Penn State University Home  

 

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 1:30 PM in

112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office
at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be
done after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can
be heard concerning the status of any meeting. You may also leave a message at that time.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the March 30, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 32:6

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
of April 19, 1999

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 13, 1999

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

(H.) LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

Senate Council

Resolution for Provost John A. Brighton

WHEREAS John A. Brighton has served The Pennsylvania State University since July 1, 1991 as the Executive Vice President and Provost with honor and distinction, and

WHEREAS John A. Brighton served as the Dean of the College of Engineering with creativity and vision from 1988 until 1991, and

WHEREAS John A. Brighton has served Penn State as an Assistant, Associate, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering from 1963 to 1965, and

WHEREAS John A. Brighton, as both Provost and Dean, has continuously worked to enhance the general welfare of the faculty by providing wise and enlightened guidance to the University Faculty Senate, and

WHEREAS John A. Brighton has been a firm believer in the principle of shared governance of this University and has developed close professional and personal ties with many of the faculty, and

WHEREAS John A. Brighton has provided extraordinary leadership, setting by his own example a quest for excellence in the academic community as a whole, and

WHEREAS he is a revered colleague and friend, a man of integrity, vision, and principle, who is universally admired, respected and trusted,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on this 27th day of April, 1999, expresses its gratitude to John A. Brighton for all of his accomplishments on behalf of the institution and its faculty, and affectionately wishes him Godspeed as he moves to other duties as University Professor.

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -

Student Life

Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity (Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE
Procedure G-9)

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

Committees and Rules

Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d)

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS – (continued)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Revision of Policy 51-50 -- Cumulative Grade Point Average

Committees and Rules

Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 4 [5(d)]

Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Senate Committee Structure

University Planning

A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign (Oral Informational)

Senate Council

Resolution in Support of A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign

WHEREAS "A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign" is being officially initiated as of April 1999, and

WHEREAS this philanthropic effort on behalf of our institution has a campaign objective of $1 billion, and

WHEREAS there is $388 million being projected for "Ongoing Support" and $612 million being projected for "Featured Objectives" such as Undergraduate Student Support, Graduate Student Support, Program Support and Faculty Support, and

WHEREAS it is a part of the mission of the faculty to foster in our students those qualities of intellectual curiosity, seriousness of purpose, civility, and civic responsibility, and

WHEREAS it is the mission of the University to extend high-quality teaching in a wide array of undergraduate and graduate programs in the arts, humanities, and sciences, as well as a balanced offering of programs in professional and technical disciplines, and

WHEREAS our goal is for Penn State to be the top institution in the United States in the integration of teaching, research, and service, and

WHEREAS "There are moments in the lives of educational institutions when mission, heritage, quality, and aspirations combine to create an almost irresistible momentum toward national and even global leadership,"

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The University Faculty Senate, which represents the faculty of Penn State, strongly expresses its endorsement on behalf of "A Grand Destiny: The

Penn State Campaign" and urges the members of the faculty to support this campaign with their time, efforts, talents and material gifts.

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

Faculty Affairs

Revision of Policy HR-13: Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty

Faculty Benefits

Parking Facility Financing and Vehicle Registration Policy

Faculty Salary Report

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Faculty Affairs

Report on Promotion and Tenure Recommendations and Decisions in 1997-98

General Education Implementation Committee

Skills

Final Report

Student Life

Student Services at Commonwealth Locations: Mental and Physical Health

University Planning

Construction Programs Status Report

Task Force on Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures

Report of Senate Elections

Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 1999-2000
Senate Chair-Elect for 1999-2000

Comments by Outgoing Chair Berkowitz

Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Nelson

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -

-----------------

Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-0221 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

Date: April 16, 1999

To: Leonard Berkowitz, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated April 19, 1999, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before May 20, 1999.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies were not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.

The Bachelor of Arts Requirements Subcommittee recommended and the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs endorsed the following change to the description of "Other Cultures" courses in the Baccalaureate Degree Programs Bulletin. The revised description shall read:

"Other Cultures (3 credits) (Note: Other Cultures requirement may not be double counted with the Intercultural and International Competence requirement. Further, the Other Cultures requirement must be fulfilled by courses which are focused on Non-Western cultures.)"

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity:

Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9

(Forensic)

INTRODUCTION

The following report recommends a substantial revision of Penn State University's definition of academic integrity and its procedure for handling allegations of academic dishonesty. It is based on several years of internal study and consultation with university lawyers, administrators, students, and faculty.

For some time the existing policy has been criticized as ineffective. Many faculty members are reluctant to sanction students for acts of dishonesty, feeling that the complicated process asks them to take on a prosecutorial role that they do not feel qualified or willing to adopt in addition to their other duties. Many students feel that the university sends a mixed message about integrity, giving it lip service but in fact enforcing it randomly. Anecdotal reports claim that cheating is widespread, but it is in fact impossible to tell how common it is.

Therefore, all parties have called for an overhaul of the policy. However, revisions will affect faculty and students at all locations. Just sanctions for academic misconduct need to be balanced with students' right to explain their actions and contest accusations when appropriate. Ultimately, the policy should create dialogue between students and faculty, and operate in a context of education, not retribution.

The present report includes the best advice received so far through consultation. But the Student Life Committee believes that the proposals can be further improved through system-wide input from faculty. We therefore present the following draft report, soliciting comments and suggestions. The report will be resubmitted to the Senate next September for a final vote.

HISTORY

On June 12, 1996 a report was forwarded from the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group, chaired by Vice Provost, Dr. Robert Secor, to President Graham Spanier. The report outlined fifteen change recommendations for the University's discipline program.

Several of the report recommendations encouraged the Colleges and the Office of Judicial Affairs to take more of a leadership role in responding to academic integrity and related issues. In particular, the report recommended that "Academic dishonesty cases should be handled through the Colleges, with perhaps some involvement by the Faculty Senate and Student Affairs administrators to insure procedural consistency across the University, regardless of where the offense occurred."

After the recommendations were forwarded to the ACUE Deans, discussions took place, which showed lack of support for decentralizing the process for responding to academic misconduct. This being evident, the working group looked for other options for addressing these issues. One option was to ask the University Faculty Senate Student Life Committee to establish a Subcommittee on Academic Integrity.

In Fall 1996 this group was formed, with Dr. Tom Eakin, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs as chair. Dr. Eakin led this group for a year until leaving the University; in Spring 1998, Joseph Puzycki, Director of Judicial Affairs, replaced him as chair.

Senate Council directed Student Life to provide the Faculty Senate with a report and recommendations regarding the following five charges:

After discussions with Dean Achterberg, the committee agreed to proceed with its conclusions under the first three charges, while deferring an advisory and consultative report on the last two pending the CADs Committee final report in May. This report will be submitted to Senate along with the final version of this legislative report in September 1999.

BACKGROUND

Senate Policy 49-20 presents a definition of academic integrity, along with a general description of the procedure to be followed in case of misconduct. ACUE Procedure G-9 also describes a process for dealing with cases of alleged infractions. These statements, however, contradict each other, are internally inconsistent, and confuse both the student accused of dishonesty and to the faculty member making the accusation. As best can be understood, both from the policy language and the way in which it has been implemented over the past years, this appears to be the gist of current policy:

I. The Accusation.

The faculty member accuses the student of misconduct orally or in writing and decides if the infraction is major or minor. Following current Senate policy, "minor" infractions are those that receive a sanction of less than failure in the course; "major" infractions merit failure in the course and possible disciplinary sanctions.

Note: the faculty member is not required to meet with the student in making such accusations, and there is no standard procedure for informing students of their rights under current University policies.

II. Minor Incidents.

If the student does not contest the accusation:

the faculty member may settle the matter informally by imposing an academic sanction. In so doing, informal discussions may occur with other College/Campus officials who recommend academic action to the instructor.

Note: No consistent procedure seems to be followed and no record keeping occurs when handled in this way.

If the student does contest the accusation:

Senate Policy 49-20 advises him/her to "seek redress" through informal discussions with the faculty member, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. A College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity may become involved in these discussions.

Note: the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity can only recommend an action; it has no authority to resolve such cases.

Although not likely, the student or faculty member may refer the incident to Judicial Affairs, which does have power to resolve the case. However, the faculty member may challenge Judicial Affairs' decision and request an academic sanction review by the department. And the student may challenge any decision by appealing the grade at the end of the semester.

III. Major Incidents.

If the student does not contest the accusation:

The faculty member informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or DAA what action is to be taken: to assign an F or to assign a DF grade and refer to Judicial Affairs for disciplinary action.

Note: unless the incident is referred to Judicial Affairs, no consistent procedure seems to be followed, and no record keeping or documentation occurs.

If the faculty member refers the case to Judicial Affairs, he/she provides a written allegation and supporting documentation. The student can then accept the proposed sanction or request a hearing. If the student accepts the sanction, the College or Campus is informed of the outcome and a record is kept. If the faculty member is not satisfied by this outcome, he/she may challenge the recommendation and request an academic sanction by the department.

If the student requests a hearing, all parties are brought together for fact finding. If the student is found responsible, Judicial Affairs assigns a sanction and informs the College. The College or Campus may either accept the outcome or request a review of the academic sanction by the department.

If the student does contest the accusation:

The faculty member, as before, sends a memo to the Office of the University Registrar and to the department head or DAA stating that the student should be given a DF as grade and not allowed to drop the course. The student first seeks redress locally through discussions or petitions to the faculty member, department head, Dean or Director of Academic Affairs, or Committee on Academic Dishonesty.

Note: as seen before, the Committee has no power to resolve such cases.

If efforts to resolve the matter locally do not succeed, the student must be afforded formal due process rights, and typically the case will be referred to Judicial Affairs. Judicial Affairs contacts both the faculty member and the student to confirm their positions. It then reviews the nature of the accusations, the evidence, and the recommended sanction.

If the student at this point decides not to contest the accusation:

Judicial Affairs may recommend a sanction in an informal Disciplinary Conference. If the student accepts this sanction, the case is closed, unless the faculty member contests this resolution, in which case it returns to the department for review.

If the student continues to contest the accusation:

Judicial Affairs sends the case to the University Hearing Board who makes a determination and, if the student is found responsible, assigns an academic and/or disciplinary sanction. As before, the faculty member may challenge an academic sanction and request a review by the department. And the student may, as before, appeal the grade at the end of the semester. However, any disciplinary sanction imposed by Judicial Affairs stands.

IV. Record Keeping.

Under present policy, a College/Campus may presently ask Judicial Affairs if it has a record of a previous act of dishonesty committed by a student. This information may not be used to judge the student’s guilt in the present case, but it may be used to determine case direction and sanctions.

However, this policy is ineffective, as in 1997-98 only seven cases of academic dishonesty were brought to the attention of Judicial Affairs. Clearly, most cases are being settled informally or at the College/Campus level, with no consistent policy on keeping or sharing records.

CONCERNS AND GOALS

Consultation.During the last two years, information, input and feedback was collected formally and informally from various sources to direct the sub-committee’s efforts.

Documents:

Discussions:

 

Concerns Identified. Through such fact-finding, the Subcommittee identified the following concerns:

1. Consistency. Although the committee believes it is everyone's interest that most academic misconduct be resolved informally (between the student and the faculty member), we recognize that there are potential problems when this occurs. When any complaint occurs and the complaint is managed informally, there is an inherent lack of consistency within the following:

a. How incidents are managed. This lack of consistency affects student's due process rights. From discussions, it is clear that faculty do not clearly understand the steps for initiating the current policy for handling academic misconduct. Many who do understand it believe it to be complicated and too cumbersome. Because of this, many faculty choose not to initiate the process.

b. Specific academic sanctions. There are no specific guidelines or standards for academic sanctions across the University, which raises the consistency issue. This inconsistency affects fairness and the promise we have made to students to apply just punishment.

In the University Student Discipline System, when nonacademic sanctions are applied, similar behaviors yield similar outcomes. In cases that have been handled in the colleges, it has been suggested that it is not uncommon for two students who exhibit similar misconduct to be responded to very differently. One instructor may assign a failing grade for a course and another instructor may assign a failing grade for the assignment, not the course.

If there is a lack of guidelines and precedent followed, treatment of students from academic departments to department or college to college will differ greatly. This is not to suggest that we need to treat students exactly the same, but once all the facts are known, we must respond to students equally and justly.

c. Willingness to sanction misconduct. Faculty do not typically believe it is worth the trouble to formally report incidents of academic misconduct. Some do not have the time to "figure out how it all works" or they simply do not believe it is worth the effort. The Judicial process is often viewed as too laborious, and faculty are not confident that the sanctions applied will be appropriate for the misconduct. Many feel re-victimized by the process.

Often, faculty feel they need legal expertise to understand the present policy, and worry that if they initiate the sanctioning process, they will open themselves to litigation. (In fact, University lawyers have advised, litigation is a much likelier outcome when faculty do not follow standard procedures and settle misconduct cases in an individualized ad hoc fashion.)

Also, it was reported that with the rising incidents of violence and disruption in the classroom, many faculty fear physical retribution from angry or irrational students.

For all the above reasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that many faculty simply overlook probable cases of cheating or handle detected cases in a token way that does not deter students guilty of dishonest behavior from engaging in the same misconduct over and over.

2. Record Keeping. Currently, there is no standard practice for tracking cases or creating student discipline records related to academic misconduct when resolved at the College or Campus level. Some individual Colleges maintain records within respective departments, but others do not. Students enroll in classes across different programs and communication and access to accurate information from program to program or within each College is difficult and in most cases, non-existent.

There is no consistent reporting of incidents to the registrar or Judicial Affairs; therefore, academic dishonesty information concerning individual students is not available from a central source. If the college or campus wants a student to receive a formal disciplinary sanction, as well as an academic sanction, it may refer an incident of misconduct to Judicial Affairs, but this rarely occurs. In 1997-98, only seven cases were so referred. The lack of tracking behavior and record keeping limits the University's ability to:

3. Due Process. In any other violation of the University Code of Conduct, such as cases of assault, theft, and alcohol abuse, the University Hearing Board will apply the consistent tests and measures regarding evidence in order to provide students with due process. In academic dishonesty cases, students ought to be afforded similar safeguards. With the present process this does not always happen.

So long as the faculty member defines the case as "minor" and assigns a penalty less than failure in the course, students are told of no formal recourse outside of informally "seeking redress" from persons or groups at the campus, department, or college level. There is no set procedure, furthermore, for informing students about the academic integrity policy.

Even with "major" cases, due process is not guaranteed unless Judicial Affairs becomes involved.

4. Lack of Education and Stated Expectations. Students voice concerns that there is no consistency in regard to what faculty expects of them in the classroom. Students find that the University has not clearly articulated the shared norms and values related to academic integrity or other scholarship needed to lessen the confusion as to what it really means to embody academic integrity at Penn State.

Given the continuum of unfair behaviors, academic misconduct is not easily defined. Students perceive that the definition of cheating varies greatly from faculty member to faculty member. Many expressed a need for more communication on these issues.

Currently, how students are educated on these issues varies greatly within the colleges and with specific faculty members. Some faculty members never mention these issues in class and others spend a whole class period on integrity issues. Depending upon course content and time available, efforts to set clear expectations and engage students in critical thinking exercises about academic integrity issues may never occur. In general, faculty and students are confused as to what the University process entails when a student has been accused of cheating.

There has been no comprehensive approach to educate students, faculty and staff in regard to academic integrity issues. Across the University, we are not collaborative in our efforts to proactively and systematically educated and/or utilize resources.

Past efforts have been limited in coordination of applied programs for establishing an academic culture that supports the virtues and ethical standards we would come to expect in the classroom and outside in the student communities of Penn State.

Goals. Through discussions, the following goals were identified to provide solutions to the problems identified:

  1. A Less Complicated Process: the process for managing incidents of academic dishonesty needs to be simplified. The proposed process is an effort to be less cumbersome and confusing. 
  2. Fairness and Due Process: the process should incorporate a standard practice that affords students the required due process and also includes opportunity for individual professional judgement to be used when deciding a course of action.
  3. Student Education: not only should students be educated on the process, but faculty and staff should also take the opportunity to discuss with students their understanding of academic integrity issues.
  4. Record Keeping: the process should allow the opportunity for:
  1. recording incidents,
  2. tracking individual and group student behaviors,
  3. monitoring responses within each college and across the University, and
  4. allowing the colleges and individual faculty the ability to access past academic misconduct of students in order to apply appropriate sanctions for violations.
  5. Just Sanctions: the University should be able to respond fairly to students for like behaviors.  With direction from the office of Judicial Affairs and with input from the faculty and academic administrators, colleges should develop guidelines for decision-making and develop better sanctioning guidelines for responding to academic misconduct.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS

I.  Definition of Academic Integrity.The Subcommittee thought that the University statement of academic integrity should be positive, not negative in construction. The revision should link the definition to the University's four essential values that are stated in the University Student Code of Conduct. The Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules: Rights and Responsibilities of Community Living (1998-1999) defines these as:

    1. personal and academic integrity,
    2. respect for the dignity of all persons and a willingness to learn from the differences in people, ideas, and opinions.
    3. respect for the rights, property and safety of others, and
    4. concern for others and their feelings and their need for conditions that support an environment where they can work, grow, and succeed at Penn State.

As before, the definition should include a list of student behaviors that clearly articulate those actions that fall into the realm of academic misconduct and University Code of Conduct violations. But this list needs to be clarified and updated to include a number of practices that reflect new concerns such as abuse of collaborative learning opportunities and misuse of Internet information.

While the present policy asks instructors to provide clarifications of their personal definitions of academic integrity, it does not make it clear in what form this should be provided. The Subcommittee felt that this clarification should be provided in both written and oral form, and should include opportunity for students to respond to or ask for further clarification of these course policies. A common excuse provided by students is that they were not aware that a certain action was a breach of academic integrity; this policy would reduce such acts of inadvertent dishonesty.

II. THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY CONFERENCE. In every case, when an incident occurs, the faculty member should meet with the student in a College Academic Integrity Conference. In this conference, the student should be

  1. informed that he/she should be being accused of academic dishonesty,
  2. given a chance to respond to the allegations,
  3. informed of his/her rights, and
  4. told the College or Campus procedures for handling such cases.

As in the present policy, the faculty member would choose whether to pursue the matter further and decide what the appropriate level of sanctions should be. However, this conference could also serve as a "teachable moment" in which the instructor could clarify his/her definition of integrity, and the student could respond with his/her understanding of the act in question. If this dialogue serves to clear the air, and the faculty member is satisfied that the matter was a misunderstanding, this conference could conclude the process with no sanction or further records.

However, in more serious cases, the conference should serve as an opportunity for both faculty and student to review their rights and responsibilities in the sanctioning process. Students should know that they have rights even in minor cases and should know what the appeal process involves. Under the present policy, a faculty member can simply assign an "F" to a paper and notify the student only in writing. This procedure may confuse students and in any case does not allow for the possibility of a misunderstanding. No sanction, however minor, should be imposed in a way that leaves students without an opportunity to respond to the allegation in person or challenge the proposed sanction.

III. MINOR INCIDENTS. The Committee felt that "minor" should indicate all cases when the faculty member feels that the infraction deserves an academic sanction less than an "F" for the course and the College/Campus does not want to pursue formal disciplinary action. Such cases should be decided at the local level only.

If the student did not contest the accusations and accepted the sanction, then the faculty member would have the student sign an academic conduct disposition form accepting responsibility for the misconduct and the academic sanction offered. [Judicial Affairs has devised such a form; or one may be created by Colleges or Campuses.] This information would then be sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of a student file, and Judicial Affairs would close the case as being handled according to College/Campus procedures.

If the student contested the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then he or she would indicate this decision on the academic conduct disposition form. This information would be forwarded to the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity, who would have final judgment over responsibility and the sanction. (In the absence of such a Committee, the Department Chair or Campus Director of Academic Affairs would settle such cases.)

IV.MODERATE INCIDENTS. The Committee suggests that this new category be created for cases in which infractions do yield an academic sanction of "F" for the course but the College/Campus does not want to pursue formal disciplinary action. At present, such cases are classed under the "major" category, but the policy distinguishes two different courses of action for these cases and those in which disciplinary action is considered. Creating this category therefore is not a policy change but a clarification that reflects current practice.

In such cases, the faculty member and the student would meet in an Academic Integrity Conference, during which the student would be told that the proposed sanction is failure in the course and that he/she may not drop the class.

If the student did not contest the accusations and accepts the sanction, the process would be the same as with a Minor Incident. The faculty member would have the student sign the academic conduct disposition form, the information would then be sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of a student file, and Judicial Affairs would close the case as being handled according to College or Campus procedures.

If the student contested the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then information on the matter would be sent under cover letter to Judicial Affairs, and the College/Campus would assign a "DF" for the course, pending disposition of the case.

Judicial Affairs would meet with the student in an academic integrity conference, parallel to that held with the instructor. The student would be informed of the allegations, have a chance to respond, and be informed of his/her rights and about the University procedures for handling such cases.

If the student at this level did not contest the allegations and accepted the academic sanction of an "F" for the course, then the policy would mirror that for Minor Infractions. Judicial Affairs would have the student sign a conduct disposition form accepting responsibility and also accepting the academic and any disciplinary sanction. The College/Campus would be informed, and Judicial Affairs would create a student file and close the case as handled according to University procedures.

If the student still contested the accusations in the Judicial Affairs academic integrity conference or does not accept the academic sanction, then the case would be heard before a University Hearing Board. The Board would decide the outcome according to University procedures.

If found responsible and the disciplinary sanction is greater than deferred suspension, the student could then appeal the case to the Vice President of Student Affairs or to the Campus Executive Officer for final review of the disciplinary sanction. (This is currently not stated in the policy but existing case law indicates that such an appeal process is necessary.)

V.MAJOR INCIDENTS. The Committee recommends that this category be restricted to the very serious cases in which the instructor recommends an academic sanction of  "F" for the course and the College/Campus also wants to pursue formal disciplinary action.

During the College/Campus academic integrity conference the student would be told that the incident is being forwarded directly to Judicial Affairs for disciplinary review. Information on the case would be sent under cover letter to Judicial Affairs and the College/Campus would assign a "DF" for the course.

As before, Judicial Affairs would also meet with the student in an academic integrity conference. If the student at this level does not contest the accusations and accepts the sanction, the case would end in the same way as a Moderate Infraction. ;If the student continued to contest the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then the case would be heard before a University Hearing Board, as above, which would decide the outcome according to the same University procedures described above:

As before, if the student is found responsible and the disciplinary sanction is greater than deferred suspension, the student could appeal the case to the Vice President of Student Affairs or the Campus Executive Officer for review of the disciplinary sanction.

Note: The existing Senate Policy 49-20 made no effort to legislate which incidents of academic dishonesty are "minor" and which are "major." Similarly, the Student Life Committee does not wish to legislate any system-wide decisions on what is "minor," "moderate," or "major." Ultimately, this decision will continue to be made by the faculty member making the allegation in consultation with the College/Campus Academic Integrity Committees. However, these Committees should work collaboratively with students and faculty and with Judicial Affairs in creating precedent guidelines, so that similar infractions are sanctioned in similar ways.

VI. THE "XF" GRADE. As a final step in the revised procedure, the Student Life Committee recommends that any grade of "F" imposed as a result of an academic dishonesty procedure be designated on the student's transcript as "XF." According to J. James Wager, University Registrar, such a move would be easy to implement but may require a modest one-time cost (see "COSTING" below).

This is not a new University policy, however, but a move to make the result of academic dishonesty cases consistent with the result of all other disciplinary hearings. When a student is sanctioned for violating any other University policy, such as those on alcohol use, theft, assault, etc., a notation is placed on his or her transcript. This notation can be removed by carrying out some form of extracurricular activity intended to address the ethical issue involved. These include some form of public service, attendance at workshops, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Instituting an "XF" grade would provide for central record keeping for students prone to repeated acts of academic misconduct and make the outcome of such behavior consistent with the results of all other forms of misconduct.

The Student Life Committee does not feel that the specific procedure for removing the "XF" should be legislated centrally. Taking a course on ethics might be one option, if such a course were available at the relevant location. Such a decision ought to be under the purview of the Colleges or Campuses, which would have a clearer idea of what resources would be available or appropriate for their students.

In September, Student Life, in tandem with Dean Achterberg's CAD Committee on Academic Integrity, will present an advisory and consultative report including suggestions for a wide range of opportunities to educate students on the issues of ethical behavior. These can form the basis of College- and Campus-level decisions on how the student can remove an "XF" grade from his/her transcript.

VII. COSTING. Changes in the proposed policy will not add significant costs to the Judicial Affairs program. Initially, there will be a need for extra staff time to be put into the development of specific initiatives. An example of this would be the development of sanction ranges within each College or Campus or any educational program or class that we might have a student attend to remove an XF from his or her transcript.

Clearly, if a large number of academic dishonesty cases were detected, and if most students contested these allegations, some new costs would be incurred. However, the intent of the policy is to avoid as many acts of dishonesty as possible, and to continue to handle most of these informally at the College/Campus level. Therefore no major expenses in record-keeping or disciplinary action are foreseen.

Establishing the "XF" grade may incur a one-time expense in the Registrar's Office. Transcripts are printed on paper that includes various security features imbedded, and thus is rather expensive. This paper contains a printed explanation of special grades on the reverse side. When this policy is implemented, this office would need to order a new stock of this paper, adding a new legend to explain the meaning of "XF." This could cost several thousand dollars, but, depending on the timing of implementation, this expense could be absorbed in the regular cost of reordering the stock of transcript paper.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To implement the conclusions above, the Senate Committee on Student Life makes the following two recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION #1. That the definition of academic integrity (Senate Policy 49-20) be amended as follows:

EXISTING LANGUAGE:

49-20 Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from fraud and deception and is an educational objective of this institution. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students. At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide a statement clarifying the application of academic integrity criteria to that course. A student charged with academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the charge by the instructor. If students believe they have been falsely accused, they should seek redress through informal discussions with the instructor, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. If the instructor believes that the infraction is sufficiently serious to warrant referral of the case to Judicial Affairs, or if the instructor will award a final grade of F in the course because of the infraction, the student and instructor will be afforded formal due process.

PROPOSED REVISION (new or altered language is given in bold face)

49-20 Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from students' unfair advantage, fraud and deception. Academic integrity is an educational objective of Penn State and includes students' adherence to the values stated in the university's code that governs academic conduct. When accepted at Penn State, students accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the academic community and are expected to support the following essential values:

  1. personal and academic integrity,
  2. respect for the dignity of all persons and a willingness to learn from the differences in people, ideas, and opinions.
  3. respect for the rights, property and safety of others, and
  4. concern for others and their feelings and their need for conditions that support an environment where they can work, grow, and succeed at Penn State.

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to:

At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of each instructor to provide students with a written statement clarifying the specific application of academic integrity criteria to that course. In addition, each instructor should verbally engage students in dialogue concerning his or her specific expectations of academic integrity before the first quiz, exam, or similar evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION #2. that the process governing alleged infractions of academic integrity (ACUE Procedure G-9) be amended as follows:

EXISTING LANGUAGE:

Procedure

1. Committee on Academic Integrity. Each college dean/campus executive officer, and provost and dean of Penn State-Behrend and Penn State Harrisburg, shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions. The committee has no authority to impose sanctions. Its duties include (a) the communication of scholarly expectations to all members of the college or campus; (b) the promotion of attitudes and practices to fulfill these expectations; (c) the review of cases of academic dishonesty referred to it by faculty or students for consultation and recommendations to resolve the disputed case; and

(d) the referral of cases that are sufficiently severe to warrant disciplinary actions beyond academic sanction to Judicial Affairs for further review.

2. Distinction between Minor and Major Infractions. The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor and major infractions of academic integrity. Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Section 49-20 and are to be treated informally. Major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions.

3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions. Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board. They include warnings, probation, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or loss of privilege, and may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other misconduct.

4. For Minor Infractions. For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor and student should informally seek resolutions. Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.

5. For Major Infractions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions of academic integrity. The student accused of academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor.

If the allegations of academic dishonesty are not denied by the student, the instructor may impose academic sanctions or refer the allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs. The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.

a. A student charged with academic dishonesty will not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89, nor will the symbol W be reported for the course if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. By memo, the instructor informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: Assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review.

c. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for

possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation and any other supporting evidence.

If the student denies the allegations of academic dishonesty, the student is to be provided an explanation of the evidence in support of the allegations. If the student continues to deny the allegations, the instructor or the student may seek the services of other offices to help reach a resolution. The department head, the campus director of academic affairs, or the college or campus committee on academic integrity may be asked to review the evidence and positions and to recommend possible resolutions. Ultimately, either the instructor or the student may refer allegations to Judicial Affairs to bring formal academic dishonesty adjudication procedures into operation.

a. The instructor, by memo, should inform the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs that the student should be assigned a DF symbol for the course and that the student should not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89 nor be assigned a W symbol if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. The department head or campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken.

c. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Office of the University Registrar will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Office of the University Registrar to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the University registrar will again request a grade.

d. For all cases of academic dishonesty referred to it, Judicial Affairs is to determine the nature of the charges, evidence, and any recommended sanctions up to that point, and is to contact the instructor and student involved to confirm their positions. When appropriate, the office refers cases to the University Hearing Board.

E. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of major infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be used by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used only as a basis for deciding whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are removed when the student graduates.

f. The University Hearing Board is to adjudicate only those cases of academic dishonesty that cannot be resolved at the College/Campus level or for which a disciplinary sanction is recommended or required. The hearing board may recommend academic or disciplinary sanctions for acts of academic dishonesty.

g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcome of the formal adjudication procedures and what actions are recommended.

h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the University registrar: an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. If the instructor chooses some action other than that recommended by the hearing board, the student may appeal to the dean of the college in which the violation occurred. If not resolved at that level, the executive vice president and University provost shall make the final decision.

PROPOSED REVISION (new or altered language is given in bold face)

Procedure

1. Committee on Academic Integrity: Each University Park college dean and Executive Officer or Provost or Dean at other locations shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions.

The committee has authority for, but not limited to, the following:

    1. the communication of scholarly expectations to all members of the college or campus;
    2. the promotion of attitudes and practices to fulfill these expectations;
    3. collaborative work with the office of Judicial Affairs to establish violation ranges within the minor, moderate and major infractions and develop precedent sanction guidelines for responding to academic misconduct.
    4. Responsibility for review and final resolution of all disputed minor cases of academic dishonesty referred to it by faculty or students; and
    5. referral to Judicial Affairs of those moderate cases that are disputed and all major violations. Violations within the moderate and major are sufficiently severe that they may warrant disciplinary actions beyond academic sanction.

The department head or director of academic affairs at other locations may assume responsibility for items d and e in the committees absence.

2. Distinction Between Minor, Moderate, and Major Infractions: The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor, moderate, and major infractions of academic integrity.

Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Senate Policy 49-20 and are to be treated informally and resolved at the College/Campus level only.

Moderate and major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for only those moderate infractions that are contested and cannot be resolved between the student and faculty member, and to all major infractions. All major infractions will be directly referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs.

3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions: Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board (UHB). They include warnings, probation, deferred suspension, suspension for a specific period of time, indefinite suspension, expulsion, and/or special conditions for enrollment, and loss of privilege. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other student misconduct.

For Minor Infractions: For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor will discuss the incident with the student in an academic integrity conference. In this meeting, the faculty member and student should informally seek resolutions.

In the academic integrity conference, the student should be:

a) informed of the accusations,

b) given a chance to respond to the accusations, and

c) be informed of his/her rights and College/Campus procedures for handling such cases.

Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.

When the student meets with the faculty member, the student will be asked to sign an academic conduct disposition form indicating whether he/she accepts or contests the allegations and/or sanction.

If the student accepts responsibility for the misconduct, the conduct disposition with other appropriate documentation is sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of the student record. If a student contests an accusation of minor misconduct or the academic sanction imposed, the student can appeal to the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity, or in the absence of the committee, the Department Chair or Campus Director of Academic Affairs. For minor infractions, the decision of the committee, chair, or DAA is final.

At the conclusion of committee or department process the conduct disposition with other case materials is sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of the student record.

4. For Moderate Infractions. Formal due process procedures must apply for all moderate infractions that a student contests. The student accused of moderate acts of academic dishonesty as in minor incidents, will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor in an academic integrity conference. The faculty member should follow the procedures described in Section 4 above.

In moderate infraction cases, where the student does not deny the allegations of academic dishonesty, the instructor will impose academic sanctions in line with College/Campus sanctioning guidelines and procedures.

If the student contests the allegations, the case is forwarded directly to Judicial Affairs. When a case is reviewed in Judicial Affairs, the staff will determine the nature of the accusations, evidence, and any recommendations up to that point. The Judicial Affairs staff will meet with the student in a university discipline conference and try to resolve the matter informally. If the student accepts the accusations and sanction in the discipline conference Judicial Affairs will close the case according to university procedures. The outcome of Judicial Affairs, whether resolved in a discipline conference with staff or in a university hearing, is final pending any disciplinary sanction review.

Appeals will be heard by the Vice-President for Student Affairs or the Campus Executive Officer, and only in regard to disciplinary sanctions of deferred suspension or greater.

5. For Major Infractions: in all major infraction cases, the faculty member or College/Campus representative will meet with the student in an academic integrity conference but then must immediately refer the major allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs.

The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.

As in moderate cases that are contested, Judicial Affairs staff will meet with the student in a University Discipline Conference and try to resolve the matter informally.

If the student contests the accusations and/or sanction, Judicial Affairs will refer the case to the University Hearing Board who will decide the case according to university procedures. The decision of the University Hearing Board is final except in those cases where the student is found responsible, and the discipline sanction is deferred suspension or greater. In this case, as in contested moderate cases, the student has the right to appeal the disciplinary sanction to the Vice-President for Student or to the Campus Executive Officer.

In preparation for the discipline conference or a university hearing, before assigning an academic and/or disciplinary sanction, Judicial Affairs will consult with the faculty member or College/Campus academic representative to ensure a just response and

encourage cooperative decision-making. In moderate and major incidents the academic sanction of "F" for the course grade would typically apply.

  1. OTHER PROCEDURES:

a. In all cases where a student contests allegations of misconduct, whether a minor, moderate or major incident the instructor must inform the Registrar's office and Department Head or Campus Director of Academic Affairs, that the student should be assigned a "DF" symbol for the course until the case has been resolved.

b. The instructor should also inform the Registrar's office and the student involved that the student may not be allowed to drop the course under Senate Policy 34-89 nor be allowed to be assigned a "W" symbol if the student withdraws from the university under Senate Policy 56-30.

c. The instructor by memo informs the Registrar's office and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: the faculty member will assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review. If a student is found responsible for a moderate or major violation an "XF" mark will be placed on the student's transcript. An "XF" mark can be removed from a student's transcript when the student meets certain sanction conditions agreed upon by the College/Campus.

d. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation, the academic conduct disposition form, and any other supporting evidence.

e. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Registrar's office will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Registrar's office to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the Registrar will again request a grade.

f. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of all infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be utilized by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The faculty member or College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts of academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used as a basis for deciding future sanctions or whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are confidential and are removed when the student graduates.

g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcomes of the formal adjudication procedures and how the case has been resolved, including any sanctions imposed.

h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the Registrar: In most cases, an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. Outcomes from a University Hearing Board are final with the

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 4 [5 (d)]

(Legislative)

[Implementation upon passage by the Senate]

Introduction

In nominating faculty to serve on the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the Senate Committee on Committee and Rules has traditionally excluded not only Deans but also faculty holding positions with signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters, e.g., division heads and department heads. The following legislation proposes bringing the Standing Rules into line with actual practice.

Recommendation

The Committee on Committees and Rules recommends that the following section of the Standing Rules be modified as follows:

Article III, Section 4

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

    1. Membership
    1. All tenured Professors, Librarians and other faculty of equivalent rank holding full-time standing appointments are eligible for election by the Senate or appointment by the President with the following exclusions:
    1. The President's immediate staff
    2. The Executive Vice President and Provost of the University's immediate staff
    3. Those holding affiliate academic appointments
    4. ADMINISTRATORS Deans holding signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters

Rationale

In order to avoid even the appearance of possible conflicts of interest, the Committee on Committees and Rules has traditionally refrained from nominating certain faculty to the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. These faculty are those with signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters. This change to Article III, Section 4 recommended above is meant to clarify the faculty categories that are not eligible for membership on the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Edward W. Bittner
S. Diane Brannon
Barton W. Browning
Mark A. Casteel
Caroline D. Eckhardt, Vice-Chair
Donald E. Fahnline
Louis F. Geschwindner
John H. Harwood
Murry R. Nelson
Laura L. Pauley
Jean Landa Pytel
Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Senate Committee Structure

(Legislative)

[Implementation upon passage by the Senate]

INTRODUCTION

Administrators responsible for the areas represented by Senate committees have traditionally provided information and support to enable these committees to function and prepare reports. Currently, the Committee on Faculty Benefits is the only committee of the Senate that does not have the related administrator named to the committee. The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources has frequently been invited to provide assistance and information to the Committee on Faculty Benefits without being officially on the Committee. There is a need to standardize and formalize the relationship between the Committee and the university administrator responsible for benefits. Therefore, the Committee on Committees and Rules proposes the following legislation to add the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to the membership of the Committee on Faculty Benefits.

RECOMMENDATION

ARTICLE II: SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

SECTION 6: Senate Committees:

(f) Committee on Faculty Benefits

1. Membership:

(i) At least seven (7) elected faculty Senators

(ii) THE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES *

*nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies

RATIONALE

The above change is recommended in order to bring the Committee on Faculty Benefits in line with the other Senate committees and to formalize the relationship between the Committee and the administrator responsible for the area of benefits.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Leonard Berkowitz
Edward Bittner
Dianne Brannon
Barton Browning
Mark Casteel
Caroline Eckhardt, V-Chair
Donald Fahnline
Louis Geschwindner
John Harwood
Murry Nelson
Laura Pauley
Jean Landa Pytel
Nancy Wyatt, Chair

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign

(Oral Informational)

INTRODUCTION

The Senate Committee on University Planning has heard briefings on various aspects of The Campaign for Penn State earlier in the semester. Because of the importance of this ambitious Campaign for significantly enhancing the academic excellence of the University both immediately and in the future, the Committee on University Planning is sponsoring this oral informational report to the Senate. The report describes the main elements of the Campaign emphasizing those that affect the faculty.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta
Alison A. Carr-Chellman
Kellyann Cragin
Gordon F. De Jong, V-Chair
William M. Frank
Kevin Gleeson
Rodney Kirsch
Larry J. Kuhns
Philip Masters
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Rajen Mookerjee
Richard C. Pees
Deborah Preston
Robert D. Richards
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Donald Schneider
Gary C. Schultz
Jeffrey R. Tranell
Linda K. Trevino
Richard A. Wilson
R. P. Withington

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Revision of Policy HR-13: Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty

(Advisory and Consultative)

RATIONALE

HR-13 describes procedures for hiring new faculty. The addition of the proposed guidelines is recommended in order to ensure faculty involvement in the process and to have uniformity in the procedures used.

Policy HR-13 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR HIRING NEW FACULTY

POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: May, 1962

THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: July 1, 1997

Contents:

Purpose

Recruitment of Candidates

Selection of Candidates

Notification of Candidates

Forms to be Completed by New Regular Faculty Appointees

Optional Forms to be Completed by New Employee

Processing the Forms

Memorandum of Personal Service

PURPOSE

To outline responsibilities in the process of hiring new regular faculty members.

RECRUITMENT OF CANDIDATES

The dean of each college is responsible for the staffing of teaching and research positions within the approved budget of that college. Questions regarding the budgeting of such positions should be referred to Budget Resource and Analysis.

1. Within the framework of a college, the recruiting of candidates to staff these positions primarily is the responsibility of the department head, division head, or chief executive officer, as appropriate.

2. As a part of the recruiting procedure, candidates shall be furnished with a copy of the memorandum, Conditions of Academic Employment, prepared by the Office of Human Resources that includes information about:

  1. Conditions of employment; loyalty oath and tax withholding.

b. Personal benefits; group life insurance, health care coverages (including hospital/surgical/major medical, dental and vision care), retirement and social security, tenure and the like.

SELECTION OF CANDIDATES

While the practices in selection of candidates differ in the several colleges, a position will be offered to a candidate only upon the prior approval by the dean as to the candidate and as to the terms of employment.

National advertising is required for tenure-line or tenured faculty positions. Exceptions to this policy should be approved by the Executive Vice President and Provost in consultation with the Affirmative Action Officer.

GUIDELINES

The following general guidelines will apply in searching to fill such faculty positions:

1. Advisory search committees, appointed by the unit’s academic administrator after appropriate consultation, will be formed to identify candidates.

2. The majority of members of a search committee should be faculty members from the academic unit or those who hold joint appointments with the academic unit in which the appointment will be made.

3. Faculty members from other academic units, administrators, members of the staff, and students may be included on search committees as appropriate.

4. The general charge to search committees will be to identify qualified candidates. The unit’s academic administrator will provide specific charges, as appropriate, within the framework of this general charge applicable to all advisory search committees.

5. The search committee will present its recommendations of candidates to the unit’s academic administrator, who will choose candidates for further consideration from these recommendations. (If the search needs to be continued or reopened, it will be according to the procedures outlined in these guidelines.) At the request of either the committee, the unit’s faculty, or the academic administrator, a meeting to discuss recommendations should be held.

NOTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES

It is the responsibility of the dean to notify a successful candidate in writing of the offer of employment.

Three copies of a Memorandum of Personal Service will accompany the letter of offer. (See page 4.23 of the General Forms Usage Guide.)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Syed S. Andaleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Joseph L. Cavinato
Wayne R. Curtis
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Tramble T. Turner, V-Chair
J. Randall Woolridge

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Parking Facility Financing and Vehicle Registration Policy

(Advisory and Consultative)

BACKGROUND

The Committee on Faculty Benefits met with representatives of the University Park Parking Office and Transportation Services at the December 1998 and March 30, 1999, committee meetings. The Committee was informed that parking operations are self-supporting from a combination of vehicle registration fees, visitor permit fees, meter revenues, event parking receipts and parking violation fines. Although the Parking Office funded the construction of surface lots around Beaver Stadium and the Bryce Jordan Center, it receives no revenue from the Athletic Department for parking fees assessed at football events, and receives only 50% of the net parking receipts from Jordan Center activities.

Until relatively recent years, employees at most campuses were not charged for parking but were required to register their vehicles as a means of assigning available spaces in some organized fashion. Construction of surface parking lots and their upkeep (repair, snow removal, line painting, etc.) were funded from general sources and this practice largely remains at those campuses which do not have parking fees. With the introduction of parking fees at University Park and several other locations, the University's Parking Office was able to borrow funds for construction of parking deck structures as well as new surface lots, retiring the debt on these mainly from registration fees, visitor fees, and event parking receipts. Currently about 60% of the University Park Parking Office budget is devoted to debt service.

The Master Plan for the University Park campus (UPMP) proposes several new or remodeled parking structures containing 3,200 new spaces to accompany the loss of 1,700 currently used surface parking spaces on central campus in order to provide sites for new academic buildings or to fulfill the overall landscaping design plan, and with the additional goal of reducing vehicular congestion. Upon construction of these facilities at the campus perimeter, as recommended in the UPMP, the fraction of the Parking Office budget committed to debt service will be significantly increased. Cost projections to complete the UPMP parking recommendations include a roughly 100% increase in monthly registration fees by 2005 for many but not all registration classes.

Opening of the Bryce Jordan Center most notably has allowed construction of dual purpose parking areas, used during normal working hours for commuter parking and routine or overflow employee/student parking, while providing event parking for evening and weekend Jordan Center activities. Since parking operations at University Park function as a system, these lots work in conjunction with others and it is difficult to segregate costs for the different lots and uses. The Parking Office's share of event parking fees is used to cover the cost of providing event parking, including personnel, along with a portion of the total maintenance and debt service expenses. The fact that maintenance and debt service costs are generally decoupled from event revenues, however, leaves open the possibility that registration fees supplement event parking receipts in order to fund parking operations for non-academic, revenue-producing entertainment activities, particularly at the Jordan Center.

At University Park and other locations, employees must register a vehicle in order to park. Where this involves a monthly fee, there are very limited options available to employees who routinely use alternative transportation modes (walking, bus, bicycle) and thus opt not to register their vehicle but who need occasional on-campus parking for brief periods. Unlike visitors, employees whose vehicles are not registered are not allowed to park in metered lots or in pay-as-you-go parking garages, but must purchase a day permit from a kiosk or the Parking Office in order to park in an Orange lot or in red metered lots, with additional payment required at the meter. This policy is intended to minimize pressure on the parking available to visitors by insuring that employees with unregistered vehicles do not compete with visitors for parking spaces, but it may aggravate the overall parking situation by encouraging monthly fee payment and thus more frequent vehicular use than would be otherwise necessary. Moreover, it may impact parking in adjacent areas, especially the Borough of State College, by increasing the likelihood that non-registered student or employee vehicles will instead utilize short-term parking in these community locations where no registration is needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Actions related to new University initiatives.

• The Faculty Senate advises the Administration to modify the current philosophy that parking operations be completely self-sufficient, especially with respect to the funding of new facilities. To the extent that new structures, such as those proposed under the UPMP, are simply replacements for existing parking areas being taken over for academic or esthetic purposes, it is recommended that these be provided mainly from general funds rather than through increased fees for current users.

Rationale: Current employees should not be required to fund new parking facilities primarily to advance the infrastructure needs of the University. For many employees, parking is a necessity, not a luxury, and without plans to link parking fee increases with salary increases, the proposed parking rate increases will likely be very burdensome. Where these facilities provide additional parking spaces for new faculty/staff and visitors, parking receipts from the new users should generate much of the revenue needed to build and operate the expanded facilities.

• In light of suggestions that the effect of the planned user parking fee increases to build new facilities will be moderated by improved transportation services (i.e. free buses), to be paid for in part from those parking fees, it is recommended that faculty/staff parking fee uses be limited to maintaining and operating parking facilities. The utilization of parking fees for an expanding variety of transportation needs may be inappropriate..

2. Modifications in Parking Office policies.

• Construction and maintenance of parking structures and paved lots used primarily for non-academic (entertainment) event parking, including revenue-producing sports events, should be funded through event parking receipts or athletic program revenues rather than through vehicle registration fees paid by employees and students.

• Parking facilities utilized both for employee/student parking and for event parking should be funded from monthly parking fees and event parking fees in proportion to the respective use by each group. Thus, areas sparsely utilized during the day for employee/student parking but heavily employed in evenings for event parking should be funded predominantly from event parking revenues.

• All event parking receipts should go towards the expenses incurred in providing parking, rather than shared with the event sponsor, even where this may be another University unit.

• Alternatives to a mandatory registration with fixed fee requirement for faculty/staff need to be developed so that occasional use needs can be met without encouraging persons to drive/park more often than is needed or to park in adjacent community spaces. In addition to current day permits, opportunities to use meters directly (without a permit) or to choose pay-as-you-go parking should be provided. Since it is a stated goal in the UPMP to encourage use of alternate forms of transportation, including the CATA bus system, car-pooling, bicycle, and walking, so as to reduce traffic congestion on campus, policies of the Parking Office should be consistent with this intent. If rates for these uses are appropriately set, the operation can be both self-supporting and convenient for the occasional user.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith Burkhart
Thomas Daubert
Gregory Farber
Charles Gunderman
Jamie Myers, Vice-Chair
Mary Nicholson
Timothy Ovaert
Allen Phillips, Chair
Gerhard Strasser
Donna Testa
Anita Vickers

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Faculty Salary Report

(Advisory and Consultative)

Each year, Faculty Benefits is charged with reporting on faculty salaries, alternating every other year between external and internal salary comparisons. The 1999 report provides several internal comparisons based on Unit, Rank, Gender, Years in Rank, and Years of Service. Disparities are apparent when examining Penn State faculty salaries based on Fall 1998 faculty salary data. Beyond the examination of current 1998-99 faculty salaries, the report evaluates salary trends, using Fall 1996 salary data, to determine if the Administration has been able to enact the recommendations of the 1996 Report on the Status of Faculty Compensation at Penn State issued by the Special Subcommittee on Faculty Compensation, Senate Agenda Appendix C, 9/10/96.

Several Tables, Charts, and Graphs are appended to this report as the basis of observations and recommendations concerning faculty salaries. A brief description of these appendices should facilitate the examination of salary issues.

Appendix One: Box-plot graphs, with data on the number of faculty, mean salary, and mean years in rank, compare salary distributions between University Park Units, Non-University Park Units, and Commonwealth College Locations. The shaded area of a box plot represents the 25 to 75 percentile ranks of the distribution, and the tail on each end represents the 1st to 25th and 75th to 99th percentile. The solid line is the median and 50th percentile, and if the distribution is normal will fall in the middle of the shaded box. The mean is not indicated, but would fall in the middle of the shaded portion.

Appendix Two: Fall 1998 Salaries of Full-Time Faculty (Standing and Fixed-Term Appointments) are reported by Unit, and for the Commonwealth College by location. Salaries by gender are reported for only Standing Appointments. A box plot compares the distribution of faculty saris on the basis of gender within the Unit.

Appendix Three: University Salary Allocations for 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 include permanent reallocations, the salary base for allocations, the standard increase allocated, and additional funds allocated for general salary increases (including the Presidents Excellence Fund). This general salary increase data is reported by Unit.

Appendix Four: Mean salary percentage increases between Fall 1996 and Fall 1998 (3 years of salary data) for standing faculty divided into thirds based on their 1996 salary, unit, and rank.

Appendix Five: For each Unit and Location, line graphs track the mean 1996 salaries and the mean 1998 salaries according to the number of years of service grouped by 0-6 years, 7-12 years, 13-18 years, 19-24 years, 25-30 years, and 31+ years. Faculty salary data for 1996 and 1998 are reported on the graph according to their 1998 rank and unit.

Unit Comparisons

The variation between faculty salaries by unit and location is often difficult to understand or to fully justify. The intent of this report is to identify those areas of difference that warrant further research into the causes for variation. The following comparisons use salaries rounded off to the nearest 100 dollars, and refer to Appendix One that displays the salary distributions in the form of separate box plots for combined, full, associate, and assistant ranks.

Units at University Park coalesce into four groups based on the salary distribution data. The Smeal College of Business is the sole member of the top group, with a salary mean of $95,700. The next group of Engineering, Earth and Mineral Sciences, and The Eberly College of Science has salary means between $80,200 and $73,900. Most of the University Park Units belong to the third group with salary means between $64,700 and $52,900: Agricultural Sciences, Liberal Arts, Health and Human Development, Education, Communication, and Arts & Architecture. The lowest group finds the Libraries alone with a mean salary of $40,800. The salary gap between each of the four groups is approximately $10,000, and the range within each group approximately $10,000.

Table 1: University Park Units Mean Salary Groups

Group One

Business Administration

$95,700

Group Two

Engineering

Earth & Mineral Sciences

Eberly College of Science

$80,200

$74,900

$73,900

Group Three

Agricultural Sciences

Liberal Arts

Health and Human Dev.

Education

Communication

Arts & Architecture

$64,700

$64,600

$61,500

$58,500

$54,900

$52,900

Group Four

Libraries

$40,800

In Appendix One, page 1, each box plot presents the quartiles for a unit's salary distribution. In the plot for combined ranks, the top half of the Business faculty have salaries higher than 75% of the faculty in the second group, and higher than nearly 100% of all the faculty in the third and fourth groups. All Business faculty have salaries higher than approximately half of the faculty in the third and fourth groups.

The box plots of the second group (Engineering, Earth & Mineral Sciences, and Science) indicate half of the faculty in this group have salaries higher than three quarters of the faculty in Agricultural Sciences, Liberal Arts, and Health and Human Development, and 75% of the faculty in this second group have salaries higher than half of the faculty in Communications, Education, Arts & Architecture, and the Libraries.

The four groups of University Park units fluctuate slightly when comparing mean salaries for Full, Associate, and Assistant faculty. With Full Professor salaries, Liberal Arts faculty, with a mean of $84,200 are more comparable to those in the second group with means between $85,300 and $90,700. With Associate Faculty salaries, Engineering faculty move further ahead of Earth and Mineral Science and Science faculty who fall back within the third group of units, and the Libraries remain far behind. At the Assistant Faculty rank, Business faculty salaries even exceed the mean salary levels for Associate Faculty in their own unit. Additionally, the Business Assistant Faculty salaries far outdistance salaries in any of the other units, $15,000 ahead of the mean salary for Assistants in Engineering, who are in turn $10,000 ahead of the rest of the University Park Units that pack themselves between $44,000 and $48,100. Arts and Architecture salaries fall back joining the Libraries in the fourth group.

Across these comparisons by rank, the number of years in rank is highly similar between units, and does not appear to be a cause for the disparities. Whenever these variations between University Park Units are noted, the first explanation usually involves market forces which are beyond the control of the university. Both higher salaries in the particular occupations outside the university and the scarcity of qualified individuals in particular fields are noted as explanations. However, similar circumstances also develop when Commonwealth College locations attempt to hire qualified faculty but cannot be competitive with other universities or the private sector. It is questionable if the work of faculty in teaching, research, and service varies across units as significantly as salaries differ.

With the Non-University Park Units (Appendix One, pp 3-4), disregarding the professional units of the College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law, two groups of Units form based on the salary distributions for combined ranks.

Table 2: Non-University Park Units Mean Salary Groups

Group One

Great Valley

Capital/Schuylkill

Erie

$65,800

$58,000

$57,500

Group Two

Abington

Commonwealth College

Berks/Lehigh

Altoona

$49,000

$48,700

$47,200

$45,700

The group with higher mean salaries includes the Great Valley Graduate Center, Capital/Schuylkill, and Erie. These three units existed as independent locations before the restructuring of the Commonwealth Education System, and their salary distributions have much in common with the University Park group three units. The group with lower salary distributions includes the new units of Abington, Berks/Lehigh, Altoona, and the Commonwealth College. Salaries for Full Professors remain different between these two groups by approximately $10,000; salaries for Associate Professors in the higher group exceed the lower group by approximately $8,000 to 15,000; and salaries for Assistant Professors in the higher group exceed the lower group by $5,000 to $10,000 even though the Assistants in the lower group of Abington, Altoona, and Berks/Lehigh have double the length of years in rank. The salary data in Appendix two, page 18, for the new Capital/Schuylkill unit presents a similar situation for faculty salaries at the Schuylkill half of the unit. This variation between Non-UP Units would seem to easily qualify as an inequity in salary compensation resulting from the transition of the two-year commonwealth education locations into four-year degree granting units, and the quality of these four-year programs might be compromised if faculty are not rewarded in similar fashion to the other Penn State four-year units.

Commonwealth College Locations (Appendix One, pp 5-7) range in salary means from $44,600 to $52,400, making a fairly similar grouping of salary distributions. Along with the three new non-University Park units in group two above, these locations of the old CES (Commonwealth Education System) have salary means which begin at the lowest end of the University Park group three and move downward to meet the Libraries in group four. If the mission of the university is to be held in common by all faculty no matter the unit or location, then these differences become problematic because they systematically result in lower salaries at locations other than University Park for faculty whose workload is different, yet expectations the same.

At the Commonwealth College Locations, a few anomalies exist at the Full Professor rank with salaries lower at DuBois and noticeably higher at Fayette and Shenango. These differences are likely a result of a variation in the years in rank; however, they should be investigated further. Differences in Associate Faculty salaries range between $49,200 and $54,600 with higher salaries accompanied by longer years in rank, except for Wilkes-Barre at which faculty average $52,000 with only 3 years in rank. Assistant Faculty salaries range between $39,900 and $46,000, again with higher salaries associated with longer years in rank. What is notable at the Assistant rank is the many locations at which Assistant Professors have 9, 10, 12, 15, even 17 years of service in the Assistant Rank. Certainly this pattern of non-promotion directly suppresses the salaries of these individuals over their years of service to Penn State. These cases in particular are likely to involve issues of compression as new faculty at the Assistant Rank are brought in at salaries much higher than their colleagues at a similar rank.

Standing Appointments at the rank of Instructor are most common in the Commonwealth College (Appendix One, page 7). Across locations, these salaries vary the most of any rank, with a high mean of $48,000 at McKeesport and a low mean of $34,500 at York. Although the mean years in rank between this high and low vary dramatically between 27 years and 10 years, the box plots suggest the distributions of salaries for Instructors at different locations varies significantly enough to warrant further investigation to assure faculty in this rank are being compensated equitably.

Gender Comparisons

Salary difference by gender within units, ranks, and across locations s evident in the faculty salary data displayed in Appendix Two. The box-plots for these salary distributions help compare the spread of salaries between the minimum and maximum. For an equitable situation, you would expect the box-plots to have fully overlapping shaded areas and tails that are similar for the bottom and top 25% of salaries. When the quartiles of the box-plot do not overlap, and are out of line by at least 25%, or another quartile, then a significant difference in the distributions of the two groups is suggested. However, the number of years in rank must be considered to fully interpret any instances of such a difference. When University Park faculty are taken as a whole, the different salary distributions of male and female are quite similar considering males have longer years in each rank. The Table below reports the individual units in which salary distributions differ by 25% or more, and includes the difference in years in rank within parentheses (since men have longer years in rank, the number indicates Men's years-Women's years, with a negative number representing longer years for the Women in that case).

Table 3: Units with Salary Distributions different for Gender by 25% or more

Difference

favors Male

at Full Rank

at Associate

at Assistant

Difference

favors Female

50% M > All F

E.M.S. (8)

Libraries (1)

E.M.S. (6)

H.H.D. (5)

Science (5)

Berks/Leh. (3)

Erie (3)

Altoona (1)

 

25% M > All F

Business (6)

Arts & Arch (1)

Liberal Arts (5)

Communic (2)

Medicine (2)

Abington (1)

H.H.D. (0)

 

75% M > 75%F

 

Berks/Leh. (3)

   

50% M > 75%F

Medicine (1)

Arts & Arch (1)

Commwealth (2)

Business (1)

Abington (1)

Capital (5)

Commonwealth(5)

 

75% M > 50%F

Medicine (1)

H.H.D. (5)

Education (2)

Engineering (1)

Capital (2)

Erie (3)

Medicine (2)

H.H.D. (0)

Capital (5)

Berks/Leh. (8)

 
     

Communic (0)

Great Valley (3)

25%M < All F

 

Engineering (0)

H.H.D. (3)

Altoona (3)

 

50%M < 75%F

     

Capital (5)

25%M < 50%F

 

Abington (-3)

Business (7)

Libraries (-2)

All M < 25%F

The vast majority of units and ranks do not have significantly different salary distributions between males and females. Out of 90 possible instances (30 units with 3 ranks in each), 26 instances of a different salary distributions between male and female was noted. When such a difference does occur, it is far more likely according to the chart above to find the male with higher salaries. If we discount the eleven cases above (in which the difference in years in rank exceeds three, twenty-two cases remain in which males have higher salary distributions and nine cases remain in which females have higher salary distributions. It is interesting to note that when female salary distributions are higher, there are only two cases when they have more years in rank (-3 and -2, suggesting important issues concerning the retention of female faculty members at Penn State).

Certain units appear to have several instances of significant difference in salaries based on gender that cannot be fully explained by differences in years in rank; therefore, salaries based on gender should be examined soon in the cases of Full rank in The College of Medicine, of Associate rank in The College of Medicine, Erie, and Berks/Lehigh, and of Assistant rank in Health and Human Development. The remaining cases in which years in rank are comparable with this summary data should be examined case by case to ensure some justifiable explanation for different salaries between men and women. In addition, this analysis did not attempt to factor years in rank into the identification of difference; for example, when years in rank are not similar we would expect to see a difference in salary distributions. This question needs to be examined in the future.

Evaluating Equity Adjustments made in 1997 and 1998

In September of 1996, the Special Subcommittee on Faculty Compensation made the following recommendation to the University President:

Starting in 1997, the Provost's office will review the salaries of those faculty, at all locations, who's salary, by rank, falls within the lowest one-third of the department's salary structure, for the purpose of reducing unjustifiable disparities that are due to college, location and compression. A significant percentage (e.g., 25% per year) of the salary increase funds should be made available for this purpose for a three-year period to make meaningful adjustments in individual faculty salaries and to reduce disparities that are due to one of the above factors. In the Fall of 1997 and each of the following three years the Provost should review for the Faculty Senate what the general results of his review were and what overall adjustments were made. (Senate Agenda, 9-10-96, Appendix C, page 17)

The President subsequently accepted this recommendation with the provision that he might not be able to set aside the full 25% of salary increase funds for resolving salary inequities (see letter in Appendix Three, Page 2). The administration has had an opportunity to act on this recommendation for salary increases in 1997 and 1998. In September 1997, Provost Brighton reported to the Senate on 549 faculty cases reviewed by the unit deans. Of these cases, the deans recommended adjustments for 232 faculty. For these salary adjustments, unit deans were asked to "recommend adjustments, where appropriate, from the pool of funds allocated to their unit for salary increases or from the allocation the unit received from the President’s Excellence Fund" (see letter, Appendix Three, Pages 3 and 4). Therefore funding for equity adjustments was constrained by allocations given to units based on the May salary base of each unit.

In July 1998, each unit was allocated 3.0% of their May salary base, and an additional 1.0% from the President's Excellence Fund. The additional 1.0% would, on the surface, fulfill the Faculty Senate recommendation that 25% of salary increase funds be set aside for equity adjustments based on college, location, and compression. However, as this 1.0% was defined, it was given to each unit and could be used for many purposes beyond general salary increases. This appears to follow the same allocation procedure used for July 1997 raises. Based on Table 4 below, many units used this additional 1% for other unit needs, instead of increasing current faculty salaries to alleviate unjustified equity differences. Overall, what is important to note, is the distribution of the President’s Excellence Fund equally to units by percentage could do nothing for salary disparities between locations or colleges, since the 1% was based on the already existing salary bases.

Table 4 below is drawn from data in Appendix 3 to calculate the portion of the 1% allocation from the President’s Excellence Fund actually used by each unit for general salary increases in 1998, and 1997 if the additional percent allocated to each unit in 1997 was 1%.

Table 4: Percent of Excellence Funds used for General Salary Increases

Unit 1997 % of Excellence Funds 1998 % of Excellence Funds

Used for Salary Increases Used for Salary Increases

Agricultural Sciences .47% .97%

Arts & Architecture .23% .35%

Smeal College of Business .55% .73%

Communications 0.00% .80%

Earth & Mineral Science .01% 1.00%

Education .62% .72%

Engineering .16% 1.05%

Health & Human Development .56% 1.01%

The Liberal Arts .54% .89%

Eberly College of Science .26% .32%

Commonwealth College .95%

Great Valley 0.00% .00%

Erie .57% 1.06%

Harrisburg .23% .22%

Schuylkill .59%

Berks 1.16%

Lehigh Valley .93%

Altoona .45%

Abington 1.31%

Total Univ. (Excl. HY & DN) .39% .81%

Given the earlier examination of unit salary distributions in Tables 1 and 2, it is important to note that some of those units with salaries in the lower groups did not use a significant portion of this additional 1% for salary increases: Arts & Architecture used only .35%; Altoona used .45%; Schuylkill used 59%; Education used .72%; and Communications used .80%. Engineering and Earth and Mineral Sciences, already in the next to highest group used the full 1.0% for general salary increases for faculty.

However, even if several units used all of the President’s Excellence Fund for salary increase allocation, the percentage increase varied drastically within units. Data in Appendix Four suggests that salary increases from 96-97 levels awarded in July 97 and July 98 vary dramatically because each unit has different priorities and salary procedures. Appendix Four presents the mean % increases in salary for faculty in each unit and rank, using their Fall 96 salary as the basis to group faculty into thirds: bottom, middle, and top. This analysis directly addresses the 1996 Faculty Senate recommendation to the President to focus salary adjustments on the bottom third of faculty by unit and rank.

In Appendix Four, for each rank, the highest percentage salary increase over the two years is underlined. Table 5 summarizes the mean salary % increase for the bottom, middle, and top third to determine which groups most often received the highest mean % increase over the two years.

Table 5: Summary of the Highest Mean Percent Salary Increases by Faculty Thirds/Ranks

 

Bottom Third

Middle Third

Top Third

Full Professor

9 times (2 >10%)

9 times (3>10%)

7 times (3>10%)

Associate Professor

11 times (4>10%)

13 times (4>10%)

4 times (0>10%)

Assistant Professor

10 times (2>10%)

10 times (6>10%)

9 times (6>10%)

The distribution of the largest salary increases across the bottom, middle, and top third of faculty by rank suggests that very little was done to systematically address salary inequities for faculty in the bottom third. In fact, if the size of the mean percent increases in each group is considered, 13 groups from the middle and 9 groups from the top third received mean percent increases that exceed 10%. Only 8 groups of faculty in the bottom third had mean increases above 10%. When the data is viewed by rank, 8 Full professor groups, 8 Associate groups, and 14 Assistant groups received mean percent increases above 10% for the two years. When these higher percentages are applied to higher salary dollars, the raises equate to a vastly larger dollar amounts for faculty in the middle and top third of salaries over those in the bottom third. And because Assistant Professors overall received the greatest number of increases above 10%, the problem of compression may have been even further exacerbated. It would appear that inequities in place in 1996 may have only been furthered by the unit decision making.

Several units appear to have made some concentrated attempt to adjust the lowest salaries beyond the standard 3% salary increases each of the two years, suggested when a majority of their highest mean % increases occur in the bottom and middle third of faculty by rank. Capital/Schuylkill, Abington, DuBois, and Wilkes-Barre mean percent increases are highest for the bottom third of the faculty in three out of four ranks in their unit. Berks-Lehigh Valley, Mont Alto, Worthington-Scranton, Health & Human Development, Agricultural Sciences, and Hershey all have highest mean percent increases for the bottom third in two out of four ranks. Those units that dedicated more salary increase dollars to raises in the middle and top third do not seem to qualify for units who attempted to enact the Faculty Senate recommendation. In particular, Business Administration and Communication concentrated their salary increase dollars in the top third of their faculty.

Related to the issue of compression, what is especially disturbing about the data provided in Appendix Four, is the size of mean percent increases for Assistant Professors in the Top Third of faculty salaries by rank and unit. Six of the nine largest increases exceeded 10% over two years suggesting that the higher salaries received by these Assistant Professors at appointment are even further accelerated by these large two year % increases. As noted in Appendix One, page 3, the mean salary of Assistant Professors in Business exceeds the mean average salary of Associates, even though Assistants only average 2 years in rank as compared to the 9 years of Associates. Compression may be a better framework for examining salary inequities and these differences in % raises awarded to the bottom, middle, and top thirds of faculty. It is logical to suggest that faculty who have salaries in the bottom third are there because the merit process for awarding salary increases indicates they have not been as productive as faculty in the top and middle thirds. But, compression examines the relationship of salary with the number of years of service to the university. Even those who receive minimum evaluations for merit raises would expect their salaries to steadily increase over their years of service. However, if faculty hired after them receive higher initial salaries, and the raises for faculty already in service do not keep up with base salary inflation, older faculty will be quickly, if not initially, passed by younger faculty, and never have any chance of catching up.

The line graphs in Appendix Five present a clearer picture on the issue of compression by relating the mean salaries in 96 and 98 to the number of years in rank. The years of service are grouped in six year categories because this time frame parallels the normal life cycle of promotion from Assistant to Associate in 6 years, and then Associate to Full around 12 to 24 years of service. It could be argued that faculty that remain at the Assistant rank for more than 12 years, or the Associate rank for more than 24 years have not been productive enough within the promotion and tenure system to warrant substantial merit salary increases. However, if we examine the pattern of salary difference between 1996 and 1998 alone, not going back farther than 1996 to examine compression, it remains evident that faculty at each rank with fewer years in service, within the reasonable number of years of satisfactory service, have mean salary levels in excess of faculty who have a greater number of years of service.

Table 6 below summarizes those units in which compression appears to exist at particular ranks, has lessened or become greater between 1996-1998 at particular ranks and years of service (numbers in parentheses refer to years in service). The line graph data was interpreted for compression by examining the slope of each line between data points, and the difference between slopes between 1996 and 1998. Three kinds of lines are evident. First, declining lines in relationship to years in service indicate compression effects as faculty with longer years in service receive lower salaries. Second, inclining lines indicate that faculty receive higher salaries with more years in service. Third, between data points at six-year groupings of faculty salaries, the entire line may both decline and incline. In Table 6 below, sharp declining slopes represent High compression effects, slightly declining slopes represent Moderate compression effects, and rather parallel slopes, or lines with both declining and inclining slopes, represent Low compression effects. Inclining slopes are not noted. When the distance between points on the 1998 lines changed the slope of line segments between years of service groupings, compression effects were judged to lessen or increase.

Table 6: Compression Effects by University Unit

UNIT

EXISTING 98

LESSENED 96-98

INCREASED 96-98

Agricultural Science

Full - Moderate

Associate - Moderate

Full - (7-12)

Assistant - (7-12)

 

Arts & Architecture

Full - Moderate

Assistant - Low

Full - (7-12)

Associate - (13-18)

Associate - (1-6)

Assistant - (7-12)

Smeal College of Business

Full - High

Associate - High

Full - (7-12)

Associate (7-12)

Full - (1-6)

Associate - (1-6)

Communications

Full - High (19-30)

Associate -

Moderate (19-24)

Full - (25-30)

Associate - (7-18)

Assistant - (1-6)

Earth and Mineral Sciences

Full - Low (13-18)

Associate - Low

 

Full - (13-18)

Associate - (1-6)

Education

Full - Moderate

Associate- Low

Full - (13-30)

Assistant - (7-12)

Associate - (1-6)

Engineering

Full - Moderate

Assistant - Low

Full - (1-18)

Associate - (1-6)

Assistant - (1-6)

Health and Human Develop.

Full - High

Associate -Low(1-18)

Assistant-High(25-30)

Full - (13-18)

Associate - (1-12)

Assistant - (7-12)

Liberal Arts

Full - High

Associate - Moderate

Assistant - Moderate

Full - (13-18)

Assistant (25-30)

Associate -

(1-6 & 19-24)

Assistant - (1-6)

Eberly College of Science

Full - Moderate

Associate - Moderate

Assistant - Low (12+)

 

Associate (1-12)

Libraries

Full - Moderate

Associate - Low

Full - (19-24)

Associate -

(7-12 & 19-24)

Associate (13-18)

Commonwealth College

Full - Moderate

Associate - Low

Assistant - Low

Assistant - (25-30)

Full - (1-6)

Associate- (1-12)

Assistant - (1-6)

Abington

Associate - Low (19-30)

Assistant - Low (13-18)

Associate - (25-30)

Assistant - (19-30)

 

Altoona

Associate - Low (24+)

Assistant - Moder.(18+)

Assistant - (7-18)

Full - (30+)

Associate - (1-6)

Berks/Lehigh

Full - Low (25-30)

Associate - Low(19-24)

Assistant - Low(19-30)

Full - (13-30)

Assistant - (7-12)

Capital/Schuylkill

Full - High

Associate - Low(18-30)

Assistant - Low(18-30)

Full - (19-24)

Associate -

(1-6 & 25-30)

Full - (1-6)

Associate (19-24)

Assistant - (25-30)

UNIT

EXISTING 98

LESSENED 96-98

INCREAESD 96-98

Erie

Full - High

Associate - Moderate

Assistant - Moderate

Full - (13-18)

Associate - (1-18)

Assistant -

(1-6 & 25-30)

Great Valley Graduate Cntr.

Full - Low

Associate - Moder.(25+)

Assistant - High

Full - (7-18)

Assistant - (1-12)

Associate - (25-30)

College of Medicine

Full - Moderate

Associate - Low(24+)

Assistant -Mod.(13-18)

Full - (1-25)

Associate - (1-24)

Assistant - (13-18)

Full - (30+)

Associate - (25+)

Assistant - (7-12)

Dickinson College of Law

     

In every unit of the University, some faculty experience of effects of compression on their salaries. Faculty salary increases each year would appear to have failed to keep up with the inflationary trends in starting salaries. Just over the last two-year period, several units saw large increases in the salaries for faculty in the first group of 1-6 years in service, thus increasing the effects of compression in that unit, evidenced in the last column of Table 6 for Assistant Professors with 1-6 years of service. According to this last column, Associate Professors in 16 units are experiencing and increase in compression effects just over the last two years. This will only be worsened when new Assistants hired at much higher salaries reach promotion and move even farther ahead of Associate and Full Professors who have longer years of service and satisfactory or even outstanding merit.

Except for a very few exceptions, Full Professors in all units experience compression effects. Only a few units have generally increasing slopes for faculty at all ranks, with only slight compression for Full Professors in the first 1-12 years of service: Education, Engineering, Communications, Earth & Mineral Sciences, The Commonwealth College, Berks-Lehigh, Altoona, and Abington. Some units have generally declining slopes for all ranks suggesting little concentrated effort has been made to reduce compression effects on salary in that unit: Business Administration, Liberal Arts, Eberly College of Science, Great Valley, and Erie.

Salary adjustments for compression were made in July 1997 as evidenced by the report from the Provost to the Senate (Appendix Three, Pages 3 and 4). Similar to the distribution in Table 5 above, adjustments were made fairly equally across ranks: 31% of the cases reviewed at Full, 33% at Associate, and 27% at Assistant. However, there is no indication if the cases reviewed were faculty in the lower third of salary by rank in their units, as requested by the Senate advisory report. Again, referring to Table 5 drawn from Appendix 4, the highest mean percent increases over the last two years have been fairly evenly distributed over faculty in the bottom, middle, and top thirds of salary by unit and rank. The number of increases over a mean 10% were lowest for faculty in the bottom third, suggesting that many of the adjustments reported in 1997 made by individual units were not targeted for faculty in the bottom third of salary in each unit and rank. It would appear that the task of reducing unjustifiable inequity due to college, location, and compression may require a more centralized approach than the past two years in which individual units were responsible.

Recommendations

1. The Faculty Senate advises the President to distribute 25% of salary increase funds for July 1999 raises in such a manner as to reduce unjustifiable disparities between units and locations. This should result in those units and locations with lower salaries yet similar missions and markets to receive a higher total percentage of the salary increase funds, while units with already high comparable salaries might not receive any more than the standard salary base allocation. Units indicated in Table 1, group three and four, and Table 2, group two, are clear candidates for these additional salary allocations.

In addition, the Faculty Senate recommends that the President be more directive to individual units to use any additional salary increase funding beyond the base allocation to address the issue of compression within the unit. Faculty who have comparable satisfactory merit reviews and years of service should be rewarded equally, and faculty with longer years of service and satisfactory reviews should have salaries higher than those with fewer years of service. Table 6 indicates those units and ranks that need special review and consideration.

The Faculty Senate further recommends that this process to alleviate inequities based on college, location, and compression be extended an additional three years through July 2002, since the implementation through the President’s Excellence Fund has not been sufficient over the first two years.

Finally, the Faculty Senate recognizes the effort of the Provost’s Office in reporting salary adjustments made in 1997, and reinforces the original request for such a report to the Senate each Fall semester on the results of any salary adjustment policy. Such a report could be provided to Faculty Benefits with salary data that details how the pool of additional salary funds was allocated to units, and how units used these salary funds to alleviate inequities.

2. The Faculty Senate advises the President to examine possible gender inequities using more specific data and report back to the Senate on the findings, and any equity adjustments made as a consequence. A more general report on the work conditions for females across the university may be important in understanding why their years in rank trail males in most cases.

3. The Faculty Senate advises the President to provide special support to complete a report that could fully explain the existing disciplinary differences in salaries. Some part of the difference in salary between colleges may be related to historical forces within the institution which have more to do with the ability of the heads of individual units to secure funding over the process of many years, than with market demands. It is not apparent why for example, salaries in Arts & Architecture should on the whole be below those in Liberal Arts or Communications, or why salaries in Education should not be comparable with those in Health and Human Development. These fields of scholarship and work would seem to have parity. Science fields would, as be expected in today's technologically driven market world, have higher value, thus evidence higher salaries. The lowest position for Library faculty may relate to the absence of any degree granting programs in Library Science at Penn State; however, Library faculty play a critical role in collaborating with all University Faculty to deliver instruction and support scholarship. To adequately prepare a full report to research these differences will require the collaboration of the Faculty Senate, the President's Office, and Dean's offices of the individual units.

