Penn State University Home  





The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, February 1, 2000, 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.]

Minutes of the December 7, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:3

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
of January 11, 2000

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 18, 2000






Committees and Rules

Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)


Faculty Affairs

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the
Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

Outreach Activities

Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities


Senate Council

University Faculty Census Report - 2000-2001

University Planning

Transportation Services at University Park




Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.


The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

Date: January 21, 2000

To: Murry R. Nelson, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated January 11, 2000, 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, on or before February 10, 2000.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL 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.


Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6 (f)


[Implementation Date: Upon Passage by the Senate]

Recommendation: The Committee on Committees and Rules recommends that oversight of the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies be added to the Committee on Faculty Benefits. The Standing Rules would be changed by adding the phrase in bold type.

Article II

Section 6
f) Committee on Faculty Benefits
3.Duties: The Committee shall investigate and be the faculty's voice on the
adequacy and other attributes of the University's provisions for salaries, retirement benefits, sabbatical leaves, hospitalization and medical insurance, life insurance, other insurance, investment and savings plans, travel reimbursement, housing benefits, educational benefits, recreational benefits, and other perquisites, benefits and conditions of faculty employment. It shall maintain liaison with the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits and the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies. The Committee shall report to and make recommendations to the Senate at least annually.

Rationale: Presently there is no mechanism for the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies to report regularly to the University Faculty Senate. Placing oversight of this committee under duties of the Committee on Faculty Benefits will enable the Senate to monitor travel policy changes that affect teaching, research and scholarship.

Leonard J. Berkowitz
Christopher J. Bise
Edward W. Bittner
Barton W. Browning
Mark A. Casteel
Caroline D. Eckhardt, Vice Chair
Terry Engelder
Deidre E. Jago
Murry R. Nelson
Jean Landa Pytel
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Tramble T. Turner
Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair


Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of

Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions


[Implementation Date: July 1, 2000]



Twenty-five years ago, Penn State was not the research University it is today. Only in 1974 did the Senate approve a version of HR-23 that required systematic reviews for tenure and promotion, including a full-scale review of faculty for whom a sixth-year decision needed to be made. Our faculty on our campuses particularly was not the strong faculty it is today, and many of the faculty with academic rank did not have terminal degrees. That has changed markedly in recent decades, particularly since the 1980s and President Jordan's commitment to make Penn State one of the major research universities in the country. Today we are proud of a system-wide faculty that consists of strong teachers and researchers.

Changes in Practice

One sign of that strength is that in the tenuring process all of our units assume that tenure is to be granted only to faculty who can be advanced in rank, either at the time of tenure or in the immediate future. Historically, this has not been the case. There are still 169 tenured assistant professors at Penn State--21 at University Park. These are largely long-time assistant professors, mostly tenured before the "modern" period. Most of these tenured assistant professors have served us well for a number of years, and we do not mean to undervalue their contributions and what they have given Penn State over the years. However, if they were tenured with an expectation that promotion was just a step away, this has not been the case as the years have passed.

Over the years, however, as we have become a stronger University system-wide; we have been reducing our proportion of tenured assistant professors because we have been making significantly fewer decisions to tenure without promotion. In the past three years, 161 assistant professors were reviewed for tenure and promotion. Of those, all but six (two each year) did not receive promotion. At the same time, 21 other assistant professors received promotion, even before their tenure decision. (See records for 96-97, 97-98, and 98-99, attached.) Clearly, there is no longer an assumption that tenure and promotion is a two-step process, with tenure the first step in the process and promotion granted at a later date.

Reason to Review Policy

Why is this important? To begin with, to change our language so that policy is not at odds with practice. The statement in HR-23 is as follows: "Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment." The language, passed by the Senate in 1974, and never revised, was once behind an assumption of a two step process for tenure and promotion, and mirrors a world where many faculty were tenured and then had to earn promotion at a future date. (There would frequently be two committees, one to consider tenure--and often consisting of largely tenured assistant professors--and another to consider promotion.) It was this policy that led to assumptions behind the creation of a cadre of 168 tenured assistant professors. Some still point to this language as justifying tenure decisions based on "promise" but little achievement. However, over the past 25 years, the recognized "performance" that the statement says is necessary to signify promise for tenure has risen to a level where it is reasonable to assume that promotion to associate professor is also warranted.

Benchmarking with the CIC

Our counterparts in the CIC either tie tenure to promotion absolutely by policy (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin), or by practice (Michigan State says that they haven't had separate decisions in 15+ years and Minnesota says that, while its policy says only that "the granting of tenure will ordinarily be accompanied by promotion," "our current practice is that tenure is granted with promotion to associate professor"). Only Purdue suggests that it is still possible for a decision to be made to tenure without promoting, but only rarely and in exceptional circumstances. Several of these schools talk about old codes that separated the two decisions before they were replaced by the new ones that have tied them. Penn State is now the only CIC school to have a statement--placed in our P&T policy document over 25 years ago and never revised--that makes separate decisions the basis of understanding.

Reasons for Changing the Presumption from Separate Decisions to Linkage

The reasons to consider changing the presumption behind the current wording are therefore twofold: 1) Major universities, like Penn State and our counterparts in the CIC, do not wish to create a faculty that is identified as not promotable beyond the assistant professor level; and 2) if we can make the case for tenure for a faculty member in a University where that case has to be multiple times stronger than it was in 1974, then we should assume that the case is also strong enough to promote the faculty member under review. We do not create a happy, productive, and loyal faculty by recognizing them with tenure while withholding the rank that most of their counterparts at Penn State--and virtually all of their counterparts at other major universities--receive with it.

Arguments for the Presumption of Separation

The arguments for the present language are usually as follows:

1) Faculty being reviewed are disadvantaged if it is an "up or out" presumption, since many of our valued faculty members today would, by that presumption, not be with us. In any case, it is easier to achieve tenure if the case is not strong enough for promotion if only a tenure recommendation is being made.

Response: The policy as it is applied in practice probably does more to benefit the faculty member whom we want to tenure than it does to disadvantage them. In the few cases where we have granted tenure without promotion in recent years, it is more likely that both would have been granted if the candidate had been recommended for both tenure and promotion, than that the candidate would have been denied both if both decisions had to be made to agree. Moreover, it is not true that a weak candidate has a better chance of receiving tenure if promotion is not simultaneously recommended in the sixth year. A weak candidate is a weak candidate, and calling attention to that weakness by not recommending promotion does not strengthen the case, even though tenure and promotion are, by policy, separate decisions.

2) Faculty members at campus colleges teach more and more is expected in the way of service than is true of their colleagues at University Park; they therefore have fewer hours, as well as fewer resources, for research, and so should be allowed more time before a promotion decision is made.

There are two responses to this consideration. First, efforts in faculty development need to be made to give provisional faculty at all locations the best opportunity to succeed, and success should include promotion as well as tenure. Campus administrators need to monitor candidates' service time and teaching schedules so that neither are all-consuming, and initiatives should be taken to support and advise faculty in their research agendas.

Second, where expectations for promotion are not reasonable within a six year period, they need to be made reasonable, rather than assume that the timetable for promotion to associate professor should extend beyond the provisional period (with the possibility that such promotion may never be achieved after the tenure decision). All campus colleges are now tenure-granting units, and they should construct tenure and promotion guidelines in the context of their mission, with reasonable expectations for what faculty in a research university at a campus location with a strong mission for teaching and service should achieve in the provisional period before the granting of tenure.

The Faculty Affairs Committee, therefore, recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed so that the presumption is that a positive sixth-year tenure decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by promotion to associate professor, although in exceptional cases a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote.


The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs Committee recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed as indicated below so that the presumption is that a positive decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by promotion to associate professor; in an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote. The change in wording has no impact on the possibility of promoting before tenure.

"Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment." The presumption is that a positive tenure decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by promotion to associate professor; in an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote.

Shelton S. Alexander
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Melvin Blumberg
Robin B. Ciardullo
Traivs DeCastro
Renee d. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky
David J. Myers
John S. Nichols, Chair
Amy L. Paster
Denise Potosky
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim C. Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair


Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities

(Advisory and Consultative)


Universities throughout the United States are renewing their commitment to outreach and embracing the concept of the "engaged university." This is particularly true of land-grant universities as they redefine their role in serving society in the 21st century. The "engaged university" is an institution of higher learning that uses its scholarly resources to address the needs of society, including the various constituents it serves (Kellogg, 1999).

Society recognizes that the activities of university faculty generate benefits that extend well beyond the classroom, reaching beyond the students and scholars who are part of the academy. This recognition has long been used to justify the state tax revenues that subsidize the University’s activities. In addition, major federal agencies are now calling for assessments of the impact of funded research beyond traditional audiences. They are increasingly interested in research that develops partnerships outside the University; this research work is intended to disseminates results to the general public and to demonstrate the value of its scholarship to society.

Penn State is being challenged more than ever before to demonstrate, to public policymakers and other constituencies throughout the Commonwealth, its contributions to society. Although Penn State has a notable history in using its resources to address the needs of society, the University must continue to enhance its role as a resource for individuals, organizations, and communities by becoming more of an "engaged university." Penn State needs to continue to actively respond to the knowledge needs of people of all ages and to focus on the application and delivery of scholarly expertise that addresses societal needs.

The Senate Committee on Outreach Activities was charged to recommend ways to enhance the activity of Penn State faculty in outreach. This report is a summary of the Committee’s findings and presents recommendations for promoting the engagement of faculty in outreach. The report includes Penn State’s definition of outreach and delineates the components of outreach: outreach teaching, outreach research, and outreach service. It informs the Faculty Senate of Penn State’s commitment to continue to grow in outreach through its administrative leadership, its organizational structure, furthering its current outreach endeavors and, most importantly, the dedication of many Penn State faculty, staff, and volunteers. The report then describes several deterrents which still exist for Penn State faculty who are interested in becoming more involved in outreach. A practical "first step" approach is recommended as a possible solution to some of these deterrents. The report concludes with specific recommendations.


Penn State’s definition of Outreach was created in the 1995 Joint Report of the Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach, and it appears on the Faculty Senate Outreach Activities Committee Web site Also, since December of 1997, this definition has been used in the literature for the Penn State Annual Award for Faculty Outreach.

Outreach is the generation, transmission, application, preservation, and enhancement of knowledge between the University and external audiences, within the Commonwealth, nationally, and internationally.

In the 1995 Report this definition continues,

Outreach is a form of scholarship which is embodied in the teaching, research, and service missions of the University. As such, outreach activities can take a number of forms, including but not limited to, credit and noncredit instruction, applied research, technical assistance, demonstration projects, evaluation studies, and policy analysis.

The Committee notes that other universities have similar definitions of outreach. For instance, Michigan State University defines an outreach activity as one, "…in which the public benefits from what is uniquely the province of the university to provide, mainly scholarship". (Michigan State, 1999)

Paramount in rewarding faculty for their scholarly outreach is for the University to be able to assess the quality of outreach activity. For the purpose of helping develop assessment tools, it is necessary to provide an interpretation of outreach in each of Penn State’s traditional categories: teaching, research and service.

Outreach teaching extends the campus’s instructional capacity to external audiences, including continuing education courses, seminars, workshops exhibits and performances, presentations, and other teaching addressed to non-academic and professional audiences to benefit society. It also includes delivery of non-resident instruction through the World Campus.

Outreach research involves a two-way interaction between faculty members and external constituencies to discover, explore, and develop knowledge in partnership, each contributing to the research. This research includes examining the process of knowledge discovery. Outreach research encompasses a two-way exchange involving both the scholar and the community being served.

Outreach service includes faculty sharing their expertise as they serve audiences predominately external to the University. This service may include presentations to non-academic professional and learned societies, participation in community affairs as a representative of the University and consulting (whereby the expertise of the faculty is shared for the good of society). Other service based on the expertise of the faculty could include service to government and corporations, advisory boards, policy analysis, technology transfer, clinical service delivery, and participation in task forces, authorities, and public hearings.

The Committee notes that some outreach activities could be placed in more than one category. The faculty member, department head, or faculty peers may see some forms of outreach as spanning across traditional lines of teaching, research, and service. For instance, a presentation to a predominately non-academic professional group may have both teaching and service missions. As Penn State moves toward new evaluative initiatives for outreach, we will need to be flexible in our effort to categorize faculty scholarly achievements.


Some of Penn State University’s senior administrative officers are nationally recognized leaders in promoting outreach. For example, President Graham Spanier is chair of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Recently President Spanier was named chair of the Council of Presidents for the National Association of State University and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). He serves on the Commission on Information Technologies of NASULGC and the Presidential Advisory Board on Information Technology. President Spanier stated, "Penn State is committed to it’s future success in the University’s endeavors to integrate outreach into teaching, research, and service, making them a seamless whole" (Spanier, 1997, p.5). In the same document Dr. Spanier stated,

"Penn State is distinctive among its peers in the world of comprehensive research universities, both because of its quality and its scope. We administer a highly productive education enterprise for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a geographically distributed university with 24 locations that resembles the state itself in its diversity, its productivity, and its determination to succeed. In the mid-nineties, it has become clear that the changing demographics, the emerging techniques of teaching and learning, and the shifting educational needs of people throughout the Commonwealth all have combined to make a new blueprint for Penn State absolutely vital".

Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University, similarly stated,

"On the doorstep of the twenty-first century, Penn State continues to pursue its historic mission of integrated teaching, research, and service. We do this not only to foster Pennsylvania’s economic and social development, but also because it provides the richest learning environment for our students" (Erickson, 1998, p.1).

Add to this the following message from James Ryan, the Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension.

"Today, as even the basic needs of our youth for food, shelter, health care, education and companionship are not always being met, it is often difficult to know where to begin to address these pressing issues. In truth, though, we need not look far for the answers. Institutions of higher education have the capacity to make vast contributions to improving quality of life" (Ryan, 1999, p.1).

In 1997, the University created the role of a senior officer for outreach, the Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension. The Vice President is responsible for advancing outreach throughout the University and reports to the President. This reorganization along with the President’s 1996 Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension were instituted for the goal of expanding outreach programs. It also provides increased communication, coordination, collaboration, and enhanced partnerships internally with all academic colleges and externally with the communities and organizations that Penn State serves (Penn State University, 1996, 1997).

