Appendix B

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

SENATE CALENDAR

2004-2005

*Meeting at Penn State Harrisburg

Appendix C

SENATE COUNCIL

Presentation to the University Faculty Senate
on February 3, 2004
by Graham B. Spanier, President

(Informational)

University President Graham B. Spanier will be speaking on "The Privatization of American Public Higher Education." He will discuss how increasing competition and lagging funding from state appropriations will prompt a refocusing of public universities.

SENATE COUNCIL
Peter Deines
Connie D. Baggett
Christopher J. Bise
Robert L. Burgess
Wayne R. Curtis
Jacqueline R. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evensen
Thomas E. Glumac
Dennis S. Gouran
Peter C. Jurs
Alphonse Leure-duPree
Harvey B. Manbeck
Ronald L. McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
John W. Moore
Jamie M. Myers
Jean Landa Pytel
P. Peter Rebane
Howard G. Sachs
Alan W. Scaroni
James F. Smith
Kristin Breslin Sommese
Graham B. Spanier
John C. Spychalski
Kim C. Steiner
Mila C. Su

Appendix D

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

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

Constitution, Article II, Section 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix E

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules,
Standing Rules, Article III, Section 6. c (5)
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President Membership Change

(Legislative)
Implementation: Upon Approval by the President

Introduction

As part of the continuous review of the Senate Constitution and consistent with the Self Study Committee’s efforts to improve Senate processes and procedures, the Committee on Committees and Rules believes that it is time to clarify eligibility for membership to the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.

Rationale

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President consists of seven elected faculty members: the four Senate Officers and three other faculty, one of whom must be from a location other than University Park and one from University Park (SR III. 6. c and d). To clarify further the eligibility requirements for the three elected faculty members, the Committee on Committees and Rules recommends that the Senate adopt the following revision to SR III. 6. c (5).

Recommendation

Current version of SR III, 6. c:

(c) The Faculty Advisory Committee shall include:

(1) Chair of the Senate
(2) Chair-Elect of the Senate
(3) Immediate Past Chair of the Senate
(4) Secretary of the Senate
(5) Three (3) elected faculty members chosen for three (3) year staggered terms.

Revise SR III, 6. c (5) to include the italicized sections shown below:

(5) Three (3) elected faculty members chosen for three (3) year staggered terms with the following exclusions:

(a) The President’s immediate staff
(b) The immediate staff of the Executive Vice President and Provost, including Vice-Provosts and Associate and Assistant Vice-Provosts
(c) Other Vice Presidents, including Associate and Assistant Vice Presidents, Academic Deans and Campus Executive Officers
(d) Those holding affiliate academic appointments.

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

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Report on Curricular Integration Across Locations

(Advisory /Consultative)
Implementation: Upon approval by the President

INTRODUCTION

The Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations was asked to investigate the related issues of curricular integration and curricular drift across university locations and to make recommendations for possible changes to existing policies and strategies. This includes the process of University wide consultation and cooperation in the planning or elimination of courses and programs so that students at all locations and in all academic units can receive a consistent high-quality education. It also includes the planning of course offerings so as to allow students, to the greatest extent possible, to move between University locations during the first years of their education.

Curricular drift is defined, for the purpose of this report, as the tendency for the content and objectives of a course to stray from the original outline and purposes of that course as time passes and different instructors at different locations rotate through the course. One would expect that a course that is taken at one location and from one faculty member will be substantially similar in instructional goals and content to the same course taught at a different location or by a different faculty member at the same location. This is particularly important in courses that serve as prerequisite or foundational courses for upper-level courses. If major topics are not covered in a foundational course, those students will be at a serious disadvantage when they are expected to be familiar with the material at the next level.

DATA COLLECTION AND DISCUSSION

Our first goal was to determine the degree to which curricular integration and curricular drift were problematic at Penn State. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is a serious issue that is growing worse with the development of new programs in the aftermath of the University reorganization. Members of the committee met in person with Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost; Diane Disney, Dean of the Commonwealth College; Jack Burke, CEO and Dean of the Behrend College; and Jim Thomas, Dean of the School of Information Sciences and Technology. Based on the results of these interviews, four questions were formulated and sent to the Administrative Council on Undergraduate Education (ACUE) listserv by Carl Lovitt, Associate Dean of Penn State Berks. Eight responses were received. The questions and responses are summarized below.