4. The Faculty Senate advises the President to formulate some course of action to address the current differences between Non-University Park Units and report back to the Senate in the 1999-2000 academic year. Few justifications can be offered to support differential salary distributions between both old and newly organized independent 4-year units, if all of these units are to fully embrace their missions in teaching, research, and service within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

5. The Faculty Senate advises the President to alleviate differential salaries between faculty at Commonwealth College Locations and University Park units, and to develop a plan to support the promotion of more faculty at Commonwealth locations to the Associate and Full ranks. Although the faculty salaries at Commonwealth College Locations are fairly consistent across location, taken on the whole, they remain below salaries at University Park Colleges and long established non-University Park Colleges. The role of these locations in the first two years of General Education has traditionally not be valued as highly as the last two years in the major at University. However, if General Education is highly valued by the whole University, then the faculty who deliver it at all locations should be compensated equitably. Differential missions of faculty in the Commonwealth College may account for their primary focus on instruction further reinforced by greater instructional course workloads. This condition suppresses faculty salaries at these locations because it reduces the successful movement of faculty through the promotion process. This salary report clearly demonstrates the significantly longer number of years in rank for Assistant Professors in the Commonwealth College, and the fewer numbers of Full Professors as compared with other Colleges in the Penn State System. Over the past, differential missions for faculty have not likely been considered during the promotion and tenure process.

6. The Faculty Senate recommends that the President and the appropriate Faculty Senate committees examine more fully the relationship between faculty salaries, unit budgets, and credit hours generated to determine if it has had, or should have, any bearing on the funds allocated to a unit for base salaries and salary increases. This salary report did not examine the issue of funding formulas for units based on student credit hours generated, but this traditional funding process for Commonwealth College locations has historically been different from that for University Park Colleges. This difference in funding process may account for some of the disparities in salary.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith Burkhart
Thomas Daubert
Gregory Farber
Charles Gunderman
Jamie Myers, Vice-Chair
Mary Nicholson
Timothy Ovaert
Allen Phillips, Chair
Gerhard Strasser
Donna Testa
Anita Vickers

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Report on Promotion and Tenure Recommendations and Decisions in 1997-98

(Informational)

In the Fall of 1995, the Senate leadership asked that the Faculty Affairs Committee present an informational report to the Senate describing promotion and tenure decisions taken in the previous academic year. At that time, the Committee decided to expand the report and include recommendations taken at the campus, department, college and University promotion and tenure level as well as the final decisions taken by the President. The following is the report for decisions made in 1997-98.

Attached is the review of tenure and promotion recommendations and decisions for 1997-1998.

1) Table 1(A-C) traces the tenure decisions made for each group of untenured faculty that would have been in their sixth year over the past three years: faculty who were hired in either 1992, 1991, and 1990. The figures show that over the past three years about 53% of the faculty members who entered six years earlier remained at Penn State on the tenure line and received tenure. An additional average of 9% remained on the tenure track in provisional status, either because of leaves without pay or the staying of tenure according to our stay of tenure for cause policy.

2) Table 2 traces all provisional reviews for the 1997-98 academic review, including the sixth-year tenure review. Campus reviews refers to those reviews required for faculty members in those multi-campus colleges where such reviews are required (e.g., the Commonwealth College) and for campus faculty who have retained their tenure in a University Park college. References to departments and department heads also refer to divisions and schools within colleges, and their administrators.

The table shows that of the 88 faculty reviewed in their second year, 85
were recommended for continuation, so three were terminated. Similarly, in
the third year review, one of seven faculty reviewed was not continued;
13 of the 107 reviewed in the fourth year were not continued, all of the
eight reviewed in the fifth year were continued, and of the 94 faculty who
came up for sixth-year tenure review, 87 received tenure.

3) Table 3 similarly tracks all faculty who were formally reviewed for promotion and whose dossiers were officially acted upon.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Syed S. Andaleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Joseph L. Cavinato
Wayne R. Curtis
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Tramble T. Turner, V-Chair
J. Randall Woolridge

GENERAL EDUCATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Skills

(Informational Report)

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Recommendation #3 from the Special Committee on General Education requires the Penn State University community to initiate a refinement process to allow the skills courses (writing, speaking, and quantification) in General Education to accommodate the needs of each of the university's broad disciplinary categories.

Recommendation #3 (from Special Committee's Legislation)

"Identify the specific competencies and levels of proficiencies expected for, and constituting college-level mastery in, each of the skill areas (writing, speaking and quantification); identify the subsets of these competencies that are relevant for students intending on entering majors within each of the broad disciplinary categories (natural or applied sciences, business, social sciences, humanities, arts, communications, etc.); where needed, revise or develop new courses that will emphasize and help achieve these learning outcomes."

Recommendation #3 (Skills), taken together with Recommendation #2 Improving Diagnostic Instruments) and Recommendation #4 (Active Learning Elements in the Knowledge Domains Area), are intended by the Special Committee on General Education to fulfill Objective II of the Final Report legislation:

"Objective II. Recognize the differences in incoming students' talents and needs in terms of skills development and enhance the emphasis given to appropriate mastery of those competencies and to their application in subsequent learning.

    • Clearly articulate the expectations for mastery of core skills and competencies at the college level and improve the procedures and policies for placement of students in appropriate course work, or their exemption when requirements have been met.
    • Facilitate the transition from learning skills to using skills to learn by promoting active application of key competencies in the core knowledge areas."
B. The General Education Implementation Committee (GEIC) has already submitted its report on Recommendation #4 (Active Learning Elements in Knowledge Domains Area courses). In addition,

J. Cahir, to oversee the assessment of General Education at Penn State as part of the implementation of Recommendation #9 (Assessment).

GEIC interprets the goal of Recommendation #3 as requiring, as needed, the revision of General Education skills courses (writing, speaking, and quantification) to better accommodate the needs of students entering each broad disciplinary category. Skills courses should be designed to contribute to the specific needs of students in each of the broad disciplinary categories. The overall goal is to provide each student with skills courses that will challenge and advance the student's skills competence in each particular skills area.

  1. The Guidelines for Implementation contained in the Special Committee on General

  2. Education's Final Report legislation suggest a two-step process involving
    collaboration between two groups of academic units: academic units providing
    General Education skills courses and academic groups using General Education
    skills courses, that is, the broad disciplinary categories (natural or applied sciences,
    business, social sciences, humanities, arts, communications, etc.).

    The first step stated in the Guidelines of the Special Committee on General
    Education's Report is to (a) "Define the competencies and applicable standards of
    skills performance in terms of outcomes rather than courses taken," and then (b) to
    compose "an appropriate [skills] curriculum" applicable to "ALL students completing
    baccalaureate or associate degrees."

    The second step stated is to "Design the skills curriculum so that there are sequences
    of courses (comprising no more than the credit requirement for each skills component
    that incorporate all the shared outcomes for that competency) that are relevant to each
    major discipline."

    Recommendation # 3 requires the University community to perform three major tasks:

      1. Identify specific "college-level mastery" in competencies and proficiency levels for the three skills areas.
      2. Identify relevant subsets of skills competencies for students entering majors in each broad discipline.
      3. If needed, revise existing courses or develop new courses to help achieve these learning outcomes.

    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SKILLS ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION PROGRAM

    An ongoing assessment process and a broadening of responsibility are required to accomplish the legislation's goals. The objectives of Recommendation #3 can be accomplished only if disciplines reliant on skills courses participate as full partners with disciplines providing skills courses in (a) determining the specific competencies and levels of proficiencies in General Education skills that are needed for their graduates and (b) defining measurable outcomes. The units providing skills courses must also make forthright assessment of the skills competencies that are feasible and achievable in practice within the skills courses students receive in their required exposure to General Education skills coursework. Data are necessary to inform a consultation process that should occur periodically between General Education skills "providers" and "customers." The primary goal of the consultation should be to inform an analysis and revision process that will lead to the development of a set of required skills courses that better accommodate the academic needs of students in majors within each of the broad disciplinary categories. However, while the academic needs of students within various majors are to be accommodated, the number of broad disciplinary categories should be kept to a minimum. The creation of over-specialized disciplinary categories would be inconsistent with the mission statement of the Special Committee's Report on General Education: "the development of skills and a broad knowledge base as a key ingredient to successful, satisfying lives." (See Special Committee Report at p.15).

    There is evidence of both past successes and failures in such consultation over General Education skills. Learning Edge Academic Program (LEAP), which is offered in summer session for freshmen, illustrates successful collaboration among providers and users in the skills area. It can be expected that the skills outcomes enumerated by customer assessments may not be expressed in the same terms as those used by skills providers. Nevertheless, these groups should attempt to bridge these gaps to achieve the refinement of skills coursework required by the Special Legislation.

  3. Implementation: Skills Assessment and Consultation Program

Based on the preceding analysis GEIC suggests that the Chair of the University Faculty Senate and the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education appoint a Joint Senate-Administration Committee to be called the Skills Assessment and Consultation Committee (SACC) to facilitate this ongoing and continuous assessment program using the consultation process. The membership should be composed of Faculty Senators as well as representatives from provider and customer units appointed by the Senate Chair and by the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education. This committee should be responsible for the formation of the broad disciplinary categories. The ACUE group should be involved to facilitate this skills assessment and consultation process. GEIC envisions that the skills assessment and consultation program will include the following:

    1. General Education skills providers and customers groups should regularly engage in a collegial consultation process to communicate, negotiate, and refine skills course content.
    2. All customer academic units within each of the broad disciplinary categories (natural or applied sciences, business, social sciences, humanities, arts, communications, etc.) should identify the specific competencies and levels of proficiencies expected for, and constituting college-level mastery in, each of the skills areas. The academic units should specify the competencies and levels of proficiencies needed in terms of outcomes, in sufficient detail as to identify precise subsets of these competencies relevant for students entering their majors. The major objective of this evaluation is to improve the quality of skills competence for all graduates.
    3. All academic units providing General Education skills courses should assess how to build or enhance specific enumerated competencies in their General Education skills courses. This requirement is set in the context of what is reasonably feasible and achievable in practice within the skills courses that students receive in their required exposure to General Education skills coursework. Provider units should revise and refine existing courses and develop new skills courses to achieve the learning outcomes identified by customer groups, as required by Recommendation #3. The major objective of this evaluation is to improve the quality of skills competence for all graduates.

General Education Implementation Committee
John Bagby, Chair
Ingrid Blood
George Bugyi
Tineke Cunning
Peter Deines
John Moore, Vice Chair

GENERAL EDUCATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Final Report

(Informational)

I. Introduction

On December 2, 1997, the University Faculty Senate voted to accept the ten recommendations contained in the Report of the Special Committee on General Education. In February of 1998, the then Senate Chair, Louis F. Geschwindner, established the General Education Implementation Committee to be chaired by John Bagby and charged that committee to prepare informational reports on seven of the ten approved recommendations. Two other committees were formed to deal with two of the remaining three recommendations. Chair Geschwindner presented the committee with the following charge:

Charge to the General Education Implementation Committee

Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair University Faculty Senate

February 13, 1998

The University Faculty Senate passed the new general education requirements at its December 2, 1997 meeting. That legislative report contained 10 recommendations, all of which have been approved, with some slight modification through amendment, at that meeting. The policies and procedures for the implementation of these recommendations are the charge to this committee. You should look at each recommendation and the informational material associated with it as you develop the implementation procedures. You will be asked to provide informational reports to the Senate as you progress, in order that the full body has an opportunity to review your actions.

1. Your first charge is to provide very early guidance to faculty wishing to get started on proposals for the new requirements. You should establish a position on the continued use of existing general education courses and to what extent, if any, they will need to undergo re-review for inclusion in the new program. Will there be any distinguishing factor (such as new suffixes) to separate old and new courses? In addition, you will need to establish a procedure for the phasing in of the new courses and the continuation of the old requirements. Thus, the question might be, does an existing ESACT course meet the new requirements and/or does a new ESACT course meet the old requirements? Can a student meet the new (3-credit rather than 4-credit) requirement without also meeting the first year seminar requirement? Will we or won't we have a grandfather clause for General Education? Keep in mind that there will be many, students within the system needing to meet one or the other of the requirements in a particular year after initial implementation for fall 1999 admits. I hope that some general guidelines can be in writing by the middle of March 1998.

2. You should provide early guidance for the establishment of the broad areas that will be expected to be reviewed in course proposals meeting the new requirements. Faculty are working in such areas as first-year seminars (Recommendation #]), integrating active learning (Recommendation #4), and courses in the new health and activity requirement (Recommendation #6). There is a great deal of interest in moving forward in these and other areas. We do not want our work on procedures to delay faculty work in course development. This material should also be available by the middle of March. The details of course proposal formats may wait (by April 3, in time for the April 28 Senate Agenda) but the overall guidance must be available quickly.

  1. Consistent with Recommendations #5 and #7, review the policies and Procedures for course approvals. This should take into consideration the structure of the General Education Subcommittee of Curricular Affairs and the various consultative committees as well as the Writing Committee and the Diversity Committee. Recommend to the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules (CC&R), through the Curricular Affairs Committee, any changes in the official committee structure that should be considered in order to prove more effective course approval process. Make recommendations to CC&R for their charge meeting in the summer so they may consider it at their first meeting in the 1998-99 Senate Year.

4. Establish procedures for the implementation of Recommendation #8. Consider the possibility of this process being accomplished through a Dean's approval of a petition, as long as we can be assured of consistency across the University. This could be accomplished at any time prior to fall 1999.

5. Recommendation #3 calls for identification of specific competencies and levels of proficiencies expected in the areas of writing, speaking and quantification. Establish the guidelines that will permit academic programs to identify their goals for these areas of general education and then propose a program to accomplish them. Get something to the colleges by September 1998.

6. Recommendations #2 and #9 will be addressed by special committees appointed by the Senate Chair and the Office of Undergraduate Education. Your committee will be brought into the discussions as appropriate. Your input will be sought regularly along the way through the inclusion of common membership. These committees will be appointed before the end of February.

Chair Geschwindner and the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, John Cahir, charged the Academic Measurement Interest Group to address the issues of placement and exemption called for by Recommendation #2 (Diagnostic Instruments). Senate Chair, Leonard Berkowitz, and the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, John Cahir, charged the General Education Assessment Interest Group to oversee the assessment of General Education called for by Recommendation #9 (Assessment).

  1. What GEIC Has Done

As of March 2, 1999, GEIC had presented six informational reports. Today, it presented its seventh and final informational report, Recommendation #3 (Skills). In addition, GEIC is pleased to present this Final Report.

The original recommendations assigned to GEIC and the action taken on them to date are as follows:

#1. First-Year Seminars. Report presented at the Senate meeting of September 15, 1998. Action: Recommendation referred to SCCA for implementation.

#3. Skills. Report presented at the Senate meeting of April 27, 1999.

Action: The Senate Chair was asked to work with the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education to form a Skills Assessment and Consultation Committee.

#4. Active Learning Elements. Report presented at the Senate meeting of September 15, 1998. Action: Recommendation referred to SCCA for implementation.

#5. Flexible Approaches. Report presented at the Senate meeting of March 2,

1. Action: The Senate Chair was asked to take the following seven actions:

Ask the appropriate senate committees to propose legislation concerning the following three items:

1. facilitation of creative and collaborative approaches,
2. preservation of portability and mobility, and
3. establishment of a flexible course substitution process.

B. In addition, the Senate Chair, the Vice-Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, and the University Advising Council were asked to take the following two actions:

1. establish workshops and other informational means to make sure that advisers throughout the university well understand all these changes in General Education;

2. review all advising materials and processes to help ensure that students and advisers view General Education as an opportunity to experiment and to explore and not simply as a checklist to be completed.

C. The Senate Chair was also asked to take the following two actions:

1. ask the appropriate Senate committees to encourage the individual
colleges to fashion a streamlined, flexible, simple, and quick course
approval process and to post information about this procedure on the
WEB as soon as possible. User-friendly course approval processes are
necessary to encourage the faculty innovation, creativity, and
collaboration called for in the legislation.

2. ask the chair of SCCA to prepare an informational report indicating how SCCA intends to achieve the goals legislated in Recommendations #5 and 10. This informational report was presented on March 30, 1999.

#6. Restructuring of the Health and Physical Activity Requirement. Report presented at the Senate meeting of September 15, 1998. Action: Recommendation referred to SCCA for implementation.

#7. Intercultural and International Competence requirement. Report presented at the Senate meeting of February 7, 1999. Action: Recommendation referred to SCCA for implementation.

#8. Foreign Language Substitution Policy. Report presented at the Senate meeting of December 2, 1998. Action: Recommendation referred to SCCA for implementation.

In addition, the Senate approved on February 2, 1999 a SCCA proposal that the General Education component of the baccalaureate degree program consist of 45-46 credits.

With the informational report on Recommendation #3 (Skills), GEIC completes the charge assigned to it in February of 1998 and ceases to exist.

III. Vision for the Continuing Development of General Education

GEIC took fifteen months to educate itself about General Education, to understand its existing strengths, weaknesses, and structures, and to devise guidance for the implementation of the recommendations found in the report of the Special Committee. As a result of our experiences, we believe that the university would be better served if it had in place one permanent organization that accumulated ongoing experience with this program and understood well its nature, structures, strengths, and weaknesses, and was empowered to recommend whatever changes were necessary to maintain its excellence and keep it up to date. We need an organization that will preserve continuity in the ways of coordinating General Education and will maintain the knowledge base acquired in working closely with it.

GEIC sees great value in establishing one organization that has clear ongoing responsibility for one-third of each student’s baccalaureate degree program. Some type of permanent oversight and coordinating mechanism will maintain a continuing concern with the implementation of the General Education reforms adopted by the Senate and with the program’s continued excellence. Such a mechanism will make sure that the General Education program on which the Senate has expended so much time, energy, and thought in the last three and half years will continue to meet the needs of the faculty, students, departments, colleges and all others involved in its successful functioning.

GEIC suggests that the Chair of the University Faculty Senate consider this issue and establish the appropriate mechanism for providing General Education with the ongoing oversight and coordination that it requires.

IV. In Praise of General Education

After a year and a half of weekly two-hour meetings, the members of the committee leave their task impressed with the vision of General Education adopted by the Senate in 1997 and by the care with which the various SCGE recommendations were devised and are now being implemented throughout the entire university. In choosing to re-examine General Education, the university refused to rest content with something that was quite good and working well. Rather, Penn State insisted that it could update its practices, make necessary changes in how its courses were taught, and adopt for General Education the spirit of experiment and exploration. In addition, SCGE insisted that General Education should emphasize what students can do with the knowledge and skills gained in this part of their academic program. For that reason SCGE recommended that all General Education courses in the Knowledge Domains Area possess at least three of the five Active Learning Elements. GEIC acknowledges that some of the reforms in General Education will be difficult to achieve immediately. This is precisely why the Senate adopted a four-year phase-in period for implementing all reforms. That stipulated four-year phase-in period will allow sufficient time to make all necessary adjustments and preparations. Any requests for variances from or exceptions to the General Education legislation should come back to the Senate floor for discussion.

Nonetheless, despite all the changes that have been made, the basic principles of General Education endure in modified form. Penn State's General Education program exists to say that the educated person needs a broad knowledge of the nature of the world in which we all must live and must have mastery of the skills required to understand that world. General Education provides each Penn State student with a breadth of knowledge. It provides experience in the various epistemologies we employ to understand our world, our society, and ourselves. Finally, it provides the necessary foundation for studies in the major. By insisting that each Penn State student devote a third of their course work to general studies of this nature, the university makes clear its commitment to the idea of an undergraduate education that combines a wide range of academic experiences with a concentration in one or two major fields. That balance between the general and the specific, the broad and the focused, defines Penn State's concept of the perfect undergraduate education, one designed to foster successful and satisfying lives for its graduates.

General Education Implementation Committee
John Bagby, Chair
Ingrid Blood
George Bugyi
Tineke Cunning
Peter Deines
John Moore, Vice Chair

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Student Services at Commonwealth Locations: Mental and Physical Health

(Informational)

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of April 28, 1998, the Senate passed an Advisory and Consultative Report, "Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State Locations." This report identified certain programs and services as important enough to student learning and personal development that they "need to be offered in some form at every Penn State location, in proportion to local student needs and availability of resources."

Two of these basic student services were:

Basic Health Services. Provide a health service program at every location that is based on American College Health Association guidelines

Personal Counseling. Offer psychological counseling in a confidential and professional manner when personal problems impede the learning process. (Appx. "J," p. 3).

After passage of this report, a senator from the School of Medicine proposed a follow-up report evaluating the physical and mental health services actually provided at locations other than University Park. This charge was added to Student Life's agenda for the 1998-99 year.

Costing considerations have in the past prevented efforts to require or recommend that certain locations implement specific services. The April 1998 report provided only standardized guidelines for how campuses should use available resources. Some non-UP colleges have adopted different standards for defining what services are essential and which are desirable but non-essential.

For example, in January 1998, Dean Joseph Strasser charged a special Commonwealth College Committee on Student Support Services to "identify and prioritize core services students should expect to find at each campus." On May 28, 1998 (shortly after the Student Life "Guidelines for Basic Student Services" report passed), this committee recommended that all student services be assigned to one of three categories:

    1. "Essential": services that all campuses must provide.
    2. "High priority enhancements": services that campuses should provide.
    3. "Desirable services": services that campuses should provide if resources are available after funding the above.

This group did not conduct formal assessments of the current level of services being provided. Health Services were identified as "essential," while psychological counseling was categorized as a "high priority enhancement."

As the Senate has identified both items as "basic" services that "need to be offered in some form at every Penn State location," this action is troublesome. Therefore this report summarizes what health services are currently being provided at all non-UP locations, reminds Senators that these services have been defined as "basic," and provides "best practices" examples of how they are delivered at most locations.

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES

According to Patricia A. Irwin, Manager of Quality Improvement, Health Services, all locations are governed by "The Campus Health Services Policy and Guidelines," adopted in April 1993. This policy defines essential programs for promoting health and welfare. (This statement formed the basis of the health care portions of last April's advisory and consultative report defining basic student services for all locations.)

In 1996, all locations underwent assessment. The University Health Services' Advisory Board reviewed programs at York and Delaware in Summer 1997 and carried out a similar review at Fayette and New Kensington in Summer 1998.

Basic physical health services are being met at all locations, albeit minimally at some. Through ongoing links with community resources and crisis protocols, adequate care is provided in cases of illness and emergency. No location was grossly out of compliance with the Campus Health Services Policy and Guidelines.

Some locations face special challenges in addressing health services. The Fayette, New Kensington, York, and Delaware Campuses function without a resident nurse. These are commuter campuses, but at New Kensington there is a privately owned apartment complex adjacent to the campus that is essentially student housing. This campus and Fayette had, until recently, a resident nurse, so faculty and students have expressed concern over the present lack of on-campus care. Less concern is felt at York and Delaware, which have never had such a resident nurse position.

Mt. Alto and Lehigh Valley have only a part-time nurse. In addition, Mt. Alto is isolated from nearby communities, and there is no public transportation to places where outside medical care is available. Here, as at Lehigh Valley, a 20-hour part-time nurse covers basic services, but there is demand for more. The system is not ideal, Irwin said, but it seems to work. Finding resources for a full-time nurse at all locations would be preferable.

The Committee felt that some issues remain to be addressed. Wellness and preventative care were inconsistently delivered. Some campuses have used local health organizations (such as the American Cancer Society) to give presentations on campus. At times, though, these organizations do not focus on the younger population. At others, returning adults need to have different wellness issues addressed than traditional-age students.

In the absence of a full-time health center director, community contacts and event planning often have to be handled by a staff assistant or Director of Academic Affairs in time borrowed from other concerns. In addition, faculty are often unclear about what role they can and should take in presenting wellness messages or in referring students in need.

At University Park, there is a large peer education program, HealthWorks, in which students are trained in presenting health care information to each other. Units presently being handled include nutrition, breast cancer awareness, depression screening, and HIV counseling. Such a program has been suggested for Commonwealth locations, but it has not been utilized up to now since, traditionally, students have stayed at the campuses for only two years. As soon as they have undergone training and become comfortable with participating, they are gone. As the Commonwealth locations move toward offering more 4-year programs, though, this option deserves to be revisited.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

In this area there is more inconsistency as there are no university-wide standards defining what psychological and counseling services are essential. Further, the Commonwealth College defines this area as a "high priority enhancement" rather than an "essential" service. Therefore the Student Life Committee undertook a survey to learn what mental health services were in fact currently being provided at locations other than University Park.

Stand-alone colleges were surveyed as well as Commonwealth College locations. The School of Medicine was not included in the final results because mental health services for graduate students there are provided as part of Employee Services, not through a separate program. The results for all other locations are provided in the table attached and summarized below.

  • The most common way of offering psychological counseling services was to refer students to agencies in the community. All responding locations indicated that they had existing contacts with local professionals or community crisis centers. Some were specifically contracted; at Wilkes-Barre, the counselor is on call to deal with students on campus. In other cases, students are simply provided contacts in the community or referred on an ad hoc basis.
  • Most locations provided students with some sort of print publication or brochure directing them to appropriate contacts.
  • All locations but four (Abington, Dickinson, Shenango, and York) provided an on-site counselor. However, the actual availability varied: at Beaver, counselors are available 24 hours a day, while at Fayette and Mont Alto no more than ten hours of counseling is provided per week.
  • Two locations, New Kensington and Great Valley, responded that they offered no mental health services.

Beyond this, locations showed considerably diversity in additional services provided. Three (Altoona, Harrisburg, Berks/Lehigh Valley) offered group therapy or counseling sessions. Delaware and Harrisburg also provided services for select populations: minorities, adult learners, and couples. Altoona also provided preventative services to detect depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.

Overall, though, mental health needs were being addressed at most locations. However, the lack of resident counselors at New Kensington and York is troublesome, as neither location has a resident nurse as well.

The Student Life Committee felt that, given continuing evidence of inconsistencies in the level of services provided Penn State students at non-University-Park locations, continued attention to this issue was appropriate.

______________________________________________________________________________

STUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE
William W. Asbury
Scott S. Brenneman
Linda L. Caldwell
Josie Duckett
Bill Ellis, Chair
Joanna Floros
Arthur E. Goldschmidt, Jr.
Elizabeth Kinland
Catherine Harmonosky
Margaret M. Lyday, Vice-Chair
Ronald L. McCarthy
Annie McGregor
Joseph Puzycki
Stephane A. Roy
Thomas Seybert

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Construction Programs Status Report

(Informational)

The following report to the Senate summarizes the current status of construction projects University-wide. It updates the progress of construction projects and addresses other significant developments since the previous construction report was presented to the Senate at its October 1998 meeting.

For a copy of the actual report, please call the Senate Office (814) 863-0221.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta
Alison A. Carr-Chellman
Kellyann Cragin
Gordon F. De Jong, V-Chair
William M. Frank
Kevin Gleeson
Rodney Kirsch
Larry J. Kuhns
Philip Masters
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Rajen Mookerjee
Richard C. Pees
Deborah Preston
Robert D. Richards
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Donald Schneider
Gary C. Schultz
Jeffrey R. Tranell
Linda K. Trevino
Richard A. Wilson
R. P. Withington

UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Task Force on Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures

(Informational)

Intellectual property issues are of growing importance in a variety of areas that affect faculty, students and administrators at Penn State. To address these issues the University has set up the Task Force on Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures, chaired by John Leathers. This informational report is presented to make the Faculty Senate aware of this important study and especially to encourage faculty input while the recommendations on new intellectual property policies and procedures are being developed by the Task Force.

In the summary below the charges to the Task Force and each of its four committees indicating the main thrust of each aspect of the study are presented.

The overall charge to the Task Force is as follows:

1. Permit the University to better capitalize on the transfer and commercialization of intellectual property

2. Avoid the unplanned loss of ownership of intellectual property

3. Strengthen Penn State's research infrastructure for faculty support to increase the magnitude and effectiveness of research activity

4. Provide a consistent set of University policies for intellectual property

To address these areas in detail, four separate committees have been established. These committees and their respective charges, which typically cut across several of the areas listed above, are as follows:.

Software, Copyright and Data Rights Committee (Nancy Eaton, Chair)

a) Recommend policies covering the ownership of software and other copyrightable works

b) Re-examine the scope and extent of the University's longstanding "scholarly works" exception to the work-for-hire doctrine

c) Make recommendations covering royalty sharing and distribution of software and multimedia educational tools protected by patent and/or copyright

Intellectual Property Administration Committee (Ernest Johnson, Chair)

a) Examine and recommend changes in the Intellectual Property Office's service to and relationships with faculty/student inventors

b) Re-examine the process of managing intellectual property

c) Re-examine the terms by which industry can access background rights and intellectual property

d) Review the current intellectual property agreements with sponsors, including master" agreements with companies

e) Examine other intellectual property-related factors, including standards of professional conduct and the identification, definition, avoidance, and management of individual and institutional conflicts of interest

Equity Positions and Start-Up Companies Committee (Barry Zoumas, Chair)

a) Review existing policies and procedures on how and when the University accepts equity in start-up companies

b) Review consulting relationships with licensees, conflicts of interest, conflicts of commitments

c) Recommend revisions to current University policies and procedures

Patent Agreements Committee (Richard Stern, Chair)

a) Update the patent policy to cover all forms of intellectual property

b) Define when the employee has an obligation to assign intellectual property to the University

c) Define the appropriate scope and extent of intellectual property to be utilized by faculty who engage in consulting activities under University policy

d) Provide for application of Patent Agreements to students and University visitors

The Task Force Steering Group and its committees are meeting frequently during the spring and into this summer to gather information on current University policies and procedures, interview groups and individuals at Penn State, and identify "best practices" being used at a number of other universities. Following this series of meetings that will conclude in June, 1999, the Task Force's initial report will be drafted. It is anticipated that a final report with recommended new intellectual property policies and procedures will be completed during the early part of the fall semester. We anticipate that after reviewing these Task Force recommendations the University.

Planning and other Senate committees (e.g., Faculty Affairs, Faculty Rights and Privacy) will submit an advisory/consultative report for the Senate's consideration, possibly preceded by a forensic Senate session.

Individual or group faculty input with respect to any of these important intellectual property issues being addressed should be directed to the appropriate Task Force Committee Chair or to the Task Force Steering Group Chair found on the appended list of chairs and committee members.

Because of the potential significant impact of the Task Force's new intellectual property policy and procedures recommendations on many faculty activities, the University Planning Committee urges the faculty to make their views and concerns known to the Task Force committees immediately in order for them to be considered in the deliberations.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta
Alison A. Carr-Chellman
Kellyann Cragin
Gordon F. De Jong, V-Chair
William M. Frank
Kevin Gleeson
Rodney Kirsch
Larry J. Kuhns
Philip Masters
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Rajen Mookerjee
Richard C. Pees
Deborah Preston
Robert D. Richards
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Donald Schneider
Gary C. Schultz
Jeffrey R. Tranell
Linda K. Trevino
Richard A. Wilson
R. P. Withington

TASK FORCE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Steering Group
John L. Leathers, Chair
Associate Vice-President for Research and Special Projects
304 Old Main
(814) 863-9580 (ph); 863-9659 (fax)
jxl3@psu.edu

Harry R. Allcock
Tamara J. Carneim
Nancy L. Eaton
John F. Houlihan
Thomas N. Jackson
Ernest W. Johnson
William J. Keating
Joan M. Lakoski
Daniel J. Larson
Gary L. Lilien
Gary E. Miller
Thomas J. Monahan
Joanne Ratkowski
J. Rodman Steele
Richard Stern
Barry Zoumas

Software, Copyright and Data Rights Committee
Nancy L. Eaton, Chair
Dean, University Libraries
E505 Pattee Library, UP
(814) 865-4764 (ph), 865-3665 (fax)
email: neaton@psu.edu

Tamara Carneim
John Harwood
John Houlihan
Gary Miller
Joanne Rutkowski
April Sheninger
Sandy Thatcher

Intellectual Property Administration Committee
Ernest Johnson, Chair
Director, Office of Research Affairs
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
500 University Drive, Box 850--Room H138
Hershey, PA 17033
(717) 531-8495 (ph), 531-5352 (fax)
email: ejohnson@psu.edu

Harry Allcock
John Bagby
Madlyn L. Hanes
William Keating
Lynne Vernon-Feagans

Equity Positions and Start-Up Companies Committee
Barry Zoumas, Chair
Alan R. Warehime Professor
College of Agricultural Sciences
205 Armsby Building, UP
(814) 863-2847 (ph), 865-3746 (fax)
email: Bzoumas@psu.edu

Fariborz Ghadar
Daniel Larson
Daniel Lori
Gary Lilien
Kenneth G. Mertz II
Ted Graef (graduate student)
Scott Johnson (graduate student)

Patent Agreements Committee
Richard Stern, Chair
Deputy Director, Initiatives and Academic Programs
227 Applied Research Laboratory, UP
(814) 865-6344 (ph); 863-8783 (fax)
email: rstern@psu.edu

Thomas Jackson
Rodman Steele

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, April 13, 1999 1:30 PM 101 Kern Graduate Building

MEMBERS PRESENT
J. W. Bagby
L. J. Berkowitz
M. E. Broyles
L. A. Carpenter
S. de Hart
P. Deines
D. E. Fahnline
G. W. Franz
L. C. Friend
L. F. Geschwindner
D. S. Gouran
D. E. Jago
P. C. Jurs
D. L. Kerstetter
P. A. Klein
F. Lukezic (for C. Strauss)
V. Lunetta
M. R. Nelson
P. P. Rebane
A. B. Romberger
A. W. Scaroni
B. Tormey
G. Bugyi
B. Hockenberry
V. Price
ACCOUNTED FOR
J. A. Brighton
A. E. Leure-duPree
L. P. Miller
I. Richman
G. B. Spanier
GUESTS
S. Alexander
J. Cahir
T. Cunning
C. Eckhardt
B. Ellis
R. Engel
F. Kristine
J. Moore
J. Myers
A. Phillips
J. Puzycki
J. Romano
C. Schengrund
R. Secor

Chair Berkowitz called the meeting to order at 1:37 PM on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. The minutes of the March 16, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed on a Jago/Tormey motion.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Chair Berkowitz announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on Thursday,

April 8 and discussed the following agenda items: Time, Place, Manner (having to do with free speech and how this can and cannot be limited by universities); Penn State Business Cards (what can and can't be put on them); IST Enrollment; The Penn State Campaign; Curricular Oversight at the Discipline Level Across the University; Revision of the University Course Master File; and General Education Implementation. This was the last FAC meeting for 1998-99; however, because of important issues needing attention, we are in the process of scheduling two summer FAC meetings.

The Senate Officers made their last visit for the spring on April 6 to the College of Arts & Architecture. During the summer months, the Senate Office will schedule the fall visits to locations other than University Park.

We received a memo from President Spanier regarding his approval, and therefore, the implementation of a Legislative Report entitled "Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 -- Multiple Major Programs" passed by the Senate at its meeting of March 2, 1999. President Spanier has asked the Vice-Provost for Enrollment Management and Administration to implement this policy.

We received an e-mail from Charlie Brueggebors regarding the University Park Campus Master Plan Transportation Demand Management Study. There will be campus and community open session meetings held on Thursday, April 29. The campus open session will be from 1:00 to 2:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building. The community open session will be held from 7:30 to 9:00 PM at the Ferguson Township Municipal Building meeting room, 3174 Research Drive. The University Park Master Plan that was approved by the Board of Trustees will be presented. In addition, BRW, Transportation Planners from Minneapolis, will be presenting an update on The University Transportation Demand Management Study. These sessions are open to the public and will be advertised.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

Louis Geschwindner attended the meeting of Wednesday, March 17, 1999 for Philip Klein. A summary of the minutes of that meeting is attached.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 27, 1999

Professor Berkowitz asked Council to consider moving one of the agenda items. There are two resolutions listed under Legislative Reports. The first one is a resolution honoring John Brighton. He asked that this resolution to be moved to a spot on the Agenda immediately after the 'Announcements by the Chair' and before the 'Comments by the President of the University.' Two motions were made. The first, a Lukezic/Tormey motion was passed to move the resolution, and second, a Scaroni/Tormey motion was passed to accept the resolution for the Agenda.

Dr. Berkowitz next noted that there was one item under Unfinished Business. The Committee on Committees and Rules report entitled " Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d)" was approved at the last Council meeting and will come off the table for a vote at the April 27 Senate meeting.

Legislative Reports

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid -- "Revision of Policy 51-50 -- Cumulative Grade Point Average." Frank Kristine and Renata Engel presented the report. Senate Council suggested a few editorial corrections and asked about any consultation that may have taken place with the Undergraduate Education Committee. The Undergraduate Education Committee was consulted and they indicated that their participation in the report was not necessary. A Jago/Gouran motion was passed to place this report on the Agenda.

Committee on Committees and Rules -- " Revision of the Standing Rules, Article III, Section 4[5(d)]." Caroline Eckhardt represented the committee and commented that this report was directed toward specifying the individuals who should not serve on the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. It has been the practice of CC&R to refrain from nominating candidates for this committee who have signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters. Thus, this report seeks to bring the Standing Rules into compliance with practice. It was suggested that AD-14 might be a guideline for defining who are administrators in the case of this report. The report was included on the Senate Agenda on a Lukezic/Tormey motion.

Committee on Committees and Rules -- "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Senate Committee Structure." Professor Eckhardt continued her remarks by stating that the objective of this report was to add the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to the membership of the Committee on Faculty Benefits. There are two reasons for this. The first is that CC&R is trying to establish some parity of administrators across the standing committees in relationship to the committees' advising function. The second is that this administrator has continually attended Faculty Benefits and should be a member of that committee. There were no comments or questions from Council and the report passed on a Jurs/Gouran motion.

Senate Council -- "Resolution in Support of A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign." At this point, Chair Berkowitz asked Council to change the order of the Senate Agenda by moving the Oral Informational report entitled "A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign" (from the Committee on University Planning) so that it will be on the Senate Agenda directly before the resolution. That way, the Senate will have the benefit of the Informational Report before voting on the resolution. Dr. Berkowitz further noted that this campaign responded in a very direct way to a Senate request, as the campaign was being planned. A few years ago, the Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid asked that a large part of this campaign focus on student aid, and indeed that is happening.

University Planning -- "A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign." Shelton Alexander addressed the report. Council questioned the form in was in and asked that it be changed. They also asked that Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, spend his time during his presentation focusing on what the faculty can do to assist the campaign in reaching its goal. Council also asked that this report be limited to 10 minutes. A Jurs/Tormey motion was passed to accept both this report and the resolution above.

Student Life -- "Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity (Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9)." Bill Ellis and Joseph Puzycki, Director of the Office of Judicial Affairs, offered this report. Council suggested that formatting of the report had some problems and asked that the recommendations be made clear. Concern was also expressed that this is a very substantive report that will have a prolonged impact on students and faculty and that further consideration by the Senate may be necessary. After a long discussion, a substitute Broyles/Lukezic motion to have the committee submit this as a Forensic Report for the April meeting and to have it submitted in the fall as a Legislative Report, was made. After discussion, the substitute motion was passed. Chair Berkowitz then asked Council to consider the original Jurs/Tormey motion to put the report on the Agenda in April. It was passed with the understanding that this will be a Forensic Session with 10 minutes of presentation and 20 minutes for discussion on the Senate floor.

Advisory/Consultative Reports

Faculty Affairs – "Revision of Policy HR-13: Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty." Cara-Lynne Schengrund presented the report and asked if there were any questions. This item was passed for the Agenda without discussion on a Jurs/Broyles motion.

Faculty Benefits – "Parking Facility Financing and Vehicle Registration Policy." Allen Phillips commented that his committee met with Jean Harris, Manager of the Parking Office, and Betty Roberts, Assistant Vice President for Business Services, on the issues in this report. The recommendations are basically three. The first has to do with new parking structures. The second has to do with the use of the funding from faculty/staff parking fees. The third is asking the parking officials to develop alternatives to the mandatory parking registration system. Council advised the committee that the issue of parking at other locations should be considered also. A second issue of parking at University Park by faculty from other locations was also discussed. Council asked that the recommendations should be bulleted out and rationale be put with each recom-mendation. The report was placed on the Agenda on a deHart/Tormey motion.

Faculty Benefits -- "Faculty Salary Report." Jamie Myers joined Professor Phillips in presenting this report. Dr. Myers noted that this is a data rich document and that the committee wished the Senate to focus on the recommendations. It was pointed out in recommendation #1 that there was to be a 25% salary pool to address salary inequities in the 1996 report; this 25% level was not accepted by the President and that this recom-mendation should not refer to "25%" in the implementation of the 1996 recommendation. It was requested that the response letter from the President be included in the report. This report was joined to the April meeting on a Lukezic/Jago motion.

Faculty Affairs -- "Report on Promotion and Tenure Recommendations and Decisions in 1997-98." Professor Schengrund made some editorial changes and asked if there were any questions. A correction in the data was pointed out by Council, and the report was passed on a Gouran/Lukezic motion.

General Education Implementation Committee -- "Skills." John Moore commented that this is the last of the reports from GEIC having to do with the recommendations from the Special Committee on General Education report. The focus of this report is that the Chair of the Senate and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education are advised to appoint a joint committee to be called the Skills Assessment and Consultation Committee. This committee is to facilitate ongoing and continuous assessment programs using the consultation process. There were no questions from Council, and the report was passed on a Gouran/Lukezic motion.

General Education Implementation Committee -- "Final Report." Dr. Moore stated that the substance of the final report was: first, to say what GEIC was asked to do; second, what the committee actually did; and third, suggest future actions. Council asked that points 2, 9, and 10 be eliminated from the report since they were not assigned to GEIC. A Gouran/Jago motion was passed to put this report on the Agenda.

Student Life -- "Student Services at Commonwealth Locations: Mental and Physical Health." Professor Ellis made some editorial changes and Council noted that the committee, although it is not making recommendations, feels that strengthening of the health system at locations other than University Park is necessary. Dr. Ellis commented that the intent of this document was to report back to the Senate on how an Advisory/ Consultative report, passed a year ago, was implemented. Overall, the suggested implementations have been made, but not to the extent that they should have been. The report was passed on a Lukezic/Jago motion.

University Planning -- "Construction Programs Status Report." Shelton Alexander noted that this is the second of the biannual, mandated reports on the status of construction. Council asked that this report be presented earlier in the Senate calendar next year. This was placed on the Senate Agenda with a Tormey/Jago motion.

University Planning -- "Task Force on Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures." Professor Berkowitz reminded Council that this was a task force appointed by central administration reporting through the University Planning Committee to the Senate.

Dr. Alexander noted that this is an informational report in every sense. Some faculty may not know that the task force exists, and thus, this is a report to the university community. The task force is still gathering input and, therefore, this report may come back to the Senate in a different form (i.e., Advisory and Consultative) for action. Council reinforced the need for information gathering and action regarding the issue of intellectual property. They also expressed some urgency in making sure that faculty be widely solicited for input before a final report is submitted. Council also suggested some reformatting of the report. This report was added to the Agenda on a Tormey/Lunetta motion.

ACTION ITEMS

There were no action items for the Council to consider.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business for Council to address.

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Chair Berkowitz thanked the members of Council for their attention to their duties this year and adjourned the meeting at 4:12 PM on a Romberger/Gouran motion.

Respectfully submitted,
George J. Bugyi
Executive Secretary

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-0221 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

Date: April 13, 1999

To: Members, Senate Council

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Immediate Past Chair, University Faculty Senate

Subj: Meeting of Wednesday, March 17, 1999

1. Dr. Gary Rogers, Chair, Committee on Academic Standards reported that the Committee had met earlier in the day with representatives of the World Campus. He indicated that the Committee will continue to communicate with the World Campus as graduate programs and graduate courses are developed for this delivery system.

The Council also approved the Statement of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Post-Baccalaureate Credit Certificate Programs as recommended by the committee.

2. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Chair, Committee on Fellowships and Awards reported on the receipt of applications and awarding of fellowships.

3. Dr. Dennis Sheehan, representing the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs reported that the Committee has concluded its discussion of the University health insurance policy in place for graduate students. The Committee agreed that providing graduate students with more information would solve most of the issues with regard to student insurance. It has been recommended that the Student Insurance Office be asked to disseminate this information (as recommended by the graduate student representatives on the Committee).

4. Dr. Mark Wardell, representing the Committee on Programs and Courses presented a motion that was passed to approve the following new programs:

  • Ph.D. Program in Nursing
  • Master of Engineering in Manufacturing Engineering
  • Master of Science in Health Evaluation Sciences

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: April 16, 1999

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

From: Deidre Jago and Andrew Romberger

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 19997:00 PM

Officers' and Chairs' Meeting Board Room I, NLI

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 19998:00 PM

Commonwealth Caucus MEETING CANCELLED

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 19997:30 AM

Intercollegiate AthleticsHUB GALLERY LOUNGE

8:00 AM

Curricular Affairs101 Kern Building

Outreach Activities210 Rider Building

Student LifePaul Robeson Cultural Center

8:30 AM

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid203 Shields

Committees and Rules227 HUB

Intra-University Relations124 Sparks Building

Research 114 Kern Building

Undergraduate Education307 HUB

University Planning541 Deiker Building

9:00 AM

Faculty Affairs404 Old Main

Libraries E510 Paterno Library

9:30 AM

Computing and Information Systems101-A Kern Building

Faculty BenefitsBirch Cottage

1:30 PM

The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in Ballroom DE of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: April 16, 1999

To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from

Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

From: Deidre Jago and Andrew Romberger

NO MONDAY NIGHT MEETING THIS MONTH

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 -- 11:00 AM -- BALLROOM DE, NLI

The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in the Ballroom DE of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

The tentative Agenda includes:

    I. Call to Order

    II. Announcements and reports from Co-chairs

    III. Introduction of New Senators

    IV. Discussion of Agenda Items

    V. Reports from Senate Committees

    VI. Introduction of Next Year's Co-chairs

    VII. Adjournment and Lunch