The re-organization of Penn State’s Outreach and Cooperative Extension has made Penn State a leader in the nation for enhancing outreach activities. The Outreach and Cooperative Extension Office can efficiently coordinate and communicate outreach activities among all major outreach units: Cooperative Extension, Continuing Education, Distance Education, Public Broadcasting, and Technology Transfer. The programs designed by these unites which are provided by 24 campus locations, eight technology centers, and now on the Internet-based World Campus are reaching thousands of people within the Commonwealth, nation, and world. Each year the office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension publishes an Outreach Inventory of Programs and Services summarizing the year’s outreach activities. The 1998 Outreach Inventory recognized the work of more that 1,500 faculty members (of over 5,500) from all Penn State locations who applied a portion of their scholarship through outreach. (Penn State, 1998b)

Cooperative Extension is an important part of the University’s outreach research and educational programs for the citizens of the Commonwealth. It has a network of people working together including extension agents, volunteers, and faculty. According to Marilyn Corbin, Program Leader in Children, Youth and Families at Penn State Cooperative Extension, over 130 faculty members with extension responsibilities provide statewide leadership for extension education programs. The University Cooperative Extension faculty are responsible for developing educational resources for approximately 300 extension agents, 130 paraprofessionals, and thousands of volunteers who help plan, deliver, and evaluate the programs at the county level.

A Penn State publication titled The Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension: A Second Overview and Update includes a wide array of examples involving Penn State faculty and staff who are engaged in extending and expanding the outreach capabilities of the University. Such initiatives emanating from programming on community, economic, and workforce development; information sciences and technology; children, youth and family; health care and wellness; and agricultural and environmental issues all represent the innovative and extensive engagement of Penn State faculty and staff in the communities we serve. (Penn State 1999b)

In his most recent State of the University Address (1999), President Spanier praised the advancements and achievements of the unified outreach organization, saying,

"Our outreach staff is our lifeline to literally millions of constituents. In the last two years, we’ve seen Penn State emerge with the nation’s largest unified outreach program. There should be no doubt that Penn State is both the Commonwealth’s principal engine of research and development and its most expansive educational resource. Our service to the people of Pennsylvania is a mission we take most seriously and discharge with immense pride." [Spanier, 1999]


Penn State is not unique in its concern with extending its scholarship to new audiences. In fact, the concept of the "engaged university" is currently being embraced by our most prestigious peer institutions.

This past October, the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension Program of Penn State University hosted a three-day conference entitled "(1999) Best Practices in Outreach and Public Service, The Scholarship of Engagement." Over 330 participants, representing forty four universities from seven countries, exchanged ideas on improving the role of colleges and universities in serving society.

With increased calls for public accountability, institutions of higher education are being required "to take charge of change." The need to increase responsiveness to societal needs by our nation’s higher education institutions has never been greater and is being called for in such publications as the Kellogg Commission’s (1999) Returning to our Roots: The Engaged Institution. Several public land grant institutions, including Penn State, are profiled in The Engaged Institution report. The Kellogg report recognizes that "despite the resources and expertise available on our campuses, our institutions are not well organized to bring them to bear on local problems in a coherent way" (Kellogg, 1999, p.3).

Other Big 10 Universities, such as Michigan State, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, have initiated faculty-led committees and have begun to develop manuals and other information resources to guide the development of strategies and mechanisms for evaluating quality outreach. Additionally, some of these institutions have begun developing measurement tools to assist in the assessment of outreach engagement scholarship for promotion, tenure, and merit increases. (See Michigan State 1996, Michigan State 1999, University of Illinois 1993, University of Wisconsin 1997; from outside the Big 10 see Oregon State 1996, Portland State 1998,)


The Penn State Faculty Senate, Office for Outreach and Cooperative Extension, and the administrative officers are not alone within the University in attempts to promote increased engagement of university faculty in outreach activities. Other University wide groups are also studying ways to promote increased engagement of university.

In 1992 the University established the Academic Council on Continuing and Distant Education, restructured in 1996 as the Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension (CCOCE), which is a university-wide policy and program development committee. CCOCE has representatives from all colleges, the Faculty Senate, Undergraduate Education, The Graduate School, the Libraries, Center for Academic Computing, Continuing Education, Distance Education (World Campus), Public Broadcasting and Cooperative Extension.

In the Spring of 1998, the Keystone 21 Advisory Committee was formed at Penn State, with the sponsorship of the Kellogg Commission, to seek ways it could promote leadership for innovation and change within the University. The Advisory Committee noted that the creation of new definitions of scholarship and new reward systems is a key target for institutional change. It was concerned that most of our colleges continued to reward basic research to the virtual exclusion of outreach. The Keystone 21 Advisory Committee initiated a "learning and discussion group" called UNI-SCOPE (UNIversity Scholarship and Criteria for Outreach and Performance Evaluation). This group is charged with exploring criteria and methods for a land-grant university to evaluate scholarship and outreach activities. It is also concerned with strengthening Penn State’s ability to meet the challenges posed by rapid social and technological changes and demonstrate the University’s willingness to address these changes.

UNI-SCOPE has had monthly meetings since March 1998. It has reviewed the missions, scholarship expectations, and reward systems of Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon State, and Illinois Universities. Penn State representatives to UNI-SCOPE include some Senate members, and a representative from the Senate Outreach Activity Committee.

We anticipate that early next year UNI-SCOPE will publish its report, to be entitled, Dimensions of Scholarship In the 21st Century. The report will address the questions of what scholarship is in a land-grant university setting, and what is outreach in this context. UNI-SCOPE may develop new definitions of scholarship that fully value, recognize, and reward substantive and creative accomplishments pertinent to faculty members’ assigned responsibilities, whether in the classroom teaching, non-formal extension education, or research. At the core of its deliberations is its concern with broadening the concept of scholarship.


The findings of the 1995 Joint Report of the Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach on the benefits of outreach is still relevant. It concludes that outreach is a form of scholarship and a major function of the University, and outreach should be integral to the intellectual life of the University. Outreach activities provide an array of benefits to the institution. Some of these are that, (Penn State University, 1995, p.5)

Faculty engaging in outreach through teaching, research and/or service benefit their own professional development and that of their colleagues, as well as enhance the reputation and stature of Penn State. Faculty gain opportunities to collaborate with those outside the university to collect information, to examine different perspectives, and to gain insight in social problems. Interaction with policymakers, civic organizations, and community leaders reaches the faculty member by providing the faculty with new dimensions for teaching, research, and service. Specific benefits of outreach for faculty are:


In 1995, an inventory of outreach activities was completed for the Administrative Council on University Outreach by interviewing the deans of all the academic colleges (or their representatives), the associate vice president for research and technology transfer, and the director of CES Relations. According to the report, "These discussions revealed that many outreach activities are not cataloged and recorded; a more effective definition of outreach as well as an improved process for recording and sharing this information are needed. In addition, a large number of activities are measured for client satisfaction; however, evaluation methods to determine both quality and impact of these programs generally need to be enhanced." The report concludes, "Faculty perceive that rewards are personal rather than from the University" (Penn State University, 1995b).


To enhance Penn State’s contributions to outreach in our Commonwealth and to help junior faculty to become more involved in outreach, the Outreach Activities Committee is proposing several recommendations to the Faculty Senate. All these recommendations pertain to tenured faculty.

There are three advantages of directing these recommendations toward Penn State’s tenured faculty. First, these faculty have progressed through the promotion and tenure processes of Penn State both the University and external stakeholders recognize their expertise and the value of their work. Second, tenured faculty members are our most visible ambassadors of the University’s scholarly community and, as such, can be valued and able contributors to addressing current issues of our society. Third, tenured faculty can develop the means for rigorously documenting and evaluating outreach. Since tenured faculty serve on promotion and tenure review committees, they would be in an excellent position to mentor junior faculty in embracing outreach as part of their pre-tenure professional work.

The Committee believes that documentation and assessment of outreach is timely and practicable for tenured faculty outside of HR-23. It is believed that by studying the recently published Carnegie Report, the recent work of our peer institutions, the upcoming UNISCOPE report, and others, practical guidelines to documenting and assessing outreach activities for Penn State’s faculty could be developed for use by Penn State’s tenured faculty for satisfying requirements of University Policy HR-40, specifically for annual activity reviews and extended reviews. The Committee is confident that assessing the quality, impact, and personal involvement of Penn State’s tenured faculty’s role in the outreach would not involve the exhaustive rigor required in HR-23 for that of a junior faculty member seeking tenure and promotion.

The Committee believes that tenured faculty will begin directing more of their scholarly activity toward outreach if an accurate, reliable, professional, and practical process for documenting and assessing the amount and quality of the outreach is created. As stated in the Carnegie Report, "The continued vitality of the nation’s colleges and universities in the approaching century depends on their ability to show more care for a wider range of missions. As a correlate, they must embrace a broader vision of scholarship to better align faculty roles with institutional goals" (Glassick,1997, p11).

The Committee expects that the experience in outreach documentation and assessment gained by tenured faculty will result in expanding outreach opportunities to junior tenure tract faculty. In this manner, Penn State’s tenured faculty members will be in the best position to mentor untenured faculty and to help them become major contributors to outreach. Through a more "engaged tenured faculty", Penn State will be instrumental in developing practical, and effective methods for documenting and assessing outreach activities of their junior colleagues.


These recommendations set forth by the Committee are primarily addressed to tenured faculty members. It is hoped that the Faculty Senate sees these recommendations as a practical first step toward the necessary changes to meet the needs of tenured faculty, and eventually of untenured faculty

Our recommendations can be summarized in a two-fold approach to encourage tenured faculty to become more a part of the "engaged tenured faculty." One, a "top-down" strategy involving securing proper incentives, rewards, and support of increased outreach through university policy, Faculty Senate activities, and cooperation among participating units. Two, a "bottom-up" strategy that makes it possible for faculty to document and assess the scholarly outreach accomplishments of their peers.

Recommendation 1. The offices of the President and Provost shall continue to provide leadership for communicating the value of outreach at The Pennsylvania State University to college deans and to other academic leaders.

Rationale: The Committee wishes to clearly state its firm conviction that the engagement of faculty in scholarly outreach activities is not intended to add a new layer of expectations to individuals’ or academic units’ professional responsibilities. Rather, it is proposing a change in focus for many individuals and departments. If outreach activities of faculty members are to be recognized and rewarded, it is important that direction and leadership be given by those administrators who are directly responsible for providing that recognition (i.e., deans, department heads, and school directors).

Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that outreach objectives and activities be included in the strategic plans and mission statements of all colleges and departments.

Rationale: All colleges provide vision and mission statements as part of their strategic plans submitted to the University Planning Council. This Committee has reviewed these statements and finds that outreach, or outreach-related, activities are already part of most colleges’ mission statements. However, whereas it has become common to use the word "outreach", the nature and objectives of outreach activities are generally vague. To the extent that it is consistent with the resources and general mission of the College, we suggest that outreach objectives be articulated to show how these objectives are to be achieved.

Recommendation 3. Each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach of all faculty. We encourage junior faculty to participate in outreach activities, but to remain sensitive to their time commitments to these activities. Junior faculty should maintain a careful balance between outreach and traditional professional work appropriate to their individual position requirements. Interested tenured faculty members should have the opportunity to design short-term position descriptions or statements of professional responsibilities, in consultation with their unit heads, that are consistent with their unit's mission statement and that incorporate specific outreach activities on-load. This calls for increased flexibility in designing workloads so that they might include both traditional and (complementary) outreach assignments. Any extra assignments should be tied to specific additional rewards.

Rationale: Outreach activities may not be appropriate for every member of the faculty. However, for most faculty members outreach is a natural extension of existing professional responsibilities. It is appropriate that tenured faculty members assume leadership for this initiative. They are our most visible and experienced scholars and are in the best position to mentor outreach activities of junior faculty members.

We urge academic administrators to move in the direction of specifying outreach activities as "online" rather than as outside one's normal professional responsibilities. To that end, outreach might replace some current activities in resident instruction and peer-focused research and service. The most effective process for increasing faculty engagement is to design statements of professional responsibility to include outreach. In that way faculty members can be given credit for such work in annual performance reviews and in extended reviews, in accordance with the requirements of HR-40.

Recommendation 4. Establish an Annual Faculty Outreach Award in each College, and an Annual Outreach Award in departments where appropriate, to recognize outstanding outreach.

Rationale: To encourage faculty participation in outreach we recommend establishment of awards in each College and in most academic departments that parallel the annual University-wide Faculty Outreach Award. This award should include a monetary honorarium and should be well-publicized within the academic units and the University. Each academic unit that establishes such an award should have a selection committee that carefully evaluates the documentation and assessment of outreach activities of candidates. This might include evaluations by both peers and external stakeholders that identify the impacts of the candidate's work. This award should equal, in substantive recognition and prestige, the annual outstanding teaching and outstanding research awards that are currently given by many academic units.

Recommendation 5. Administrators are urged to provide opportunities for faculty members to develop outreach projects as part of their assigned professional duties and to enhance their ability to work with stakeholders outside the University. This may be accomplished by providing sabbatical leaves to engage in outreach. It may also be accomplished by providing seed funding for outreach projects that might generate external financing.

Rationale: Sabbatical leaves have been traditionally granted for professional development. They permit faculty members to engage in study, discovery of new knowledge through research, preparation of books or other media for the distribution of knowledge, or for the development of new curricula or pedagogical methods. Similarly, sabbatical leaves can be important resources in outreach. Leaves with pay provide faculty members with the time necessary for significant outreach projects. It is important to recognize that leaves for substantive outreach activities improve professional skills, just as do traditional sabbatical activities. In addition, the granting of sabbatical leaves for outreach-related activities demonstrates the commitment of Penn State to applying its most precious resource to engagement, i.e., its faculty members’ time and intellectual energies.

Recommendation 6. The University and individual colleges should establish faculty development workshops or other opportunities for faculty members to enhance skills in outreach.

Rationale: Outreach is generally not addressed in the graduate programs and career development activities (of professional associations and of colleges) that help to prepare faculty for their profession and that advance their skills. Workshops, conferences, or other activities should be provided that are guided by experienced outreach faculty from within or outside the University.

Recommendation 7. Faculty leaders engaged in outreach should strive to develop procedures for both the documentation and rigorous assessment of outreach activities. The officers of the University Faculty Senate should charge the Outreach Activities and Faculty Affairs Committees to develop guidelines for documenting and assessing outreach for use in annual and extended reviews of tenured faculty (i.e., reviews in compliance with HR-40).

Rationale: Outreach is complementary to existing scholarly activities of faculty members in teaching, research, and service. We hold a vision of a faculty member’s career that balances traditional and outreach; only under special circumstances might a faculty member devote her/his energies exclusively to one type of activity. It is important that outreach be valued. Penn State has a rigorous procedure for the documentation and assessment of traditional faculty activities in teaching, research, and service. This includes standards for student and peer assessment. Three years ago the Faculty Senate adopted revisions to HR-23 that incorporates outreach activities in the evaluation of teaching, research, and service. However, a significant barrier to the evaluation of faculty outreach activities is the lack of procedures for documentation and assessment of outreach activities that parallel those we employ for traditional scholarly work. Development of such procedures will encourage tenured faculty to engage in outreach activities and this will provide a starting point for improving the quality of outreach activities and their assessment.

Theodore R. Alter
G. Jogesh Babu
Craig A Bernecker, Vice-Chair
Patricia A. Book
J. Christopher Carey
Jacob De Rooy, Chair
Ellen M Dietrich
Julia C. Hewitt
Winand K. Hock
George A. Lesieutre
David E. Roth
Gregory W. Roth
James H. Ryan
Joseph W. Sassani
Susan C. Youtz
Tami Adams-Mizikar, Staff Support

Patricia Book
David E. Roth
Jacob DeRooy, Chair
Susan C. Youtz
Donald Kunze
Deborah Klevans, staff support
Dennis Murphy
Margaret Koble, staff support


Anderson, K.E. (1993). Scholarship Reconsidered: The changing reward system. Journal of the Association of Communication Administration, 3, 9-13.

Applebaum, R.L. (1993). Scholarship Reconsidered: A Reflection. Journal of the Association of Communication Administration, 3,25-30.

Boyer, Ernest,L (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate, Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braskamp, L.A., & Ory, J.C. (1994). Assessing Faculty Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chang, Yu-bi, (1998). Evaluation of University Outreach: Views from Penn State Faculty, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. A Doctoral Thesis in Adult Education.

Driscoll, Amy, & Lynton, E.A. (1999). Making Outreach Visible, National Forum on Faculty Roles & Rewards Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education (AAHE).

Elman, S. E. & Smock, S. M. (1985). Professional service and faculty rewards. Toward an integrate structure. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Erickson, Rodney, A. (1998). Integrated Impact, Penn State Research and Technology Transfer, Partnerships for Economic Development. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Florestano, P.W.,& Hambrick, R. (1984). Rewarding Faculty Members for Profession-Related Public Service. Educational Record, 65(1), 18-21.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T. and Maeroff, G.I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professorate. An E.L.Boyer Project of the Carnegie Foundation, San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Hunt, G.T. (1993). Scholarship Reconsidered: Role definition and its impact on the faculty. Journal of the Association of Communication Administration, 3, 1-8.

Kellogg Commission. (1999). Returning to our Roots: The Engaged University. Third Report of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities," National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Knox A.B., (1998). Recognizing Excellent Outreach Performance. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Technical Report for Continuing Education.

Meyer, J. (1995). Summary of Results For Faculty Survey – All Respondents. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Continuing and Distance Education Report to the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach.

Michigan State University. (1996). Points of Distinction: A Guidebook for Planning and Evaluating Quality Outreach (Oct 1996). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach.

Michigan State University. (1999). Institutional Indicators for Outreach: Beyond Counting (June 1999). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach.

Oregon State University. (1996), Innovations in Academic Rewards at Oregon State University. Inquiry in Action (Oct 1996). Corvallis, OR: The Oregon State University.

Pennsylvania State University. (1995a). Penn State’s Outreach. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach.

Pennsylvania State University. (1995b). ). (Informational Report to the Faculty Senate, July 1995). Survey of Full-Time Faculty : Results about Outreach. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach Activities.

Pennsylvania State University. (1996). A Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension at Penn State (July,1996).University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Pennsylvania State University. (1997a). A Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension at Penn State (July,1997).University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Pennsylvania State University. (1997b). (Informational Report to the Faculty Senate, April 1997). Evaluative Framework on Outreach Activities University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach Activities. [On-line]. Available: http//

Pennsylvania State University. (1998a). A Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension at Penn State (June,1998).University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Pennsylvania State University. (1998b). Making Life Better: An Outreach Inventory of Programs and Services (Fall, 1998). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, The Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension.

Pennsylvania State University. (1999a). Making Life Better: An Outreach Inventory of Programs and Services (Fall, 1999). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, The Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension.

Pennsylvania State University. (1999b). A Plan for Strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension at Penn State (June,1999).University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University

Portland State University, (1998). Portfolio Development for Promotion and Tenure. Portland, OR: The Portland State University. Unpublished report to the Department P&T Committee.

Ryan, J. H. (1999). "Land-grant Universities Play a Key Role in Helping Children, Youth and families," Outreach Magazine, A Special Edition, Fall 1999. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Salthouse, T.A., McKeachie, W.J., & Lin, Y. (1978). An Experimental Investigation of Factors Affecting University Promotion Decisions. Journal of Higher Education 49(2), pp177-183.

Spanier, Graham, (1997). Penn State in the Commonwealth. A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Spanier, Graham, (1999). 1999 State-of-the-University Address, http://www/

University of Illinois, (1993). A Faculty Guide for Relating Public Service to the Promotion and Tenure Review Process. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois.

University of Illinois. (1996). University of Illinois Cooperative Extension System: Its Role and Its Future(December 1996), Report of the Chancellor’s Commission on Extension

University of Wisconsin. (1997). Commitment to the Wisconsin Idea: A Guide to Documenting and Evaluating Excellence in Outreach. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Office of Outreach Development.

Walshok, Mary Lindenstein, (1995). Knowledge without Boundaries, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Farancisco.

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: January 18, 2000

To: The University Faculty Senate - For Your Information

From: Christopher J. Bise, Chair, Elections Commission

The 2000-2001 Census of the faculty for the University Faculty Senate was conducted in the following manner.

Using an information base provided by the Office of Administrative Systems, a Senate census data base was created which included all personnel falling within the definition of the electorate of the University Faculty Senate as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the University Faculty Senate. This electorate includes all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full-time appointments as of 10/30/99, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding professorial or librarian titles; those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers or assistant librarians; and those holding research rank (excluding non-continuing). These lists were sent to Deans and Directors of Academic Affairs of the various voting units for verification. For the Military Sciences, the list was compiled by the Coordinator of the Combined Departments of the Military Sciences at University Park. Military Sciences faculty at other locations were counted with that voting unit. For Librarians, the list was compiled by the Dean of the University Libraries. The Commonwealth College Librarians were counted with their voting unit.

Both a copy of the verified list together with a letter informing the academic voting unit of the number of its electorate and the number of Senate seats to be filled were sent to each Dean and Director of Academic Affairs as well as to the Coordinator of the Military Sciences and the Dean of University Libraries. A copy of the memo was sent to each Senate Council representative.

The total membership of the 2000-2001 University Faculty Senate will be 260. This total will include 217 elected faculty Senators, 22 appointed and ex officio Senators, and 21 student Senators. The student Senators will include: one (1) undergraduate from each of the ten (10) colleges at University Park; one (1) from each of the following locations--Abington, Altoona, Berks-Lehigh Valley, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College, Capital College, College of Medicine, Commonwealth College, The Dickinson School of Law, Division of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School, and Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies.

Christopher Bise, Chair
Edward Bittner
Peter Deines
Jacob De Rooy
Louis Geschwindner
Deidre Jago
Philip Klein
Margaret Lyday
Donald Fahnline


Faculty Census Report - 2000/2001

For the Purpose of Election of Senators (As of November 1, 1999)

1999-00 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 2000-01

"8%" VALIGN="TOP">










96 5




98 5


Agricultural Sciences

289 14





284 14



115 6





118 6


Arts & Architecture

155 8




164 8


Behrend College

158 8




173 9


Berks-Lehigh Valley

85 4





100 5


Business Administration

141 7





144 7


Capital College

191 10





195 10


Commonwealth College

561 28





584 29



54 3




56 3


Dickinson School of Law

35 2





39 2


Earth & Mineral Sciences

152 8





152 8



125 6




133 7



498 25





469 23


Great Valley

35 2





36 2


Health & Human Development

267 13




265 13


Institute of Sciences & Technology

1 1





5 1


Liberal Arts

428 21





429 21



47 2



45 2



480 24





544 27


Military Sciences

26 1




28 1



288 14





288 14



4227 212





4349 217


1999-00 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 2000-2001












































Mont Alto






New Kensington






Shenango Valley












Worthington Scranton



















The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

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

Date: January 17, 2000

To: Members, University Faculty Senate

From: Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

The Senate Committee on University Planning is in the process of reviewing the University's transportation management approach. As part of this effort, the committee heard a report by Betty J. Roberts, Assistant Vice President for Business Services, on the Transit Service opportunities provided to faculty and staff at University Park.

Many of the committee members were unaware of these opportunities and suggested that efforts be made to make these opportunities more widely known. As part of this effort, the University Planning Committee would like to provide the Senate members with the attached summary.

P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta, Vice-Chair
Elizabeth Billingsley
Peter Deines, Chair
Peter B. Everett
William M. Frank
Timothy J. Hampp
John T. Harwood
Brandon B. Hunt
Ali R. Hurson
Rodney Kirsch
Philip A. Klein
Larry J. Kuhns
Jeffrey S. Mayer
B. Tracy Nixon
Winston A. Richards
Lola Rodriguez
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Dennis S. Scanlon
Derek R. Schuelein
Gary C. Schultz
Beno Weiss

Transit Service Opportunities at University Park

TDM is Transportation Demand Management – a comprehensive approach for managing Penn State's University Park campus transportation over the next 5 to 7 years that includes the components of transit, parking, rideshare, and biking. The specific goals of TDM are to successfully reduce traffic congestion, lessen environmental pollutants, and provide transportation alternatives for the University community.

Transportation Services, in partnership with Centre Area Transit Authority (CATA), has established the following transit programs designed to better serve the University community.

Rideshare Program

Rideshare is a free program that helps commuters find easy and economical ways to get to and from work in the Centre Region, either through carpooling or vanpooling.

* Rideshare is administrated by CATA who uses a computerized RideMatch Program to match individuals from the surrounding communities wishing to share the same commute.

* Each participant in the Rideshare Program receives a free custom RideMatch List which they use to make rideshare arrangements.

* All members of a car pool may register their vehicle under one parking permit which may be transferred among car pool members.

* Each Rideshare participant receives three (3) one-day parking permits at no charge, each fiscal year, to accommodate the occasional need to drive independently.

Guaranteed Ride Home Program

All University participants registered in the Rideshare Program are automatically enrolled in the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program, which is administered by CATA.

* In case of an emergency (medical, disaster, or work related emergencies) for a rider or driver, GRH provides free transportation home via a rental car or taxi.

Employee Transit Pass

A discounted monthly transit pass is available to employees for use on CATA's Centre Line.

* The monthly transit pass costs $29 and is available through the PSU Parking Office.

* Persons opting for this pass do so on a pre-tax basis, and payments are made via payroll deduction.

No Fare Loop Service

Administered by CATA, the Campus and Town Loop bus service offers a no fare ride to anyone on campus. In areas outside of the Loop Zone, fares will continue. The Loop Zone is identified as the area from Beaver Avenue to Park Avenue and Porter Road to Atherton Street.

* There is less than a five minute waiting period between buses during peak hours.

* Extended hours of operation are:

7:15 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday

7:15 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday

* Additional bus shelters are located along the loop route.

Faculty/Staff Shuttle

* The faculty/staff shuttle provides service on campus every 20 minutes.

* Pickup and drop off locations on campus include the areas of Housing and Food Services, Business Services, Purchasing/Travel/Surplus & Salvage, and University Support Building I & II.

Guest Shuttle

* The guest shuttle services the campus every 30 minutes.

* The guest shuttle travels between the Nittany Lion Inn and the Penn Stater with additional stops at Centre Community Hospital and along College Avenue.

How to reach us:

Transportation Services

Teresa Davis, Director

(814) 863-4006

PSU Parking Office (814) 865-1436

CATA (814) 238-2282


The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:30 PM 101 Kern Graduate Building


>J. W. Bagby
L. J. Berkowitz
C. J. Bise
M. E. Broyles
L. A. Carpenter
A. Chellman
P. Deines
G. F. De Jong
R. A. Erickson
D. S. Gouran
Z. Irwin
L. Kenney
F. Lukezic
M. R. Nelson
P. P. Rebane
R. D. Richards
I. Richman
A. B. Romberger
A. W. Scaroni
C. L. Schengrund
S. R. Smith
B. B. Tormey
G. J. Bugyi
B. S. Hockenberry
V. R. Price
P. C. Jurs
P. A. Klein
E. Leure-duPree
L. P. Miller
G. B. Spanier
J. Cahir
J. De Rooy
C. Eckhardt
L. Milakofsky
J. Nichols
J. Romano
R. Secor

Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 1:41 PM on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. The Minutes of the November 16, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed on a Richman/Romberger motion.


Dr. Nelson first announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, November 23 and again this morning, January 18. Agenda items discussed at the November 23 meeting were: Update on Penn State Geisinger Health System; Update on Searches; Academic Integrity Update; Benefit Changes on Drugs; Common Degree Requirements; Computer Initiative at Non-UP Campuses; Faculty Senate Involvement in Enrollment Management; University Calendar; Intellectual Property Task Force; and Commonwealth College Letterheads. Items discussed this morning included: Search Updates; Druce Commission and Appropriations Hearings; Update on Hershey/College of Medicine Faculty 'Split;' Faculty Handbook; Intellectual Property Update; Emeritus Faculty Teaching Fellows; Prerequisites (follow-up); Policies and Procedures for Immediate Tenure; and Single Portal Policy for Distance Education. The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, February 15. If anyone have any items for FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers have begun their visits to units at University Park for the spring. They visited the College of Health and Human Development on Thursday, January 13. The next visit is scheduled for Tuesday, February 8 to the College of the Liberal Arts. The dates of all visits for spring semester are posted on the Senate's web page.

The Senate received two memos from President Spanier regarding reports passed by the Senate. From the October 26, Senate meeting, a report from the Faculty Benefits Committee entitled 'Recommendation Regarding Surcharges in the Penn State Dental Plan' was approved for implementation by the President. He is asking the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to implement the recommendation. From the December 7, 1999, Senate meeting from the Faculty Affairs Committee, a report entitled 'Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks' was approved by the President and he is asking the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to implement the recommendation.

Provost Erickson announced that the preparations for Y2K went very well because a lot of effort was put into making certain that everything was done to prevent any problems. There were only four calls to the Y2K Hot Line, so the center was closed down much quicker than was expected. He expressed his appreciation to the Senate in helping with faculty awareness of the possible problems. It seemed that we had far fewer problems than some of our sister institutions in the Big Ten.

Dr. Erickson next gave a brief update on the deans searches that will be presented to the Board of Trustees this Friday. Eva Pell will be recommended for Dean of the Graduate School/Vice President for Research, Madlyn Hanes will be recommended for the Provost and Dean of the Capital College, and Raymond Coward will be recommended as the Dean of the College of Health and Human Development. He also announced that one other director's position, who reports directly to the Provost but is not subject to confirmation by the Board of Trustees, was named. It is Renata Engel who will be the Director of the Schreyer Institute. In addition to these searches, there are three other searches that will be coming to closure shortly. They are the deans for the College of Arts and Architecture, the Smeal College of Business Administration and Altoona College.