1. What is your opinion of Penn State's model of course and program "ownership"? Six of the eight respondents felt that there were problems with the model. They felt that the lack of consultation and the proliferation of programs were major problems. One stated: “…no one has ownership or accountability for the program, which is a very naive management model.” Another said: “In the post-reorganization environment, it appears that all locations can offer any course with or without consultation with the sponsoring department. While the former (pre-reorganization) practice may have been too rigid, the latter seems too loose”. Other comments were more positive: “In general, it works fairly well. It seems to promote the ability of units to develop programs that are responsive to the local region or to take advantage of areas of particular faculty strength”.

2. To what extent do you consider "curricular drift" a problem at Penn State? Seven of the eight respondents felt that “curricular drift” was a problem. Four felt it was a very serious problem, particularly with foundation courses that involve structured knowledge. One stated: “Curricular drift is a problem at Penn State because some locations have not had sufficient experience with the courses to understand fully the outcomes and goals of the course.” Another stated: “I do think there has been a breakdown in the system -- decentralization of authority leads inevitably to exercising greater local autonomy.” Better communication was the major suggestion for addressing the problem. One suggested: “A consultation process should be established to assist the campus colleges with the task of maintaining “course integrity” as an antidote to “curricular drift.” Another stated: “I think the way to go is to define the objectives, core content, basic competencies, and typical course format that will be used, and then give instructors a lot of leeway in designing the remaining content, selecting texts and references, readings, laboratories, etc.” One mentioned that when the whole faculty across locations was involved in developing courses and programs they felt more ownership of the program and were much more likely to cooperate and to strive for consistency. In this case, the 80/20 rule worked fairly well. Eighty percent of the course was core material and 20% was from the faculty member’s unique expertise.

3. In what ways and to what extent is competition for students among Penn State's Colleges a problem? Six of the eight respondents felt competition was a problem. One stated: “The reorganization of Penn State made competition inevitable and the ideal of “seamless transition” made competition unavoidable. Using the enrollment driven budget model, each campus college must recruit and retain its students while continuing to grow at a modest pace. Given the trends in higher education and the popularity of certain majors, all campus colleges need to have identifiable majors rather than idiosyncratic programs to meet enrollment goals.” According to most of the respondents, the lack of consultation and coordination of new programs was the primary cause of the problem. It was suggested, “At a minimum, new programs should be discussed widely throughout the system before they are formally proposed.” Two respondents did not feel that competition was a problem. One stated: “The competition is probably even healthy as long as it is done sensibly, by pointing out the positive aspects of one's own program or environment, rather than running down the competitor.”

4. How would you rate the effectiveness of the present system/process for communicating and consulting throughout Penn State about proposed changes in the curriculum? All respondents felt that there are problems and room for improvement. Five felt that there were serious problems. One stated: “The present system does not work very well, though the desire to consult seems to have improved over the last two years; that is, there is more consultation and more information available to the various academic units. However, there are still some problems with the system.” Another suggested: “The overall goal is to balance competition with collaboration for the mutual benefit of the University. If that means that some majors cannot be offered at every location, the University should develop plans to address the missions of its various campuses and campus colleges. Consultation at every level should help achieve some balance.” One mentioned that although this is a serious problem, the procedures suggested in the recent Report on the Curricular Consultation Statement developed by the ACUE Enrollment/Curriculum Group on May 2, 2002, should help to ensure more broad-based consultation and improved cooperation among affected departments and programs.

Curricular Drift

Because the issue of curricular drift was seen as a major concern of nearly every administrator that we interviewed, the committee attempted to collect more information about the extent of the problem and to learn more about the views of the faculty members teaching the courses. Three courses that were mentioned in the above discussions as being potential problems were examined more closely. These three courses were PSY 002 (Psychology), BIOL 110 (Basic concepts and biodiversity), and ACCTG 211(Financial and Managerial accounting for decision making). All are prerequisite courses to more advanced courses in the major and are widely taught across locations. PSY 002 and BIOL 110 are general education courses that have recently been recertified. All faculty listed as instructors of these three courses in the 2002 calendar year were sent an e-mail requesting copies of their syllabus. Course instructors were also surveyed as to whether they had seen the approved University course summary or proposal, whether they had made any attempt to make their course consistent with that proposal, and whether they thought that curricular drift was a problem in their own courses and programs as well as a problem for the University in general.

Syllabi Comparison. Eighty-four syllabi were submitted. These represented over 100 sections of the three courses. They were distributed as follows: BIOL 110 (N = 20), PSY 002 (N = 38) and ACCTG 211 (N = 26). The topics listed on the University course proposal were then compared to topics listed on each syllabus. It is understood that this technique might underestimate the similarities between courses if the syllabi for some classes were less detailed, or if faculty covered topics that they did not mention in the syllabus. Similarly, topics could be listed in the syllabus but then skipped if time grew short. However, the committee felt that this method could provide at least a rough estimate of content similarity. If a syllabus was submitted without a topic list, a follow-up request was sent to the faculty member. Only course syllabi with a list of topics were used in the analysis.

For the biology course, the amount of time that should be spent on each topic was included in the course proposal. Topics were broken into four main areas and the average amount of class hours spent on each topic was examined. Correlation coefficients were calculated between the amount of time suggested in the university approved course outline for each topic and that the amount of time that instructors planned to spend in the individual courses. (Correlation coefficients measure the strength and direction of a relationship. They range from -1 to +1 with 0 indicating no relationship). Twenty course syllabi were surveyed. The average correlation was a moderately high .748 with a range of -.11 to .983. Three of the 20 had correlations below .450, while ten had correlations above .800.

The psychology course proposal was quite vague with the only stated requirement that faculty teach at least 8 of the 16 listed topics. Therefore, each syllabus was examined for the percentage of topics listed in the University proposal that was also covered in each syllabus. The average percent of topics covered was 66% with a range of 40% to 100%. Upon further investigation, one textbook was used in the four courses with the lowest percentages of topics covered. This book was a brief edition that took a broad theoretical perspective on the material, and therefore, did not have chapter titles that covered each topic. When the four sections that used this text were excluded the range was 53% to 100% and the mean 72%. When two faculty members that had used this text were asked which of the 16 topics listed in the course proposal were covered in the class, they listed 90% of those topics as being covered, suggested that the syllabus was not a very accurate measure of the course contents when this text was used.

For the accounting course (ACCTG 211), the University course proposal was very detailed. The percentage of topics mentioned in the University proposal was compared to the topics mentioned in each course syllabus. The average course syllabus contained 64% of the topics mentioned in the university proposal. Individual syllabi ranged from 53% of topics covered to 100% of topics covered. At one location, syllabi were quite consistent with each other, but on the low end of range in the percentage of topics covered compared to the University proposal. In a follow-up message to the program chair, the University topics were listed and they were asked if each topic was being covered in this location’s courses. Over 85% of the University topics were now identified as being covered to some extent, although several of these had not been explicitly listed on the course syllabi.

Results of Faculty survey. Seventy-three faculty members teaching the three courses listed above answered the e-mail survey: 19 from accounting, 20 from biology, and 34 from psychology. Of the faculty that identified their position, 16 were part time, 17 were full-time nontenure-track, 17 were full-time tenure-track and 22 were full-time tenured. Forty percent reported having never seen the University course proposal and several were surprised to learn that there was such a thing. Of those faculty that reported never having seen the course proposal, the majority (83%) were full time faculty. Of those that had seen the University proposal, several were involved in the recertification of the course and had seen it then or during the consultation process. Relatively few had been given the proposal when they first taught the course. Twenty-nine faculty (37%) said that they made attempts to be consistent with the course proposal in designing their own courses. The majority of these were at University Park. A number of faculty reported having meetings to determine course topics and learning objectives. Most of this was location specific. This was reported least frequently in the psychology course. Several faculty said that they tried to be consistent with those at their own location and reported working together on assignments, textbook choice, and projects.

Overall, most faculty agreed with the administrators that having similar curriculum in the lower- level courses was important, especially in cases where those courses provide the foundation for other courses in the major. However, they also noted several barriers to achieving this goal. The major problems listed in order of frequency of mention were: 1) difficulty with finding information about course learning objectives and syllabi from other instructors, 2) lack of time and financial support for meetings across locations, 3) concerns about growing competition between locations for students, and 4) concerns that attempts at standardization may intrude on academic freedom.

Several additional concerns were also mentioned, although not with the frequency of those above. Several respondents were quite concerned about upholding similar academic standards across course sections. In psychology, a few faculty mentioned that concerns for good student evaluations might encourage faculty to focus only on the topics that are less rigorous or more interesting to students. Several faculty mentioned that the vagueness of the psychology proposal (teach at least 8 of 16 topics) gave no guidance to faculty on the importance of the various topics and encouraged faculty to leave out topics that were not interesting or that they were not comfortable teaching.

Faculty in all three areas were concerned about students coming into higher-level courses ill prepared because topics were skipped at the lower levels. One concern mentioned by instructors was what they saw as a trend toward offering courses in periods of time too short for students to adequately prepare and learn the material. The extreme example was a three-credit course taught in one week in the summer. In both psychology and accounting, the large amount of material to be covered was frequently cited as a problem, and several respondents mentioned that splitting the course into two semesters could allow more time to cover each topic. Both faculty and administrators mentioned that consultation for courses and programs was often conducted so late in the approval process that new courses and programs were often presented as a “fait accompli” and those in affected programs felt powerless to object.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE

The results of our investigation demonstrate that the problems of curricular consultation and cooperation in a large university are a formidable challenge. The recent reorganization of the University has created additional challenges as new programs are implemented around the State. The one common thread in responses from faculty and administrators is that a primary goal of the University community must be to provide the best educational experience possible for students. Therefore, cooperation in the development and implementation of the educational curriculum across colleges and locations is critical. Since the problems with curricular consultation and curricular drift are highly complex, we recognize that there are no simple solutions. However, we have identified four areas where improvement may be possible.

Recommendation 1. Develop an electronic system for the dissemination and consultation of proposed curricular changes that is accessible to all faculty groups with a common interest. Create lists of affected departments and faculty at all locations for consultation for new and revised course and program proposals. Ensure that all relevant faculty are notified while there is still time to comment.

Rationale: Faculty and administrators agree that in the past there has often been inadequate consultation with affected units when one unit proposes a curricular change, including the addition or elimination of courses or programs. Although current University policy requests that units widely disseminate curricular changes early in the process, the perspective of many faculty and administrators is that this is still not being realized. The new ACUE consultation process mentioned above will facilitate consultation, but there is still no way to identify relevant faculty groups in a timely manner.

Recommendation 2. Avoid competitive duplication by requiring all proposals for new academic programs at all locations to demonstrate that they are providing a new service to the University and not simply pulling students away from programs at other University locations.

Rationale: Many faculty and administrators are concerned about the competition for students given the current budget models and proliferation of new programs. This leads to a negative environment and reduced cooperation. While it is understood that it is important for the new colleges to have a variety of majors, collaboration and cooperation between locations early on can ensure growth that is beneficial to the entire University. The current University curricular guidelines mention the avoidance of competitive duplication as a goal, but it is addressed only indirectly in the requirements for supporting documents.

Recommendation 3. Create an on-line system for the archiving of University course outlines and actual course syllabi. Begin with general education courses and courses that are foundational to majors. To reduce fears of intellectual property theft, this could be implemented on a University intranet or the current Angel course management system. The site should then be widely disseminated to all incoming and current faculty.

Rationale: One of the biggest complaints of faculty in the current study was that they have difficulty finding out how courses are taught by other faculty. Currently, course proposals can be found only by contacting the Senate Office, a process unknown to most faculty. A course search on the Angel course management system will turn up many course accounts, but most of them are devoid of content. University approved course proposals are currently not available on Angel and only the short summary of the course listed in the blue book is available on-line.

Recommendation 4. To reduce curricular drift and increase curricular cooperation, provide encouragement and support for discipline-based University-wide curricular cooperation among faculty. Encourage face-to-face and/or electronic discussions of core learning objectives for all common general education courses and for key foundational courses in a major at regular intervals. This might include the development of an archive of common course materials, activities, and test questions that can be accessed by all faculty teaching the course.

Rationale: Most faculty and administrators felt that core learning objectives should be consistent across all sections of a course. However, for many courses, key learning objectives have either not been developed at all, or if they have, they have not been easily accessible to the average faculty member teaching a course. Most faculty members said that they would participate in and welcome such cooperative discussions as long as they had input into the development of these course objectives and did not have them mandated by the unit proposing the course. Faculty would like the freedom to teach these core objectives in the way that they thought best for their students and to update the material as needed. It should be recognized that the content of courses would be expected to change as advances are made in the discipline. Therefore, a system of periodic review of the learning objectives of each course is needed and, although it could be lead by the originating unit, it should involve as many of the faculty members that teach the course as possible. All faculty members should have easy access to the learning goals and objectives of each course. They should understand the role of that course in their own curriculum and in the curriculum of the locations where their students are likely to relocate. Faculty must have the flexibility to approach these learning goals in the manner that they deem most appropriate for their situation. As new advances in the discipline occur, faculty members are expected to revise incorrect findings and modify the content of their course appropriately, however this should also lead to discussion and implementation of revised course learning objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The committee believes that the recommendations proposed in this report will play a role in moving the University toward a system of greater cooperation in the development and implementation of curriculum. We recognize that this is a complex problem and that there are many different perspectives across the University on both the nature of the problem and the nature of the best solution. Nonetheless, we all agree that it is important to recognize the problem and to open up a discussion of ways to facilitate the process of curricular cooperation among University locations. We hope that the information and recommendations contained in the current report helps to begin that important conversation.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
Rosann Bazirjian
Dawn Blasko, Vice-Chair
Ronald Bettig
Timothy N. