listed in the Bulletin.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

7. Active Learning Criteria: United States Cultures and International Cultures courses that carry General Education Knowledge Domain designations will continue to meet the Active Learning criteria associated with their General Education approvals. United States Cultures courses and International Cultures courses that are not part of the General Education Knowledge Domains will also be encouraged to include Active Learning elements.

8. Additional Options: Aside from the opportunities to fulfill the United States and International Cultures requirements that are mentioned above, other possibilities, such as clusters of courses, may be submitted to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs for consideration.

Implementation Calendar

These revised requirements will take effect for students entering baccalaureate degree programs at the beginning of Summer 2005.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Christopher S. Adams
Phyllis F. Adams
Laurie Powers Breakey, Vice Chair
Douglas K. Brown
Barton W. Browning
Garry L. Burkle
Chao-Hsien Chu
Jeremy Cohen
Valerie A. Earnshaw
Roger A. Egolf
Christopher J. Falzone
Edgar I. Farmer
David J. Green
Sally A. Heffentreyer
Binh P. Le
Robert A. Novack
Mary Beth Oliver
Robert D. Ricketts
David W. Russell
Richard J. Simons, Jr.
Loanne L. Snavely
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair
Bonj Szczygiel
Rodney L. Troester
Horst von Dorpowski
Mark L. Wardell
Matthew T. Wilson

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Todd (TJ) Bednash
John P. Cancro
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Gary J. Fosmire
Cheri Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
Nancy S. Love
Arthur C. Miller, Vice Chair
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Dhushy Sathianathan
John L. Selzer
Patience L. Simmonds
Katie L. Slagle
Candace Spigelman
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
John B. Urenko
Beverly J. Vandiver
Eric R. White
Gregory R. Ziegler

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Douglas K. Brown Laura L. Pauley
Barton W. Browning David W. Russell
Caroline D. Eckhardt Shelley M. Stoffels
Janis E. Jacobs D. Joshua Troxell
W. Terrell Jones Beverly J. Vandiver
John W. Moore, Chair

Appendix A

Below you will find a list of 100 GI courses arranged alphabetically by department that were taught at all Penn State locations during Fall 2003. These 100 courses were the GI courses with the highest enrollments. Departments placed a seating limit of 17,501 on these courses. The actual enrollment was 15,107. That left 2,484 seats open.

If the Senate approves the legislation calling for a revision of the GI requirement, then the appropriate department heads and deans will decide which new designation to assign to each existing course: United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures.

This list allows us to see some of the courses that will be available for prompt inclusion in the new United States Cultures and International Cultures categories. This is only a partial list. Further courses that will be added include existing GI courses not in the top 100, existing courses that do not yet carry the GI designation, and new courses yet to be developed.

Top 100 GI Courses According to Enrollments
(Listed Alphabetically)

Appendix D

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

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

(Legislative)
Implementation: Fall Semester 2004

Background

The proposed revision to Senate Policy 67-00 has been prompted by academic changes in Penn State curricula, and changes to Big Ten Conference and NCAA legislation. Currently, the University has specific academic guidelines that student-athletes must adhere to in order to participate in intercollegiate athletics. These standards, determined by a student-athletes’ current semester in residence, fall into two specific areas: Minimum Grade Point Average and Minimum Number of Credits Required. It is believed that the current Grade Point Average requirements are crucial to facilitating a strong academic culture within the student-athlete population and within the entire University. However, given many changes both inside and outside the University, the second area, Minimum Number of Credits Required, needs to be reviewed.

Rationale

The policy currently states the following as it relates to the Minimum Number of Credits Required (for intercollegiate athletic participation):

“A student-athlete shall represent the University in an intercollegiate athletic contest only if the student has acquired the designated number of credits at the beginning of each appropriate semester (in residence) as follows:”

After consulting with a variety of experts including current NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative, Dr. Scott Kretchmar, former NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative, Dr. John Coyle, and former Director of the Morgan Academic Support Center, Mrs. Diana Kenepp, it is clear why these academic guidelines were established at Penn State. First, Penn State wanted to have academic guidelines and expectations above the mandated NCAA guidelines. Second, Penn State wanted to have guidelines in place that would insure that student-athletes participating in intercollegiate athletics would be completing a baccalaureate degree in a reasonable time frame (4 ½ or 5 years). Finally, Penn State wanted to insure that student-athletes, who decided to return to Penn State and participate in intercollegiate athletics in a fifth-year of competition, would be within one semester of completing their degree.

However, information obtained from Vice-Provost and Dean of Enrollment Management and Administration, John Romano, indicates that there has been a marked reduction in the number of credits required for a degree (Table 1) across many programs. When the current 67-00 Policy was created, degree programs required many more credit hours for a degree; which in turn, demanded that a higher minimum number of credits required for athletic participation be established.

Given the many demands that required of student-athletes, 15 credits a semester would seem to be a reasonable course load. Gary Burkle, Associate Registrar, indicates that for all of University Park students, the average number of credits taken in a given semester is between 13 and 14 credits. Further, all students, irrespective of whether they are athletes or not, are only required to enroll for 12 credits to maintain full-time status.

Recently passed NCAA legislation requires student-athletes to enroll in and pass at least six credits counting towards the student-athlete’s degree each semester. This creates issues for fifth-year student-athletes who plan to compete in their final season of eligibility. The 118 credits required to start a fifth-year of competition can create situations where a student-athletes will have no courses, which count toward their degree, to enroll in during their last semester of competition. Many of these student-athletes do not want to enroll in a second major or attend graduate school immediately, and therefore, a revised policy would provide flexibility and additional options.

Upon joining the Big Ten Conference, Penn State accepted another set of academic guidelines (in addition to Policy 67-00) for its student-athletes. Similar to the new NCAA requirements, the Big Ten rules addressing credit minimums is very strict in that the conference requires that all credits earned must be degree countable. Additionally, the Big Ten Conference requires that student-athletes must be able to complete their program of studies in a five-year period. As stated earlier in this proposal, Policy 67-00 was written to insure that student-athletes graduated within five years - joining the Big Ten only reinforced this idea.

Recommendation

Given that adherence to the current policy often results in a closing down of options available to student athletes in formulating and completing their semester scheduling plans, and given that the revised set of semester by semester credit minimums are more strict than those imposed upon the general student body at the University, and given that the requirements still surpass those imposed by the NCAA, Big Ten (Table 2), the current policy should be amended to read as follows:


67-00 Athletic Competition

2. Eligibility of Athletes

2. A student-athlete shall represent the University in an intercollegiate athletic contest only if the student has acquired the designated number of credits at the end of each appropriate semester (in residence) as follows:

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Charles L. Burchard
Paul F. Clark
Timothy M. Curley
Gordon F. DeJong
Susan Delaney-Scheetz
James T. Elder, Vice-Chair
Bruce D. Hale
Elizabeth A. Hanley
John R. Hellmann
Kane M. High
Janis Jacobs
R. Scott Kretchmar
Russell Mushinsky
John S. Nichols
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
Tammy R. Rishel
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Stephen M. Smith
Kenneth Swalgin
Vicky L. Triponey
Thomas C. Vary
Susan Welch
Jerry J. Wright
Edgar P. Yoder

Table 1. Number of Credits Required for a Degree by Number of Majors.

Table 2. Comparison of NCAA, Big Ten, and Penn State requirements.

Appendix E

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary - 2002-2003

(Informational)

TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 94 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 2002-03 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended all 94 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 92 cases. Twenty-one of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR AND LIBRARIAN

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor and librarian for 75 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended all 75 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 75 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of senior scientist.

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN, AND SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor, associate librarian, and senior research associate for 95 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended all 95 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for 93 candidates.

TRACKING COHORTS ENTERING THE TENURE-TRACK THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: COHORTS ENTERING FROM 1990 THROUGH 1996

Preceding the tenure and promotion charts for 2002-2003 is a report prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment showing Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates after seven years for faculty members who began on the tenure track for each year from 1990 through 1996. Table 1 shows how many of each cohort remained and were tenured by their eighth year at Penn State. Over this period as a whole, on the average, 55 percent of all the entering group ended up receiving tenure. That does not mean that 55 percent of the group being considered for tenure in their decision year received tenure; it means that for our seven most recent cohorts, 55 percent of all faculty who began with us in provisional status remained with us and were granted tenure at the end of seven years or earlier. The report includes some comparative data that indicates that this figure is consistent with comparable institutions. That being the case, these tables raise the issue of retention as well as tenure success. The average percentage for women faculty members University-wide who were retained and received tenure over that period was 46 percent, compared to 59 percent for men. The average for minority faculty was 52 percent, as opposed to 55 percent for non-minority faculty.

This year, we are also including more specific information for the two most recent entering classes in the group 1995 and 1996. Table 2 presents the tenure flow data broken down by location. The overall tenure rate for these two cohorts is virtually the same at University Park and at our campus locations. At the same time, these data show that for the two most recent cohorts the overall tenure rate seven years after entry for minorities and non- minorities has been reversed at University Park, with 69 percent of minorities receiving tenure and 53 percent of non-minorities receiving tenure. At the campuses for this period 50 percent of minorities received tenure, but these numbers are small (5 out of 10 candidates). Overall, during this period, 61 percent of minorities were retained and received tenure, as opposed to 54 percent of non-minorities.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Mohamad A. Ansari, Vice-Chair
Judd B. Arnold
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael H. Bernhard
Thomas E. Boothby
Victor W. Brunsden
Clay Calvert
Craig E. Cameron
Michael J. Cardamone
Debora Cheney
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Dwight Davis
Bill Ellis
Renata S. Engel
Terry Engelder
Terry P. Harrison
Zachary T. Irwin
Ravinder Koul
Deborah A. Levin
Sallie M. McCorkle, Chair
Francis J. Mootz
Ira J. Ropson
Robert Secor
Lourdes Diaz Soto
Richard B. Tenser
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates

Tenure Decisions 2002-2003

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEES ON FACULTY AFFAIRS AND FACULTY BENEFITS

Paid Parental Leave for Faculty

(Informational)

The Senate committees on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits have endorsed, and are jointly presenting as an Informational Report, a revision of Policy HRG18, Paid Parental Leave For Faculty.