Professor Erickson added that interest in admissions to the University appears to be at an all-time high. Undergraduate applications are up over 5,000 ahead of last year at this time. There has been over 40,000 applications received already. Graduate applications are also up. He gave as an example the Dickinson Law School. This time last year they had 546 applications and, to date, there have been 856. Nearly all the campuses and colleges are ahead of where they were at this time last year, so clearly the reorganization effort of the institution is starting to pay off.

The Provost next shared that his visits to all the locations of the University are going well. There are still five units left to visit. He was particularly interested in the fact that the issue of part-time faculty came up at most locations. The Provost's Office has made available to the Senate data on the numbers of part-time faculty. As he examined that data, it was evident that contrary to most universities, the use of part-time faculty and also graduate assistants has gone down over the last six years at Penn State. This is uneven across the colleges and campuses, mostly because of growth pressures, but the trend is going down. Part-time faculty has contributed greatly to the mission of the institution.

He also noted that the Intellectual Property Task Force report should be wrapped up in the next couple of months. He concluded his remarks with the statement that he has already received some questions concerning the budget for next year from Harrisburg. We will know more about the budget when the Governor's proposal is released around the first of February.

Immediate-Past Chair Leonard Berkowitz reported next as Chair of the Senate

Council Nominating Committee. He indicated that the first meeting went very well. Several of the members were not able to make the meeting, but the process is started and the slates of nominees have begun to be formulated.

Chair-Elect Cara-Lynne Schengrund announced that the Joint Committee on Academic Integrity has met and a working document is already written. She noted that colleges and campuses will be asked to form committees on academic integrity that will be appointed by the individual deans which will be made up of students, faculty and staff. The report will be presented to the Senate Committee on Student Life on February 1 and, hopefully, it will be ready for the Senate at its February 29th meeting. The objective is to implement the document at the beginning of the fall semester. If it is to be implemented at that time, the colleges will have to appoint Academic Integrity Committees as soon after the document is approved as possible.


Philip Klein was not able to attend the meeting, but a copy of his report on the Graduate Council meetings of November 17, and December 8, 1999 are attached to these minutes.


Legislative Reports

Committee on Committees and Rules -- "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)." Caroline Eckhardt reported that this report reflects the interest of the faculty and others in continuing to monitor travel policies. The nature of travel arrangements is continuing to change very rapidly with on-line tickets. The Committee on Committees and Rules realized that there was no mandated way in which the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies is reported to the Senate. Therefore, this report is proposing that the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits have included in their duties liaisons with this joint committee. Council had no comments or questions and the report was passed for the Senate Agenda on a Richman/Tormey motion.

Advisory and Consultative Reports

Faculty Affairs -- "Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion to Tenuring Decisions." John Nichols and Louis Milakofsky spoke to this report and stated that this is a long-standing issue that the Faculty Affairs Committee has decided to bring to closure. Dr. Milakofsky indicated to Council that if the data in the accompanying tables are examined, it is clear that we have been linking promotion and tenure, with few exceptions, for a long time. Over the last three years there have been 161 promotion and tenure cases that have been linked and only six that have granted tenure without promotion (which were spread across several locations). Council suggested several editorial changes to make the report clearer. This report was accepted on a Richman/Richards motion.

Outreach Activities -- "Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities." Jacob De Rooy informed Council that his committee has been working on this report since last March. The objective of this document is to challenge the senior faculty to further engage in outreach. Council questioned the need to cost-out this report, but after a discussion, it was decided that there are no new resources needed to put these recommendations into place. The members of Council also offered some suggested changes that Dr. De Rooy accepted. The report was passed on a Carr-Chellman/Lukezic motion.

Informational Reports

Senate Council -- "Univs Report - 2000-2001." Senate Secretary Christopher Bise offered the report and asked if Council had any questions. A Carr-Chellman/Scaroni motion was passed by Council.

University Planning -- "Transportation Services at University Park." Peter Deines spoke to the report and asked Council if they had any questions or comments. Council asked that a map of the stops on the Campus Loop and Town Loop be included in the report. The report was passed for the Senate Agenda on a Richman/Scaroni motion.


Chair Nelson asked Council to consider proposed changes in the Penn State York Constitution. Professor Bise noted that the Council Subcommittee on Unit Constitutions met in November to review the proposed changes that dealt with the revisions of duties of their standing committees. Council passed a Richman/Romberger motion ratifying the proposed changes.


There was no New Business for the Council to consider.


Senate Chair Nelson thanked the members of Council for their attention to the Agenda and adjourned the meeting at 2:59 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Bugyi

Executive Secretary

Minutes of the Meeting

Wednesday, December 8, 1999

101 Kern Building GC - 4



The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, December 8, 1999 at 3:30 PM in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. Dr. Richard Yahner, Associate Dean, chaired the Council meeting. The minutes of the November 17, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted.


Dr. Yahner reported that the Graduate School is completing the 2000-01 update to the strategic plan.


Dr. Yahner announced that an informational session is scheduled for January 14, 2000 to discuss disability issues with department heads and program chairs. Representatives from the ADA and disability services will be present. An announcement has gone out to department heads regarding this event. He also announced that a representative from the Educational Testing Service will visit Penn State on February 8, 2000 to discuss the new GRE Writing Assessment, test validity and score usage.

Dr. Yahner also announced that the second of the "Conversations in Kern" will be held on Thursday, February 3 in 112 Kern Building. The topic of this conversation will be the "hows and whys of publishing." Dr. Edwin Herr, associate dean in the College of Education, will be the keynote speaker.


Dr. Yahner reported on behalf of Dr. Pell that the Graduate School will host an informational session each spring semester for department heads and graduate program chairs. The information session would cover various funding opportunities provided by the Graduate School, i.e., quality funds through the Graduate School, recruitment and retention strategies, teaching assistant preparation issues, as well as Graduate School services.

He also announced that Dr. Pell will be initiating monthly "coffee hours" with graduate students beginning January. Graduate students (nominated by their college associate dean) will be invited to meet with Dr. Pell to discuss timely issues. A call for nominations will be going out soon to associate deans asking for nominations.

It was recommended that the coffee hours be scheduled at 8:00 AM to enable students to get to classes or to their laboratories as scheduled.


Committee on Academic Standards

Dr. Yahner recognized Dr. Gary Rogers, Chair, Committee on Academic Standards.

Dr. Rogers reported that the Committee met prior to Council and discussed two items. The clarification of doctoral committee membership, in particular, the role of the outside member, was discussed. The Committee will be bringing a recommendation forward on this item in January. The Committee also began discussions on Graduate Faculty membership for Commonwealth College faculty.

Committee on Fellowships and Awards

No report.

Committee on Graduate Research

Dr. Yahner recognized Dr. Kevin Furlong, Co-Chair, Committee on Graduate Research.

Dr. Furlong reported that the Committee had met prior to Council as well. He indicated that students will now be able to apply to participate in the exhibition via a web-based electronic application. Students who do not have access to the web will, however, still be able to submit a paper application. The Committee had also checked into copyright issues to determine if the abstracts may be placed on the web. It was determined that students will have to sign-off to permit access to the abstract on the Graduate School Web site, i.e., it will be at the student's discretion.

He also reported that an informational session is planned for January 12, 2000 from 4:00-6:00 PM in Room 101 Kern. Former judges and exhibitors will speak to students regarding the process and provide prospective exhibitors with information about preparing exhibits and presenting to a general audience. In addition, information will be provided on the services of CAC including media presentations that are available to participants at no cost. A brochure has been prepared for both judges and exhibitors providing information on the exhibit and judging procedures. Students also need to be aware that the exhibit and presentation should be geared toward a "general, educated audience."

Dr. Furlong added that "best practices" guidelines for judging are also being developed. Judges need also to be made aware of what graduate students expect in the judging process. A judging subcommittee including David Specter and Jeff Trailer is working on a statistical measurement to use in the judging process this year.

Dr. Goodstein indicated that programs should encourage undergraduates to attend the exhibition, i.e., incorporate this into a course that might include a project or report.

Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs

Dr. Yahner recognized Dr. Raymond Lombra, Chair, Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs.

Dr. Lombra reported that the Committee has been addressing the issue of incoming international students who are required to verify a level of funds in order to be issued a visa to come to the University. At the beginning of fall semester, a number of international students were not able to verify the appropriate level due to some mis-communications. This process has now been resolved and a recommendation sent to Dean Pell encouraging better communication between the International students and Scholars Office, the Office of Student Aid, the Graduate School, and graduate programs to ensure that student offers are sufficient to meet requirements. Central administration also needs to be informed of the minimum financial requirement for visa issuance to ensure that the annual stipend increase meets this minimal standard.

He also reported that a subcommittee (of Academic Standards and the Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs Committees) has been reviewing forms associated with the final oral examination. It is expected that the Committee will bring a recommendation to Council next semester.

Finally, the Committee is also reviewing the adequacy of graduate student health insurance.

Committee on Programs and Courses

Dr. Yahner recognized Dr. Mark Wardell, representing the Committee on Programs and Courses.

Dr. Wardell moved that Graduate Council approve the following program proposals: Watershed Stewardship Option in the Graduate Program in Forest Resources and Watershed Stewardship Option in the Graduate Program in Wildlife and Fisheries Science.

The motion was seconded and the floor opened for discussion. Dr. Larry Nielsen, Director, School of Forest Resources, was present to respond to questions. Dr. Nielsen was asked what graduates of the programs will do with the additional option and whether other institutions offer similar programs or is Penn State on the "cutting" edge in this field. Dr. Nielsen indicated that graduates of the programs will have the necessary skills to help Pennsylvania communities with watershed issues. Pennsylvania now requires that every county have a watershed coordinator. He added that a few institutions offer the option and that the field is becoming a new interdisciplinary area.

There being no further discussion, the question was called and the motion to add the option in watershed stewardship in forest resources and wildlife and fisheries science was approved unanimously.


No report.


No report.


Minority Recruitment and Retention--Dr. Catherine Lyons, Director, Center for Minority Graduate Opportunities and Professional Development

Dr. Cathy Lyons began her report by talking about various activities in the Center for Minority Graduate Opportunities and Professional Development. She indicated that these include participation in recruitment fairs, conferences for undergraduate students, workshops on applying to graduate school, and the CIC SROP program that brings in undergraduate students for the summer session. These students participate in a summer research program and work with specific programs during the 8-weeks they are here. Recruitment is a cooperative effort that involves the college minority coordinators as well. She indicated some strategic advertising is also done. The University also participates in the CIC name exchange that is coordinated by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The minority coordinators receive the names of prospective graduate students that are shared with all Big Ten institutions. She also reported that Penn State participates in the CIC Traveling Caravan that is a recruitment activity. Three different regions (Texas, Southern Caravan, and Puerto Rico) are visited by a group of CIC representatives. Information is provided on applying to graduate school.

Retention efforts are part of the activities of the Center as well. A student survey will be conducted in January to find out what attracted underrepresented minorities to Penn State. In addition, the Center hosts a retention conference each fall semester for underrepresented minority students coming to the University along with one-on-one consultations. The Center has also initiated a tracking study collecting data beginning from 1987 on underrepresented minorities at the University. This information includes undergraduate institutions, undergraduate GPA, GRE scores, whether the students have graduated, and where the graduates are now. Dr. Lyons also provided data on enrollments of underrepresented minorities at the University.

Dr. Lyons was asked whether the office asks students who do not graduate why they are leaving and where they are going. She indicated that the Center does try to get this information from students also. She was also asked whether the CIC SROP program has brought in any graduate students. She reported that of the 100+ students who have participated in the program since Penn State joined the Big Ten, Penn State has been able to recruit 20 graduate students from the group.






There being no further discussion, Graduate Council adjourned at 4:56 PM.


Mary Hosband


The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

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


Date: January 13, 2000

To: Members, Senate Council

From: Philip A. Klein, Graduate/Senate Council Liaison

Re: Graduate Council Meeting of December 8, 1999

The Graduate Council met on December 8, 1999. Several matters of general interest to the faculty were mentioned.

In the absence of Acting Dean Pell, Dr. Yahner reported :

1. The Graduate School plans to hold an informal session each spring semester for department heads and graduate program chairs to familiarize them with pertinent information for graduate students--e.g., funding opportunities, preparation of teaching assistants, etc.

2. Dr. Pell would initiate informal monthly "coffee hours" so that the students can get to know the people and procedures of the Graduate School. The students would be selected by the associate deans in the various colleges and would be able to report back to their colleagues.

3. Among committees reporting, the following matters can be mentioned:

    1. The Committee on Academic Standards is working to clarify the role of outside members on doctoral committees.

    2. The Committee on Graduate Research reported that plans have been made to permit graduate students to participate in the March exhibition via web-based applications.

      The Committee also reported that there would be a meeting on January 12, 4:00-6:00 PM so that students can talk to former judges and exhibitors.

    3. The Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs has been working to clarify the problem of funding for incoming international students. Involved is an effort to improve communication among the various offices involved in student aid.

    4. The Committee on Programs and Courses presented a new Watershed Stewardship Option for the Graduate Program in Forest Resources and another similar option for the program in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. Both were approved by the Council.

    E. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to a report by Dr. Catherine Lyons, Director, Center for Minority Graduate Opportunities and Professional Development. She discussed the various efforts her office makes to facilitate recruitment of minority students into the graduate progams by conducting summer research programs, participating in the CIC name exchange (a program conducted within the Big Ten to share potential student names), and other efforts. She also spoke about retention efforts (one-on-one consultations, tracking studies to monitor student progress, and assessment of various statistical records)--all in an effort to improve the extent to which minority students successfully pursue higher degrees at Penn State.

    The meeting was adjourned at 4:56PM.


    Date: January 21, 2000

    From: George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary

    To: All Senators and Committee Personnel

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

    MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 20007:00 PM

    Officers' and Chairs' Meeting Board Room I, NLI

    MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 20008:00 PM

    Commonwealth Caucus Board Room II, NLI

    TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 20007:30 AM

    Intercollegiate Athletics205 Shields Building

    8:00 AM

    Outreach Activities502 Keller Building

    Student Life112 Shields Building

    8:30 AM

    Admissions, Records, Scheduling and
    Student Aid203 Shields

    Committees and Rules517 Thomas Building

    Curricular Affairs101 Kern Building

    Intra-University Relations301 Ag. Admin. Bldg.

    Research 114 Kern Building

    Undergraduate EducationMonterey Room, Findley Hall

    University Planning256 Hammond 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

    University Faculty Senate112 Kern Graduate Building

    The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, in Penn State Room 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: January 21, 2000

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

    Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

    From: Irwin Richman and Sandy Smith

    MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000 -- Board Room II, NLI



    TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 -- 11:00 AM --

    Board Room i, NITTANY LION INN

    The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, in the Board Room I, NLI. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

    The tentative Agenda includes:

    A. Call to Order
    B. Announcements and reports from co-chairs of the caucus (Richman & Smith)
    C. Nominations for Senate Officers
    D. Reports of Senate Committees
    E. Other Items of Concern
    F. Adjournment and Lunch