Rationale

The revisions in the policy are being made in the context of data that show that tenure-track and tenured women are disproportionately disadvantaged in relation to men, in both their professional and their personal lives, when they have children. A recent study published by the University of California at Berkeley finds that women who have children within fourteen years of earning their degrees receive tenure at a rate of 56 percent, as opposed to 77 percent for men. Penn State’s own figures may reflect this phenomenon, since of all faculty members at Penn State who entered the tenure track since 1990, only 46 percent of women were retained and received tenure at the end of their provisional period, as opposed to 59 percent of men. Moreover, the Berkeley study shows that as a result of the difficulty of balancing academic life with child-bearing and raising, only 44 percent of faculty women are married with children, as opposed to 77 percent of male faculty members. The study shows that 38 percent of women in tenure and tenure-track status say that they had fewer children than they would have liked. The revisions being made in HRG18 will not reverse this situation, but it is an attempt by Penn State to relieve the pressures of the workplace for faculty women during the year in which they give birth.

In addition, the policy offers teaching relief for faculty parents during the semester of the adoption because research shows that adoption can be at least as stressful and disruptive as the birth of a child.

Major Changes in the Revised HRG18

The revisions extend the benefits of the policy in the following ways:

1. In addition to the minimum of six weeks of paid maternity leave granted in our current policy, the revised policy provides for a release from teaching assignments for the mother in the other weeks of the semester in which the birth occurs. The policy allows for flexibility, so that if the birth occurs at the end of a semester the release from teaching may occur in the subsequent semester.

2. A semester release from teaching is also granted to faculty parents in the case of an adoption.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Mohamad A. Ansari, Vice-Chair
Judd B. Arnold
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael H. Bernhard
Thomas E. Boothby
Victor W. Brunsden
Clay Calvert
Craig E. Cameron
Michael J. Cardamone
Debora Cheney
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Dwight Davis
Bill Ellis
Renata S. Engel
Terry Engelder
Terry P. Harrison
Zachary T. Irwin
Ravinder Koul
Deborah A. Levin
Sallie M. McCorkle, Chair
Francis J. Mootz
Ira J. Ropson
Robert Secor
Lourdes Diaz Soto
Richard B. Tenser
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Keith K. Burkhart
Gary L. Catchen, Vice Chair
Michael Dooris
Thomas A. Frank
Robert J. Heinsohn
Deidre E. Jago
Amir Khalilollahi
Cynthia M. Mara
Salvatore A. Marsico
Benedicte Monicat
Gregory W. Roth
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis G. Shea, Chair
Harjit Singh
Marley W. Watkins
Billie S. Willits

• Purpose
• Definition
• Amount of Time Paid Off
• Release From Teaching Responsibilities
• Procedure
• Cross References

Appendix G

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2003-2004

(Informational)

I. Summary

The Committee on Faculty Benefits of the Faculty Senate compares means, medians, and other statistics corresponding to the salaries of various cohorts of faculty members. In this report, we emphasize comparisons between units of Penn State and corresponding units of other universities.

During the past six years, a discipline-specific, rank-specific comparison between University Park (UP) and the corresponding cohorts provided by the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) indicates that most average salaries at UP fluctuate with ± five percent of the values for the AAUDE cohorts. Various other comparisons that are not discipline specific indicate that UP salaries lie in the middle of the rankings. A longstanding concern has been that salary compression is operative for the senior ranks. Analysis of average salaries alone is not sufficiently sensitive to test this hypothesis.

Average salary changes occurring between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, 1995-1996, and 1990-1991 show no anomalies except for the Smeal College of Business Administration. It shows much larger values in comparison to the increase for the other UP colleges.

For Big Ten universities having multiple campuses, average salaries for full professors at the main campuses generally greatly exceed the corresponding averages for full professors at the smaller campuses. Although this trend holds for full professors at UP, the statistics for the other ranks at smaller campuses of Penn State show some different trends.

For colleges at UP, salary averages for each rank, delineated by sex, show primarily historical trends in each discipline. In several colleges such as College of Engineering and Eberly College of Science, women remain underrepresented. On the other hand, for example, in College of Health and Human Development, female full professors outnumber males.

The average salaries reported for College of Medicine are generally competitive with salaries paid at other members of the American Association of Medical Colleges.

II. Introduction

The Committee on Faculty Benefits of the Faculty Senate is responsible for preparing an annual report on faculty salaries. In the report, the Committee compares means, medians, and other statistics corresponding to the salaries of various cohorts of faculty members. These statistics delineated by academic rank include (1) discipline-specific groups, (2) colleges or college-size units, and (3) campuses. Additionally, within a specific cohort and for given academic ranks, the Committee compares statistics that are delineated by sex and by type of appointment, i. e., standing and fixed-term, which we often refer to as tenured or tenure-eligible and non-tenure-eligible appointments, respectively.

The codification of information includes comparing statistics for the aforementioned units of Penn State and comparing these statistics to corresponding quantities for units of other universities. We refer to the former as an “Internal Report” and to the latter as an “External Report.” Customarily, during alternate years, the Committee prepares Internal and External Reports. In the report for 2002 - 2003, the Committee prepared an Internal Report in which it emphasized comparisons between units of Penn State. In this report, we emphasize comparisons between units of Penn State and corresponding units of other universities.

By “other universities,” we refer to an appropriate collection of institutions that includes some “peer” universities, i. e., other large land-grant institutions, some private institutions of varying sizes, and some “state-owned” universities located within the Commonwealth. The sources of salary information consist of Penn State records, data provided by the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE), statistics published by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and statistics provided by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC).

In the context of information provided by the AAUDE, the fundamental comparison of salary means and medians is discipline specific. The statistics provided by the AAUDE are coded according to discipline. Subsequently, the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment organizes these statistics so that salary means and medians for each Penn State college represent the specific disciplines that reside in each college. Therefore, comparing salary information for a specific Penn State college to that for the corresponding colleges of AAUDE-member institutions represents comparing salary information for cohorts comprised of similar disciplines. Additionally, the salary statistics generally represent nine-month values (or 36-week values for Penn State), but when appropriate 12-month values (48-week values for Penn State) are indicated.

The statistics published by the AAUP represent averages, delineated by academic rank, over the faculties of entire campuses of institutions, which are categorized by size and mission, e. g., Ph.D.-granting or baccalaureate-only-granting institutions.

To ensure the confidentiality of the statistic, we do not report values for cohorts containing six or fewer members.

III. Results

Appendix I contains 15 tables that represent the primary information on which we base this report.
http://www.psu.edu/ufs/agenda/apr27-04agn/salarytables042704.pdf

Tables 1-3 present a temporal comparison of average salaries between colleges located at University Park and comparable units at “main campuses” of AAUDE members. The time periods for comparison are 2002-2003, 2001-2002, and 1995-1996. Table 5 lists the members of the AAUDE. We note that typically 50 percent-60 percent of these member institutions submit statistics each year. Thus, for comparisons across time periods, each comparison of University Park (UP) averages to the corresponding AAUDE averages may not represent comparisons of the same AAUDE cohort. However, as Table 1 indicates, the ratio of the UP average to the AAUDE average varies by less than ± five percent for most of the entries, although a few ratios vary by ± ten percent.

Moreover, in the absence of further analysis, these ratios show no systematic trends. Instead, the ratios are consistent with the hypothesis that, relative to the very large AAUDE cohorts, the Penn State salaries show random fluctuations from year to year. We note, however, that the AAUDE membership consists of a broad variety of universities, which includes both prestigious private universities and large land-grant institutions. The former typically pay larger salaries than the latter, especially to full professors, and many of the latter have been subject to decreasing state support. Thus, the salary averages of the AAUDE cohorts may represent the averaging of many countercurrent effects that mask any systematic trends, when we compare these averages to UP values.

The purpose of Table 2, Salary Progression Analysis, is to test the hypothesis that UP salaries for full professors show compression. The term “salary compression” can refer to the reduction in the salary difference occurring over time between members having the same academic rank. For example, the difference between the salaries of newly promoted professors and those of more-senior professors may decrease over a decade or so. Likewise, salary compression can refer to the reduction in salary difference between members of different academic ranks. For this analysis, the latter definition applies. The intuitive expectation is the following. Because market forces strongly affect entry-level salaries, which correspond to the salaries of assistant professors and some associate professors that have little time in rank, we expect to observe salary compression, as the salaries of more-senior members are less susceptible to these forces. Given this expectation, we observe that, for UP, changes are relatively small for the comparisons, percent of professors’ salaries represented by the salaries of associate and assistant professors. As such, in the absence of a more sensitive statistical measure, we cannot determine either whether we are observing a systematic increase, i. e., we have salary compression, or whether we are observing statistical fluctuations from time period to time period or from college to college. Thus we need a better statistical measure in order to test the aforementioned hypothesis.

For the UP colleges and for the corresponding AAUDE cohorts, delineated by academic rank, Table 3 presents the average salary changes occurring between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, 1995-1996, and 1990-1991. The increases for the Smeal College of Business Administration show much larger values in comparison to the increase for the other UP colleges and somewhat larger values than the AAUDE cohort corresponding to business administration. We attribute these differences to so-called market forces, which appear to be much less significant in other disciplines. Aside from the values for business administration, these average values show no anomalies. However, these increases presented as absolute percentages only qualitatively indicate the effects of inflation. If the values were scaled by the inflation rate corresponding to the time interval, we could quantitatively determine the extent to which salary increases overcome the effects of inflation.

For academic years from 1996-1997 through 2001-2002, Table 4 presents annual percentage increases in average salaries for UP, averaged over college and rank, and for average salaries (similarly averaged) for 21 other institutions selected from the AAUDE. Out of 22 universities, the rank of Penn State fluctuated greatly from year to year; but, for the cumulative increase over seven years, Penn State ranks as number ten. This latter ranking is a better measure of the ranking, as it is less sensitive to the effects of year-to-year fluctuations that arise because each of these institutions is subject to different political and economic forces in addition to the global trends in the US.

Table 6 presents average salaries for the Big Ten universities, which the AAUP published, and Table 7 presents these quantities adjusted for cost of living. For all of the ranks, adjusting the averages lowers the rankings by one or two positions. Tables 7a and 7b present cost-of-living indices for some regions of Pennsylvania and for regions corresponding to locations of Big Ten universities, respectively. The rankings shown in Tables 6 and 7, which are based on AAUP statistics and delineated by rank, are consistent with the cumulative ranking shown in Table 4, which is based on a different set of universities and not delineated by rank. The average salaries for UP are neither at the top nor at the bottom of the rankings. In recent years, the President’s policy has been to maintain the competitive ranking of salaries at Penn State in comparison to salaries at other Big Ten universities; whereas, earlier, salary increases at Penn State had correlated more closely with the Commonwealth’s contributions to the budget.

For the academic years 1995-1996 and 2002-2003, Table 8 presents average salaries, published and classified by the AAUP, for Big Ten universities having multiple campuses. Average salaries for full professors at UP greatly exceed those for the smaller campuses, and this difference between the main campus and smaller campuses holds generally for the other universities also. For the other ranks, several campuses, such as Behrend and Great Valley, are characterized by higher salaries than UP. This result may arise, because the corresponding time in rank may be greater. Likewise these faculty members may have industrial experience that justified higher starting salaries. Thus, in contradistinction to UP, the missions of these campuses involve more emphasis on teaching and service and less emphasis on research. As such, the corresponding faculties consist of fewer full professors and more faculty members holding the other ranks.

For a variety of universities located in Pennsylvania and for some campuses of Penn State, Table 9 presents a comparison, delineated by rank, of average salaries for 2002-2003 and percent increases acquired since the previous year. For full professors, the average salaries for the main campuses of the three state-supported universities range within several percent of each other. Likewise these average salaries range significantly below the averages for two of the private institutions, Carnegie-Mellon University and University of Pennsylvania; and range significantly above the average salaries reported for the other campuses of Penn State and for the collection of state-owned institutions. These results are neither new nor surprising. Moreover, the average for the University of Pennsylvania is typical of Ivy League universities in general, namely, these universities pay full professors very well. With the exception of the top-ranked University of Pennsylvania, the averages for the other ranks do not show any clear trends. We suggest that the relative rankings for UP and the other listed campuses of Penn State arises from differences in time-in-rank and in previous experience.

Table 10 presents average salaries for librarians at several Big Ten universities. With the exception of affiliate librarians, the averages for Penn State librarians generally exceed the other reported averages for each rank. Although this observation provides a note of optimism, we caution the reader that the lengths of annual appointments vary from university to university. Presumably the Association of Research Libraries has taken these differences into account. Nonetheless, the results warrant further checking, as the statistics may not be reported on a common time basis.

For standing and fixed-term appointments located at UP and at eight other campuses, Table 11 presents the corresponding quartile distributions for each rank. Additionally. Table 11 gives the number of faculty members corresponding to each category and the associated average time-in-rank. The quartile values, Q1, Q2 (median), and Q3, represent specific rank-ordered salaries that correspond to 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of the displacement of the salary entries from the bottom of the ranking, respectively. Table 12 provides the same type of information for each college (or similar unit) at UP.

To evaluate this information further, we consider a statistic, ((Q3 – Q1)/Q2), which provides a measure of the breadth of the salary distribution. In this context, we make a distinction between comparisons between specific colleges and comparisons between campuses. In either case, the following applies. If this statistic has a large value, it implies that a variety of dissimilar factors influence the salaries of a given cohort. Whereas, small values of this statistic imply the absence of dissimilar factors. For example, we expect the salary distributions for full professors to be very broad, because dissimilar factors such as time-in-rank and size of research programs may be operative. In contradistinction, we expect the salary distributions for assistant professors located at UP to be narrow, because time-in-rank generally is limited to no more than six years. At other campuses, time-in-rank for assistant professors often goes beyond six years. Thus, by comparing values of this statistic, we can test various hypotheses such as the aforementioned. Likewise, we should compare this statistic to a related statistic, namely, the standard deviation relative to the mean. This comparison would provide a check on the consistency of the analysis.

For standing and fixed-term appointments located at UP and at eight other campuses, Table 13 presents the salary mean and standard deviation, the salary median, the average time-in-rank, and the number in each category. This table presents these statistics for Three noteworthy examples, taken from UP, are College of Health and Human Development, College of Engineering, and Eberly College of Science. For College of Health and Human Development, in each rank, the numbers of males and females are similar, and the average salary is higher for female full professors. With the exception of College of Education that shows somewhat similar results, the College of Health and Human Development is an anomaly. This anomaly reflects the historical strength of female professors in some of the disciplines corresponding to this college, e. g., nutrition. For the College of Engineering, the near absence of female professors reflects a long-standing national problem, which has characterized the profession of engineering as a whole and which had remained in effect at Penn State until about two decades ago. In contradistinction to the professor rank, a larger percentage of females in the associate- and assistant-professor ranks is consistent with these changes in hiring practice at Penn State. The statistics for the Eberly College of Science show qualitatively similar representations of females. This observation is unexpected. Historically, like engineering, physics had been a particularly hostile profession for women to enter. However, in the life sciences and in chemistry, the fraction of Ph.D. degrees granted to women had been much larger than the corresponding fractions for physics and engineering. Despite this fact, women remain underrepresented in the Eberly College of Science.

For the College of Medicine, Table 15 presents average salaries for standing appointments and for fixed-term appointments, delineated by rank. This compilation includes two distinct groups, scientists and clinicians. The scientists generally hold Ph.D. degrees, and their primary responsibilities are to perform research and to teach. They are members of the faculty of Penn State, and the University pays their salaries directly. The clinicians hold M.D., O.D., and other related professional degrees, and their responsibilities include clinical practice that is often combined with research and teaching. They are members of the faculty of Penn State, but a not-for-profit corporation pays their salaries. This arrangement isolates Penn State from the potential liability of malpractice that accompanies medical practice. For both groups, the statistics represent base salaries for 48-week appointments. Unlike faculty members elsewhere at Penn State, who hold 48-week appointments, both groups can receive additional salary, referred to as “incentive salary.” Generally the incentive salary is much more significant for the clinicians than for the scientists. The clinicians can receive incentive salary, when the number of performed clinical procedures exceeds a predetermined quota. The scientists can receive some incentive salary from NIH research grants. Additionally, for each rank of the standing appointments, Table 15 gives the ranking of the mean salaries according to a selected group of colleges of medicine.

Note on the effects of inflation

For the convenience of readers who would like to place changes in salaries in the context of overall inflation rates, the committee provides information about two widely used benchmark price indices, the Consumer Price Index and the Higher Education Price Index.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the “Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.” Although it is not a true “cost-of-living” index, the CPI is the most widely used measure of inflation. For 2003, the average 12-month change was 2.3 percent. Over the five-year period from 1999-2003, the average 12-month change was 2.5 percent.

The Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) is compiled by Research Associates and is designed to measure the average change in goods and services purchased by higher education institutions through educational and general expenditures. Among the expenditures included in the HEPI are: faculty, staff, and technical service salaries; and contracted services such as “data processing, communication, transportation, supplies and materials, equipment, books and periodicals, and utilities.” The HEPI for the 2003-2004 fiscal year has increased 2.5 percent over the previous year. Over the five-year period 1999-2000 through 2003-2004, the HEPI has on average increased 3.8 percent annually.

Salary Tables
Tables may be reviewed at the following URL:
http://www.psu.edu/ufs/agenda/apr27-04agn/salarytables042704.pdf

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith K. Burkhart
Gary L. Catchen, Vice Chair
Michael Dooris
Thomas A. Frank
Robert J. Heinsohn
Deidre E. Jago
Amir Khalilollahi
Cynthia M. Mara
Salvatore A. Marsico
Benedicte Monicat
Gregory W. Roth
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis G. Shea, Chair
Harjit Singh
Marley W. Watkins
Billie S. Willits

SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE
Gary L. Catchen, Chair
Michael Dooris
Amir Khalilollahi
Gregory W. Roth
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Harjit Singh
Marley W. Watkins

Appendix H

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

The Integration of Intercollegiate Athletics Within the University Community

(Informational)

Penn State Director of Athletics, Tim Curley, will discuss the following topics:

I. The importance of properly integrating the Intercollegiate Athletics program within the University community and review three important areas to support the collegiate model for delivering a NCAA Division 1A athletics program:

• Academic and educational success must serve as our primary goal of intercollegiate athletics;
• We must respect the concept that the student-athlete is central to our daily activity;
• The athletics community must be integrated programmatically and financially with the University community.

II. Review the academic success of the program.

III. Discuss the structure and philosophy of Penn State's athletics program.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Charles L. Burchard
Paul F. Clark
Timothy M. Curley
Gordon F. DeJong
Susan Delaney-Scheetz
James T. Elder, Vice-Chair
Bruce D. Hale
Elizabeth A. Hanley
John R. Hellmann
Kane M. High
Janis Jacobs
R. Scott Kretchmar
Russell Mushinsky
John S. Nichols
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
Tammy R. Rishel
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Stephen M. Smith
Kenneth Swalgin
Vicky L. Triponey
Thomas C. Vary
Susan Welch
Jerry J. Wright
Edgar P. Yoder

Appendix I

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Report on Salary Equity, Academic Year 2003-2004

(Informational)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Average Salaries. For standing appointments, average salaries at different campus locations range from $98,100 to $64,100 for Professors; $67,900 to $56,800 for Associate Professors; $57,300 to $45,900 for Assistant Professors; and $55,800 to $37,200 for Instructors.
  
• Salary Ranges. The largest range can be found at the rank of Professor ($34,000), while the smallest range can be found at the rank of Associate Professor ($11,100). The disparity at the level of Professor is especially significant, with its range slightly over 1.8 times the range of the next highest level, Instructor ($18,600). The number (n) of academics who have been promoted to that rank within the various colleges and time in rank may play significant roles in accounting for the disparity.
  
• Altoona College. At all professorial ranks, Altoona College ranks last among the colleges for which data is available. Yet cost of living indexes do not necessarily support such a low ranking. Altoona’s consistently low salary ranking at the professorial levels constitutes a significant issue arising from the data.

INTRODUCTION

This report returns to the data presented in the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits and Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations Report on Faculty Salaries, AY2002-2003, presented to the University Faculty Senate in March 2003. Specifically, it updates the data on salary equity to include data from the Pennsylvania College of Technology (PCT), permitting more accurate conclusions to be drawn about equity across the various colleges that comprise the Pennsylvania State University.

BACKGROUND ON THE PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

In 1941, the Williamsport Technical Institute was founded. In 1965, it was reformulated as the Williamsport Area Community College (WACC). In 1989, WACC affiliated with Penn State University and was reformulated as the Pennsylvania College of Technology. Today Penn College has an enrollment of 5,279 FTE, an increase of 5.7 percent over 2002, with 280 full-time faculty and 194 part-time faculty providing instruction. Tuition and fees at Penn College stands at $4,470 per semester ($298 per credit) for AY2003-2004. Penn College’s current operating budget stands at $67.8 million, with $11.7 million funded through a state appropriation. As a unionized campus, Penn College currently operates under a labor agreement that guarantees an annual salary increase of 3.25 percent for both AY2003-2004 and AY2004-2005 and part-time and overload teaching rates of $800 per credit hour.

DISCUSSION

Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d show the Penn College salary data integrated into the Penn State salary tables presented to the University Faculty Senate in March 2003. Great Valley, Dickinson, and Hershey Medical Center are not included in these tables because there was insufficient data for all ranks from these institutions. Table 2 shows the sum of the rankings derived from tables 1a-1d. Table 3 shows cost of living data for all of the campuses represented in this report.

DATA

*Cost of Living Adjustments are based upon figures provided by a report entitled Differences in the Cost of Living Across Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties, prepared by James A. Kurre, Penn State Erie, and published in July 2000 by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency that serves as a resource of rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly. This study developed spatial cost of living estimates for each of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania for 1997. In addition to the overall cost of living, this study generated indexes for each of the six component sub-indices: groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and services. These indexes allowed identification of high and low cost locations in the state and permitted measurement of the extent to which some areas are more expensive than others. Although the major focus of this study was to compare costs in urban counties with those in rural counties, the data presented does allow one to compare the cost of living in each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. The sub-indices listed above tended to follow the spatial pattern of the overall cost of living. All of the sub-indices were positively correlated with the overall cost of living. Within the sub-indices, housing and groceries tended to most closely follow the overall pattern, with miscellaneous goods and health care being less closely related. The entire 87-page report from this study can be downloaded from the web (http://www.ruralpa.org/clr2000.pdf) and provides detailed information on how the cost of living values were determined for each county. The unit of measure for the cost of living in the above report is an index with a value of 100.0 being the average of 321 urban areas in North America. The source of the data based on these 321 areas was the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association (ACCRA) participating in the study. This ACCRA data was based on the standard of living of a mid-management executive household. This standard reflects a higher than average standard of living, so the estimates cannot claim to represent the costs faced by an average consumer in any given county. Single consumers, childless couples, and those with higher or lower incomes than the mid-management family would presumably buy a different mix of goods and services than that family, and thus would experience somewhat different costs than those that are reported here. It is important to note that even though no single model can account for all the factors that affect cost of living, the numbers presented in this report should serve as useful guides to differences in the cost of living across Pennsylvania's counties.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
Rosann Bazirjian
Ronald V. Bettig
Dawn G. Blasko, Vice Chair
Timothy N. Gray
E. Jay Holcomb
Susan L. Hutchinson
Eileen M. Kane
William J. Mahar
Kevin R. Maxwell
Kidane Mengisteab
Craig M. Meyers
Alfred Mueller
Victor Nistor
David R. Richards, Chair
Winston A. Richards
Ann M. Schmiedekamp
Colleen R. Stimpson
Robert C. Voigt
Robert A. Walters
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers
Stamatis M. Zervanos
members

SALARY EQUITY SUBCOMMITTEE
Rosann Bazirjian
Eileen M. Kane
Kidane Mengisteab
Alfred Mueller, Chair
Victor Nistor
Winston A. Richards
Colleen R. Stimpson
Robert A. Walters (Chair until February 2004)

Appendix J

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Trends and Patterns in the Use of Full and Part-time Fixed-Term Faculty

(Informational)

INTRODUCTION

The Intra-University Relations Committee was charged with examining and reporting on the trends and patterns in the use of full-time fixed-term and part-time faculty. This informational report is a follow-up to a report presented by the Intra-University Relations Committee to the Faculty Senate in March of 2000 that examined the use of part-time and non-tenure-line faculty in the Penn State system from 1990 to 1998. Our committee believes that, similar to the statement in the March 2000 report, the use of non-tenure-line and part-time faculty has many implications for academic life at Penn State and that trends in their use merit the attention of the Senate as a whole.

Full-time fixed-term, part-time and adjunct faculty are a valuable part of the academy. They are often hired to bring their practical experiences to the classroom or as visiting scholars sharing their knowledge with others. In the creation of new programs at some Penn State locations, importing such experience has become important. Since the early 1990s, a growing body of academic literature has explored the effects of the increasing use of fixed-term and part-time faculty in U.S. colleges and universities on the professorial faculty (tenure-track/tenured faculty) and students. Concerns raised by the research range from academic freedomi to wages and benefitsⁱⁱ and student retention.ⁱⁱⁱ One of the primary purposes of tenure is the generation and preservation of the integrity of knowledge based on the guarantee of intellectual freedom. To the extent that utilization of fixed-term and part-time faculty displaces tenure-track/tenured faculty positions, this vital institutional norm is jeopardized.ⁱ

Other concerns about the use of fixed-term faculty stem from the current trends within the private sector aimed at reducing labor costs by introducing greater employer flexibility in hiring and firing, imposing heavier work loads, and providing fewer benefits. Remaining standing faculty may end up with heavier workloads, for example, as the professorial faculty takes on a greater burden of advising and governance of the university in order to maintain continuity that part-time and fixed-term usually cannot provide. Job security, lack of benefits and lower pay are concerns for many part-time faculty. Since most part-time and adjunct academic appointments are transitory in nature, there is less motivation to master the knowledge of university policies and resources for proper student advising and counseling^iv.

ⁱTolbert, Pamela, S. “Two-Tiered Faculty Systems and Organizational Outcomes.” New Directions for Higher Education, 104 (1998):79.
ⁱⁱJacobs, Frederic. “Using Part-time Faculty More Effectively.” New Directions for Higher Education, 104 (1998): 9-15.
ⁱⁱⁱHaeger, John D. “Part-Time Faculty, Quality Programs, and Economic Realities.” New Directions for Higher Education, 104 (1998): 85ff
^ivSchuetz, Pam. “Instructional Practices of Part-time and Full-Time Faculty”, New Directions for Community College, 118 (Summer 2002): 39-45,

INFORMATION

This report is data driven and information on standing and fixed-term faculty is organized in the following way. First, there is a definition of types of faculty employment at Penn State. Next, data on the use of standing and fixed-term faculty are presented in the larger context. Data are aggregated at the national level and then for the members of the Committee for Institutional Cooperation (CIC). Finally, the report turns to Penn State and places the data on the use of standing and fixed-term faculty in the context of the overall growth at the University and then breaks down data by college and campus location.

Definitions

As defined in the Penn State Policy Manual, full-time faculty employment is broadly divided into standing and fixed-term. Standing faculty are tenured or tenure-track faculty who have a contract that does not specify an ending date. (In the past, there were also non-tenure track instructors who were hired with standing appointments. This category is not mentioned by Human Resources because it no longer exists for new hires.) Fixed-term faculty have a contract with a specified ending date. Full-time fixed-term (FTMY) consists of a multi-year contract with a contract length between one to five years and is renewable. Fixed-term I (FT1) contracts run longer than six months but not more than one year. Part-time contracts are the fixed-term II (FT2) contracts that run 6 months or less. Full-time faculty (standing, FTMY and FT1) are entitled to benefits whereas part-time faculty (FT2) are not entitled to benefits. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, few institutions have policies to provide tenure to part-time faculty. (See Diagram 1 and Table 1.)

Table 1: Characteristics of Types of Faculty Employment at
The Pennsylvania State University

Source: http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr06.html. Penn State Policy Manual, HR06: Types of Appointments Penn State Human Resources

Use of standing and fixed-term faculty nationwide

According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Statistics, between 1992 and 1998, postsecondary institutions experienced a 5.0 percent overall decrease in the proportion of standing Academic faculty (as a percentage of full-time faculty). Public research institutions saw a decline of 7.0 percent in the proportion of tenured/tenure-track faculty while public comprehensive (essentially four-year colleges) and public two-year institutions saw a decline of 2.5 percent and 2.2 percent respectively. The average proportion of standing faculty among full-time faculty in 1998 was 71.9 percent overall, 77.3 percent at research institutions, 83.1 percent at comprehensive and 66.4 percent at two-year public institutions. The average proportion of full-time faculty among total faculty in 1998 was 57 percent overall, 79 percent at public research institutions, 63 percent at public comprehensive institutions, and 38 percent at public two-year postsecondary institutions. (See Table 2.) The type of institution is based on a modification of the Carnegie classification system. (See Appendix A for a description of the Carnegie classification system.)

Table 2: Percentage distribution of full-time Academic faculty by tenure status and
by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and 1998

Table 3: Percentage distribution of full-time faculty by tenure status at peer institutions (Committee on Institutional Cooperation): 1993, 1999, 2001

Source: Dr. Russell W. Snyder, Associate Director, Committee for Institutional Cooperation (CIC), compiled and provided data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Penn State-University Park ranked fifth among CIC institutions for the percentage of full-time faculty in both 1993 and 2001. Penn State-University Park saw a 1 percent decline in its percentage of full-time faculty compared to a 22.1 percent decrease at University of Chicago and a 33.7 percent increase at University of Illinois at Chicago. (See Table 4.)

Table 4: Percentage distribution of full-time faculty at peer institutions (Committee on Institutional Cooperation): 1993, 1999, 2001

Source: Dr. Snyder, Associate Director, Committee for Institutional Cooperation (CIC), compiled and provided data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Authors’ calculations.

Use of standing and fixed-term faculty at Penn State

Data provided by Michael Dooris of the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment at Penn State University enabled the reporting changes in faculty numbers by category and by student credit hours. Available data include Fall 1992, and Fall 1998 through Fall 2002. To set the changes in faculty employment in a context, Table 5 and Table 5a report the percentage change in the number of total faculty¹ and student credit hours², the percentage change in the number of tenured and tenure-track Academic faculty, and the percentage change in the number of full-time fixed-term Academic faculty³ and part-time⁴ Academic faculty across the Penn State system. Overall, there was an almost 20 percent growth in total faculty from 1992 to 2002 and a 15.8 percent increase in student credit hours. There was a 7.3 percent growth in standing Academic faculty, a 142.6 percent increase in full-time fixed-term Academic faculty, and a 23.6 percent increase in part-time Academic faculty from 1992 to 2002. The category “All” is not weighted by campus so it is strongly influenced by the large numbers of faculty at University Park.

Across colleges and campuses, there is a wide range of growth rates of tenured and tenure-track Academic faculty from an increase of almost 229 percent over the 1992-2002 period for Great Valley and -11.8 percent for the Commonwealth campuses. University Park increased the number of standing Academic faculty by 6.5 percent. Education saw a 19 percent increase in standing faculty and Business saw a decrease of 13.3 percent. University Park increased the number of full-time fixed-term Academic faculty by a little over 102 percent, while at Altoona the number increased by a little over 457 percent and in Abington by almost 48 percent. Among the University Park colleges, Arts and Architecture increased the number of full-time fixed-term Academic faculty by almost 343 percent and Education decreased by almost 4 percent. Part-time Academic faculty decreased by 9.2 percent at University Park, increased by over 164 percent at Altoona and 1.6 percent at Great Valley. At University Park, Communications increased the number of part-time Academic faculty by 650 percent while Agriculture decreased part-time Academic faculty by 100 percent. Also calculated in Table 6 are the changes in the number of graduate assistants at each of the colleges. Communications increase the number of graduate assistants by 300 percent while Health and Human Development decreased their number by 51.2 percent. (See Appendix B for the actual numbers reported in the above section.)

______________________________________________________________________

¹ Total faculty includes all employees with teaching responsibility: Academic; Research and
Librarian; Academic Administration; Part- Time Academic; Executive and Staff and Emeritus.
Excludes the College of Medicine and The Dickinson Law School.
² Student Credit Hours (SCH) include undergraduate and graduate SCH. SCH produced in intercollegiate programs are not redistributed to the home college of the instructor but are included in Other UP Units.
³ Full-time fixed-term Academic Faculty are FT-1 and FT-MY
⁴ Part-time Academic Faculty are FT-2 and excludes Grad Assistants.

Source: “Student Credit Hours, Resident Instruction FTE’s, and Headcounts for Full-Time Faculty and Others with Teaching Responsibility.
Summaries by Rank, Appointment Type, Gender, University Park Colleges, and Campus Colleges.”

Table 5a: The Pennsylvania State University
Percentage change in total numbers of faculty and student credit hours by type of employment and college from 1992 to 2002

Source: “Student Credit Hours, Resident Instruction FTE’s, and Headcounts for Full-Time Faculty and Others with Teaching Responsibility. Summaries by Rank, Appointment Type, Gender, University Park Colleges, and Campus Colleges.”

Table 6a: The Pennsylvania State University
Percentage distribution of full-time Academic faculty by tenure status (tenured/tenure track)

Table 7: The Pennsylvania State University
Percentage distribution of full-time Academic faculty

Source: “Student Credit Hours, Resident Instruction FTE’s, and Headcounts for Full-Time Faculty and Others with Teaching Responsibility. Summaries by Rank, Appointment Type, Gender, University Park Colleges, and Campus Colleges.”

Table 7a: The Pennsylvania State University
Percentage distribution of full-time Academic faculty

Does not take into account the use of graduate assistants.

The final four tables contain data on student credit hours. Tables 8 and 8a report the proportion of student credit hours taught by standing faculty calculated as a percentage of all full-time faculty. Overall, in 1992 83.6 percent of full-time student credit hours were taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty and that percentage dropped to 62.5 percent in 2002. At University Park, 84.2 percent of full-time student credit hours were taught by standing faculty in 1992 and 63.8 percent in 2002, a decrease of 24.2 percent. In 1992, 91.2 percent of Altoona’s and 58.5 percent of Great Valley’s student credit hours were taught by standing faculty. In 2002, 65.6 percent of Great Valley’s student credit hours 54.1 percent of Erie’s student credit hours were taught by standing faculty. In 1992, 96.7 percent of Arts and Architecture’s student credit hours and 31.5 percent of Other were taught by standing faculty. In 2002, 96.4 percent of Agriculture’s student credit hours and 46.7 percent of Business student credit hours were taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty. Overall, there was a 25.2 percent decrease in the percentage of student credit hours taught by standing faculty with a decrease of 24.2 percent at University Park, a 35.5 percent decrease at Erie, a 44.9 percent decrease in the Business College and a 125.2 percent increase in Other.

Tables 9 and 9a report the proportion of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty calculated as a percentage of total full and part-time faculty (excludes student credit hours taught by graduate assistants). Overall, in 1992 78.3 percent of student credit hours were taught by full-time faculty and that percentage dropped slightly to 77.7 percent in 2002. At University Park, 84.9 percent of student credit hours were taught by full-time faculty in 1992 and 88.4 percent in 2002, an increase of 4.1 percent. In 1992, 77.9 percent of Erie’s and 52.6 percent of Great Valley’s student credit hours were taught by full-time faculty. In 2002, 82.8 percent of Erie’s student credit hours 52.8 percent of Altoona’s student credit hours were taught by full-time faculty. Among University Park colleges, in 1992, 98.9 percent of Agriculture’s student credit hours and 44.3 percent of Other were taught by full-time faculty. In 2002, 100 percent of Agriculture’s student credit hours and 28.8 percent of Other student credit hours were taught by full-time faculty. Overall, there was a 0.8 percent decrease in the percentage of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty with an increase of 4.1percent at University Park, a 28.4 percent decrease at Altoona, a 107 percent increase at Great Valley, a decrease of 35 percent in Other and a 7.5 percent increase in Arts and Architecture.

Table 8: The Pennsylvania State University
All Full-Time: Percentage of Student Credit Hours Taught by Standing Faculty: 1992-2002

Table 8a: The Pennsylvania State University
All Full-Time: Percentage of Student Credit Hours Taught by Standing Faculty: 1992-2002
University Park

Table 9: The Pennsylvania State University
All Full-Time and Part-Time: Percentage of Student Credit Hours Taught by Full-Time Faculty
1992-2002

Table 9a: The Pennsylvania State University
All Full-Time and Part-Time: Percentage of Student Credit Hours Taught by Full-Time Faculty
1992-2002
University Park

Does not include graduate assistants


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This informational report examined and reported on the trends and patterns in the use of full-time fixed-term and part-time faculty. The most striking change is the rapid growth in both absolute and relative terms of full-time fixed-term faculty and the slow growth, and sometimes loss, of tenured/tenure-track faculty. Summarizing the overall changes, there was an almost 20 percent growth in total faculty from 1992 to 2002. There was a 7.3 percent growth in standing faculty, a 142.6 percent increase in full-time fixed-term faculty, and a 23.6 percent increase in part-time faculty from 1992 to 2002 (see Table 5). Among CIC institutions, Penn State’s University Park campus ranked eleventh out of thirteen institutions in 1993 for the percentage of full-time faculty that were tenured or tenure- track and ranked ninth in 2001 (See Table 3.)

Changes in the proportions of full-time faculty who were tenured or tenure-track varied dramatically across the Penn State system. In 1992, 86.8 percent of full-time faculty in the system were tenured and tenure-track, but in ten years this value dropped steadily to 75.6 percent in 2002. This is a decrease of almost 13 percent. Except for Great Valley, all locations showed a steady decrease of tenured and tenure-track faculty relative to fixed-term Academic faculty during the ten year period (see Table 6). Furthermore, the decrease in the system-wide proportion of standing faculty resulted in a 25 percent decrease in student credit hours taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty. In 1992, 83.6 percent of full time student credit hours were taught by tenured/tenure track faculty but by 2002, standing faculty only taught 62.5 percent of all student credit hours. Inspection of Tables 8 and 8a shows the decreasing student credit hour trend in most locations and colleges.

Across the system, the percentage of full-time faculty as a proportion of all Academic faculty (excluding graduate assistants) essentially remained the same (68.3 percent in 1992 and 68.4 percent in 2002). The same can be said for the percentage of student credit hours taught by all full-time faculty (both tenured and fixed-term). So, while the percentage of full-time faculty has remained the same, the make-up of full-time faculty across the system has significantly changed and now contains more fixed-term faculty who not participating in the tenure process.

Variability across campuses may be due in large part to the mergers, reorganization and the development of new four-year majors. At many campuses the growth of students was matched by increases in full time faculty, but they tended to be fixed-term and not standing faculty. There are concerns that new programs being built or expanded based on the use of fixed-term full-time and part-time faculty and that it will be hard to maintain the quality of programs, contain curricular drift, and, in some cases, gain accreditation with the large number of fixed-term faculty. According to A Profile of Part-time Faculty: Fall 1998 published by the NCES, about 59 percent of part-time faculty indicated they were in part-time positions due to the unavailability of full-time positions. Part-time faculty were less likely to have obtained a doctorate or equivalent degree and had fewer years of teaching experience than full-time faculty.

Among the responses to the increasing use of fixed-term faculty are those that take this trend as necessary, given existing political and economic climates. This is an administrative perspective that calls for "best-practices," meaning better orientation of part-time/adjunct faculty on university policies and practices, more involvement for them in university governance, and greater integration with the professorial faculty. Other responses include discussion of “desirable” ratios of standing and fixed-term faculty, how to avoid a ‘two-tiered’ faculty system, and how to make sure there is pay and benefit equity for fixed-term faculty.

Our committee recommends the continued and careful tracking of the number and the proportions of fixed-term faculty. Penn State needs to ask itself what the implications of a two-tiered faculty system are for the students, faculty, the larger academic community, and other stakeholders within the university. What’s really driving the changes? What is the impact of different incentive structures on the quality of education and the quality of new knowledge generated? Is there an effect on academic rigor and standards? In the age of budget driven decisions, do the benefits of increased savings and flexibility in the use of fixed-term faculty outweigh the costs of decreased attachment, voice, and the generation and preservation of the integrity of knowledge production based on the guarantee of intellectual freedom?

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Rosann Bazirjian
Ronald V. Bettig
Dawn G. Blasko, Vice Chair
Timothy N. Gray
E. Jay Holcomb
Susan L. Hutchinson
Eileen M. Kane
William J. Mahar
Kevin R. Maxwell
Kidane Mengisteab
Craig M. Meyers
Alfred Mueller
Victor Nistor
David R. Richards, Chair
Winston A. Richards
Ann M. Schmiedekamp
Colleen R. Stimpson
Robert C. Voigt
Robert A. Walters
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers
Stamatis M. Zervanos
members

FULL AND PART-TIME FACULTY SUBCOMMITTEE
Ronald V. Bettig
E. Jay Holcomb
William J. Mahar
Kevin R. Maxwell
Ann M. Schmiedekamp
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers, Chair

APPENDIX A
Institutional categories used in NCES report

Public research: Publicly controlled institutions among the leading universities in federal research funds. Each of these universities awards a substantial number of doctorates in many fields.

Private research: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions among the leading universities in federal research funds. Each of these universities awards a substantial number of doctorates in many fields.

Public doctoral: Publicly controlled institutions that offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and doctoral degrees in at least three discipline, but tend to be less focused on research and receive fewer research dollars that the research universities. In this report, this group also includes publicly controlled institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools.

Private doctoral: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and doctoral degrees in at least three disciplines, but tend to be less focused on research and receive fewer research dollars that the research universities. In this report, this group also includes privately controlled institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools.

Public comprehensive: Publicly controlled institutions that offer liberal arts and professional programs; a master’s degree is the highest degree offered.

Private comprehensive: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that offer liberal arts and professional programs; a master’s degree is the highest degree offered.

Private liberal arts: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that are smaller than comprehensive colleges and universities; primarily offer bachelor’s degrees, although some offer master’s degrees.

Public 2-year: Publicly controlled institutions that offer certificate or degree programs through the Associate’s degree level and offer no baccalaureate programs.

Other: Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) inA Profile of Part-time Faculty: Fall 1998. Working Paper No. 2002-08. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, October 2002.

For more information, see A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Princeton, New Jersey, 1994)

APPENDIX B
Table B1: Number of faculty and student credit hours by type of employment and college: 1992 and 2002

¹ Total faculty includes all employees with teaching responsibility: Academic; Research and Librarian; Academic Administration; Part-
Time Academic; Executive and Staff and Emeritus. Excludes the College of Medicine and The Dickinson Law School.
² Student Credit Hours (SCH) include undergraduate and graduate SCH. SCH produced in intercollegiate programs are not redistributed to the
home college of the instructor but are included in Other UP Units.
³ Standing Academic Faculty refers tenured or tenure track Academic Faculty.
⁴ Full-time fixed-term Academic Faculty are FT-1 and FT-MY
⁵ Part-time Academic Faculty are FT-2 and excludes Grad Assistants.

Source: “Student Credit Hours, Resident Instruction FTE’s, and Headcounts for Full-Time Faculty and Others with Teaching Responsibility. Summaries by Rank, Appointment Type, Gender, University Park Colleges, and Campus Colleges.”

Table B2: Number of faculty and student credit hours by type of employment and college: 1992 and 2002

¹ Total faculty includes all employees with teaching responsibility: Academic; Research and Librarian; Academic Administration; Part-
Time Academic; Executive and Staff and Emeritus. Excludes the College of Medicine and The Dickinson Law School.
² Student Credit Hours (SCH) include undergraduate and graduate SCH. SCH produced in intercollegiate programs are not redistributed to the
home college of the instructor but are included in Other UP Units.
³ Standing Academic Faculty refers tenured or tenure track Academic Faculty.
⁴ Full-time fixed term Academic Faculty are FT-1 and FT-MY
⁵ Part-time Academic Faculty are FT-2 and excludes Grad Assistants.

Appendix K

• Visiting the campus and meeting faculty and advisors.
• The enormous number of opportunities at University Park beyond the academic programs.
• The academic reputation of the Honors College as equal to schools with higher reputations.
• Family who are alumni and prior visits when they were younger.
• Lower tuition in comparison to regional universities that offer comparable programs.
• Penn State as a leader in academic and university life issues, such as Napster.

• Academic and social opportunities are plentiful for students who actively seek them.
• The LEAP program helps students get started.
• Students need to be focused and motivated.
• Students who change assignment to University Park often experience difficulty developing their focus when they arrive.
• Mentoring programs between upper and lower classmen help beginning and change of assignment students develop an orienting focus.
• Student government activities help students to get involved.
• Continual announcements and follow-up information on campus activities are valued.
• Student leaders and faculty play a key role by inviting students to events and groups.
• Faculty members have introduced students to research and teaching opportunities.

• Beautiful campus surroundings, clean, pedestrian atmosphere, trees and open areas.
• The internal environment of classrooms can be lacking in terms of noise, shades, heat, and appearance. Some basement classrooms are damp and unsuitable.
• Faculty cannot always schedule a classroom with the best technology design for their particular curriculum, or for the active components of a general education class.
• Students find the late night activities at the HUB on the weekend important alternatives to drinking.

• Requiring students to get an advisor’s signature to schedule in the first year may be an inadequate solution. We want students to take responsibility for their own education.
• Students often have a lack of information about different majors and opportunities.
• Unpublished information, like course substitution options, continues to be difficult for students to learn equally across advisors.
• Visit days to University Park help students learn about possible majors.
• DUS brown bag lunches help faculty advisors learn important information.
• System-wide advisor meetings have proven helpful in DUS.
• Faculty advisors learn names, help pursue answers to questions beyond their office, spend extra time, help find internships and research opportunities, help apply for grants and awards, and are generally well informed about courses in the major area.
• Pre-major advisors are praised in those units that have professional advising centers.
• Career advising is highly desired by students.

• Some information is hard to find, some is out of date, and some is inconsistent with other information published on the web.
• Cannot search across the entire University for courses with the same prefix or number.
• People with knowledge of the institution should maintain constant review and oversight.
• University Undergraduate Advising Handbook (www.psu.edu/dus/handbook/) was described as one of the most reliable, useable, and up-to-date sources of information.
• University Advising Council homepage also has recommended standards for composing advising pages for students.

• As units decrease the number of credits required for graduation, they are specifying more general education classes to double count for major requirements, reducing choices students can make for general education.
• Foreign language experience in high school is self reported on the admission screen, and unchecked against transcripts, so students often enrolled incorrectly in language classes.
• Schedule English 202 earlier because it is essential to students’ writing in their majors.
• Have all GHA courses be either 3 or 1.5 credits, so can add up to requirement easier.

• Difficulty scheduling First-Year Seminars that serve DUS students’ interests. Not enough offered. Some have as few as three spots available. Some require a phone call to register a DUS student. Fewer offered in the spring than in the fall semester.
• Some problems in the portability of seminars between colleges.
• A good DUS seminar could bring faculty from a variety of units and majors to help students learn about different professions to assist their decision-making. DUS as a unit is not permitted to offer or organize First-Year Seminars.
• Consider making seminars voluntary. Consider one-credit exploratory seminars in every college for DUS students to support their decision-making.

• Most students prefer a seminar that explores a variety of majors.
• Problem oriented seminars help to generate interest in broader professional fields and teach skills related to the broad discipline that help students find their career directions.
• A few students think university life, orientation, or social skills should be included in the seminars, while most think they should be directed to centers and resources already in place to provide such information.
• Seminars connected with another course with the same students enrolled in both help develop a sense of community.
• A sense of inequity in a requirement that can be fulfilled by a one-credit seminar that requires much less work than a three-credit seminar.

• Many classes with the same numbers offered at multiple locations do not provide the same content and therefore do not offer seamless change of assignment for students.
• Differences in sequences, prerequisites, and requirements have arisen that make it difficult for students to make a seamless change of assignment after the first two years.
• Change of assignment might become an admissions gate rather than a given, then all locations would know they have to prepare students to qualify.
• Classes with the same number at a single location also have differences that arise from the uniqueness of different teachers, or change over time.
• Entrepreneurial efforts by new units result in programs with the same names but very different content. Programs are developed independently of faculty in the same discipline or field at another location. Often consultation efforts do not elicit responses from colleagues at different locations.
• Many feel that competition is not necessarily good.
• Problem of quality when programs are accredited at some locations and not at others.
• Consider using system-wide majors with different options detailed at each location, or requiring each location to use their own unique prefix for their version of a program.
• Problems arise because there is no one model for curriculum coordination across the system. Most prefer not to see Penn State go to a federation of independent colleges. Until we choose one path or another, the problem will continue. Some set of procedures or mechanism is desired through which units and locations can work out differences about majors and options to avoid negotiating within a void of curricular authority.
• Communication across the system since reorganization is more difficult. Ensuring communication should to be part of someone’s responsibility in each unit, and the university should contribute resources.
• Some University Park departments invite system-wide faculty to attend a half or full day meeting each year. Some faculty feel more contact is needed to build a scholarly community.
• Some majors are still being coordinated very successfully across locations. In some cases, University Park supports shared majors by offering World Campus courses for locations that do not have enough resources to offer a class required in the major sequence. When courses in the major sequence at locations are cancelled because of declining enrollments, they see it as a punishment to collaboration.
• The curricular approval process is very time-consuming and convoluted. Some review committees adopt a very literal interpretation of course requirements and demand revisions as narrow as adding another exam to the course. If faculty judgment on proposed courses was trusted, then the curriculum might be more up-to-date because faculty would be more receptive to the process.

• Higher scoring students entering the University tend to enroll at the University Park location. One unit reported University Park student SAT scores as 150 points on average above students entering at other locations.
• Some suggest that economy of scale effects occur at locations that do not have enough students or resources to offer the full range of course options to support student learning.
• Some suggest that students today are not as well prepared as ten years ago.
• Some believe FTCAP cut scores are being lowered, or changed differentially by location, and others believe that the single placement policies of the system are being upheld.

• The Honors College should have a fully funded instructional budget and hire faculty to teach honor’s classes in order to remedy the current situation of an unfunded mandate in which departments pay for the majority of costs for honors courses.
• Faculty hires are not keeping up with enrollment increases.
• Class sizes have increased significantly for some units, and faculty believe they must lower the instructional quality, especially in the area of assessment with more qualitative formats. Some accreditation agencies prescribe lower class sizes.
• More faculty are being hired on fixed-term contracts, but it is not always easy to find a qualified adjunct to teach four or five classes each semester. Some see a healthy balance of 75 percent tenure track and the rest multi-year fixed-term.
• In some units as many as three-fourths of the 400 level courses are taught by graduate teaching assistants so tenure line faculty can teach the general education classes. Students are concerned that some of the core classes in their major are assigned to visiting faculty or graduate students and not the major faculty members.
• Graduate students would like more graduate level classes from major faculty.
• Consider changing the calendar to have two semesters of equal length so courses can be consistent each semester.
• Need solutions to massive amounts of spam and virus infected email. Faculty find it difficult to receive adequate technical support to resolve desktop computing problems.

• In public judicial and unionized arbitration cases, the definition of a misdeed is part of the public record, therefore becomes part of the community understanding of appropriate standards of conduct.
• In the privatized situation of this University regarding personnel actions, details are unavailable to help faculty understand the standard of “grave misconduct” and its relationship to their own actions, creating a chilly climate.
• Conflicts should be resolved earlier to avoid escalation to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. It would be useful to know how other conflicts were resolved in the past without rising to the level of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure.
• A civil injunction to bar a person engaged in disruptive behavior may be a more appropriate way of dealing with a situation, rather than resorting to the use of tenure to control faculty behavior.
• The granting of tenure requires a series of peer review committees, so the revoking of tenure should require an equally rigorous series of due process reviews.

• The background check policy may be an overreaction to the summer 2003 case of Dr. Krueger.
• Good candidates may choose other institutions as a matter of principle.
• Data does not exist to support the assumption that felonies should be a matter of concern among University faculty.
• The information held by a private company and at Penn State may not remain secure.
• Administrators do not believe that the policy has yet had a chilling effect on hiring this spring.
• The self-disclosure forms are sent with materials to the final candidate and are returned directly to Human Resources.

Appendix L

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Status of Construction
At Locations Other Than University Park

(Informational)

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

Recently Completed Project:

• Administration Building, Penn State Beaver

Projects under Construction:

• Research and Economic Development Building (REDC), Penn State Erie
• Multipurpose Building, Penn State Fayette
• Classroom Building, Penn State Altoona
• Library and Performing Arts Center, Penn State York

Project in Design:

• Charles T. Butler Teaching and Learning Resource Center, Penn State Hazleton

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
P. Richard Althouse
Edward W. Bittner
John P. Boehmer, Vice-Chair
Dan T. Brinker
M. Toni DuPont-Morales
David S. Gilmour
Daniel R. Hagen, Chair
Judith E. Hupcey
Kenneth B. Kephart
Rodney Kirsch
Sukyoung Lee
Joy M. Perrine
Scott Rhoads
Paula J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Gary C. Schultz
Timothy W. Simpson
Edward C. Smith
Alexandra Sullivan
John M. Stevens
Paul J. Tikalsky
Brian B. Tormey
Stacy Wessel

Members Present: C. D. Baggett, C. Bise, R. Burgess, W. Curtis, T. DeCastro, P. Deines,
R. Erickson, E. Farmer for D. Evensen, T. Glumac, D. Gouran, P. Jurs, A. Leure-duPree,
R. McCarty, J. Moore, J. Myers, J. Landa Pytel, P. Rebane, A. Romberger, H. Sachs, A. Scaroni, J. Smith, K. Sommese, J. Spychalski, K. Steiner, M. Su

Members Absent/Accounted For: J. Esposito, G. Spanier

Guests/ Others: G. Catchen, G. Franz, J. Jacobs, T. Jones, K. Kephart, S. Kretchmar, S. McCorkle, A. Mueller, P. Poorman, D. Richards, J. Romano, R. Secor, B. Wiens-Tuers, S. Youtz

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Christopher J. Bise called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 16, 2004

The minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting were approved following a suggested clarification by M. Su.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Announcements by Chair Bise:

• The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on April 13. The following items were discussed: Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Search, GI Requirement, Background Checks Legislation, Budget Update. The next meeting is scheduled for August 24.
• Acknowledged the contributions of all Councilors and recognized those not returning for the 2004-2005 year: Connie Baggett, Robert Burgess, Travis DeCastro, Peter Deines, Jackie Esposito, Alphonse Leure-duPree, Peter Rebane, and Alan Scaroni.
• Announced that this was Bob Secor’s last Senate Council meeting before he retires. Chair Bise commented on Bob’s many years of service to the Senate, his contributions to the welfare of all University faculty, and wished him well.
• Noted that the Faculty Affairs report in the Council Agenda entitled Evaluating Faculty Performance for Promotion and Tenure was withdrawn.
• Reported on a meeting held the week of April 5 that brought together the Senate Officers, the chairs of the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Committees and Rules, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and the University Ombudsman. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate discussion related to some of the process, policy, and procedural concerns that have arisen as a result of the Altoona College tenure revocation decision. The Officers will plan a strategy for furthering this discussion through committee charges and identifying mechanisms for providing greater clarity specific to the roles and responsibilities of the tenure-linked committees.

Immediate Past Chair Moore announced that today was the last Senate Council meeting that Chris Bise would chair. He thanked Chris for his leadership and hard work on behalf of the Senate.

Comments by the Executive Vice President and Provost:

Provost Erickson commented that there was nothing new to report on budget deliberations and that he expects to see some General Assembly activity later in the spring. The University budget officers continue to work on different budget scenarios related to salary increases in the face of the rising costs of benefits. Dr. Erickson observed that deferred maintenance continues to be a major issue for the University as well as avoiding major tuition increases.

The Provost reported that University administrators continue to work with Rep. Matthew Ryan, who is sponsoring criminal background check legislation. Dr. Erickson is optimistic that Penn State’s recently implemented background check policies will be fully integrated into Rep. Ryan’s legislation. Dr. Erickson noted that there have been two cases this spring of potential faculty hires where academic credentials and publication citations were falsified and were uncovered through the background check process.

Dr. Erickson announced that discussions about a potential relocation of the Dickinson School of Law to University Park continue, noting that he and the President have visited with faculty, staff and students at the law school to keep channels of communication open. He also commented that any relocation decision would be made by the law school Board of Governors.

University Ombudsman Presentation:

David P. Gold, Emeritus Professor of Geology, presented a biennial report on his work as the University Ombudsman and the results of a survey of ombudsmen at all University Park and campus locations. Professor Gold also encouraged the Senate Officers and Senate to address four recommendations. The full report is appended to these minutes. Council members asked several questions of Dr. Gold including information about the need for including an historical context of the report as well as interpretive comments on the current data which reflect an increased use of ombudsmen across all University location. Other Councilors asked Dr. Gold about training, orientation and networking opportunities for ombudsmen and if there is a “position description” for Ombudsmen. See Policy HR 76 Faculty Rights and Responsibilities at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr76.html for additional information.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

No report.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 27, 2004

Forensic Business
None

Legislative Reports

Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education — Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement. This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Sachs motion. The chair of the Conference Committee, John Moore, provided an overview of the Intercultural/International requirement and gave some history of its evolution. Professor Moore announced several editorial revisions and accepted an alternative to the phrase, “continuous assessment.” Dr. Moore then responded to questions about implementation, including mechanisms for designating a section of a course as U.S. or International Cultures and the locus of responsibility of assigning designations to existing courses.

Intercollegiate Athletics — Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Su/Baggett motion. Scott Kretchmar, the Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA commented on the proposed revisions.

Advisory and Consultative
None

Informational Reports

Faculty Affairs — Promotion and Tenure Summary 2002-2003. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Spychalski /Sachs motion. Vice Provost Secor will make comments. Five minutes was allocated for this report.

Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits — Paid Parental Leave for Faculty. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Glumac/DeCastro motion. Vice Provost Secor made brief comments on the improvements in this policy and responded to questions about implementation. A Councilor noted that these revisions are currently being implemented in some colleges and that the policy revision will now standardize practices across the University. A question was asked if the funding for the revisions to this policy would pose difficulty for the colleges. Dr. Secor commented that the deans were supportive of the policy revision. Ten minutes was allocated for this report that will be presented by Vice Provost Secor.

Faculty Benefits — Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2003-2004. This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Su motion. Several Councilors asked questions about discrepancies noted in the Cost of Living tables in the two reports on faculty salaries. Chair-elect Steiner asked for additional information or a web link included in both reports to add greater clarity and explain the cost of Living Tables. Vice Chair Gary Catchen responded to these questions and requests for additional interpretation in the report. Some Councilors observed that previous reports included analysis, interpretation and on some occasions recommendations. For future salary reports, the Senate Chair was urged to charge the Faculty Benefits committee to take a deeper and more interpretive examination of the salary data. Five minutes was allocated for this report.

Intra-University Relations — Report on Salary Equity, Academic Year 2003-2004. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Farmer/Glumac motion. Minor editorial revisions were offered to committee members. Five minutes was allocated for this report.

Intra-University Relations — Trends and Patterns in the Use of Full and Part-Time Fixed-Term Faculty. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Romberger /Scaroni motion. Ten minutes was allocated for this report.

Senate Council — Summary of Spring 2004 Officers’ University Park Visits. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Burgess motion. Councilors asked questions regarding any conclusions that could be drawn from the report and how identified issues or concerns would be referred to committees. Another Councilor suggested the need for additional context for the comments provided in the report, i.e., the number of times a particular issue was addressed. Secretary Myers suggested that a table could be prepared to document the follow-up by Senate committees. Five minutes was allocated for this report.

University Planning — Status of Construction at Campus College Locations. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Sachs/McCarty motion. Ten minutes was allocated for this report.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR APRIL 27, 2004

The Agenda was approved on a Jurs /DeCastro motion. Two reports (Intercollegiate Athletics and the revision to the representation ratio in the Senate Constitution) are carried over from the March 16 Senate Agenda.

ACTION ITEMS

Revision of the College of Medicine Constitution. Jamie Myers provided a summary of changes to the College of Medicine constitution. On a Romberger/Spychalski motion the constitutional amendments were ratified.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion of 2004-2005 Committee Charges, Chair-Elect Kim Steiner. Chair-Elect Steiner began the discussion by summarizing his reactions to this year’s campus and college visits by the Senate Officers, noting three themes that emerged at each visit: course integrity; disciplinary unity; and curricular integration. He noted that many of the concerns related to the three themes have surfaced as a result of the reorganization of the University, the creation of new campus colleges, and the growing number of new degree programs. Professor Steiner noted that faculty at University Park and campus colleges have commented on feelings of estrangement from their disciplinary colleagues. Some Council members commented that a special committee with representation from the Senate and administration be charged to study the issue. A Councilor observed that the committee charge should be, “not how we cure curricular drift, but what are the boundaries and parameters in which we work to identify solutions to a growing concern.”

It was observed that campuses now have greater autonomy then ever before and that this cannot be jeopardized. In response to the previous comment, a Councilor noted, “the time has come to re-evaluate the University—who we are and what we have become.”

Another Councilor commented on the increasing online presence at the University with the World Campus and e-education initiatives developing University-wide and how these changes raise questions about intellectual property, receiving credit for the generation of student credit hours and other related issues.

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Chair Bise thanked Council members for their attendance and participation and adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary

OMBUDSMAN REPORT
Presentation to Senate Council
April 13, 2004

One of the functions of the University Ombudsman is to present an oral report to Senate Council every 2 years; on an even year cycle. A copy of the report summarizing the number of cases, the nature of the grievances, and general trends is presented as a floor handout. An Ombudsman Workshop is held at the end of the Spring semester, on an odd-year cycle. The last workshop was held on April 24, 2003. Copies of the workshop notes are presented to each ombudsman. Copies are on file in the Senate Office.

King Charles XII of Sweden established the position of Ombudsman in 1713 to act as a filter between big government and the people to facilitate the resolution of grievances. This “office” is symbolic of a willingness to make a system work in a collegial manner. The Ombudsman has no power, and if the parties are entrenched or polarized then the role of the ombudsman is moot. In the University setting there is no release time for the elected representatives; for most, the ombudsman position is an add-on burden.

The ombudsman has to be a good listener and be able to identify the key issues, shorn of the emotional shell that normally triggers the complaint. Sometimes this may be sufficient to defuse the situation. The role of the ombudsman becomes one of getting both parties to address these issues. A resolution of the grievance is then possible. The Campus Ombudsmen have been effective in providing a sounding board for faculty and administrators alike. (See Tables 1 and 2)

I would appreciate the University Faculty Senate address the following:

1. The Ombudsman role normally and traditionally has been reactive. There has been an increasing demand to play a more proactive role, by being present as a third party at a private conference. I recommend the Senate research this expanding role of Ombudsman at other universities, particularly at our sister institutions in the CIC.

2. If the administration and faculty of a college or unit do not intend to treat the Ombudsman’s role seriously, then this service should be suspended. I recommend a mechanism be developed for placing the college or campus unit on probation should the Ombudsman become marginalized. Reinstatement would follow a satisfactory appeal to a board of enquiry, such as FR&R.

3. The perception that the ombudsman is a faculty advocate should and must be dispelled. This perception arises from the high proportion of cases that pit a faculty member against an administrator. Too little use has been made of the “good office” of the Ombudsman by the administration.

4. I recommend that the Ombudsman Workshop be held annually at the start of the Fall Semester, to better establish the network and provide the necessary training for newly elected officers.

David P. Gold, University Ombudsman
Emeritus Professor of Geology

GENERAL SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES FOR ACADEMIC YEARS 2002-2004

Table 1
NATURE OF GRIEVANCES – April, 2004
(Responses from 31 of 32 units, plus University Ombudsman)

Most disputes are between a faculty member and department head/ supervisor. (20+ cases)

*CASES: Number of cases referred to ombudsman

*RESOLVED: Cases resolved by ombudsman and/or Dean level

*FR&R: Cases referred to Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, or to Affirmative Action Office (Af/Act)

A number of cases are reported without identifying the issues.

Note: a large number of inquiries are defused before developing into cases.

Table 2
SUMMARY OF NATURE OF GRIEVANCES
(Responses from 29 of 32 units, plus University Ombudsman – April 2003)

ISSUE(S) CASES PENDING

Tenure 3 1
(Early Tenure) 2 1
Salary/equity 2
Reassignment/reinstatement/reappointment 4
Rights of FT1 faculty 2
Teaching assignments and schedule 5
Performance evaluations 1
Release time 1
Unwanted physical contact/gender discrimination
Unfriendly work place 5
Unsupportive administration 1
Denigrated contribution 1
Disrespectful faculty (to staff) 3
Collegiality (intra-faculty disputes) 1
Hiring decisions 1
Unauthorized use of office 1
Unspecified “chain of command”/insensitivity 5
General: performance, inequity, ethics, collegiality,
unfair treatment, etc. 8

Total 47 2

COLLEGE/UNIT OMBUDSMAN
2003-2004

Date: April 15, 2004

To: All Senators and Committee Members

From: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary

Following is the time and location of all Senate meetings for April 26 and 27. Please notify the Senate Office and committee chair if you are unable to attend.

Monday, April 26, 2004

Tuesday, April 27, 2004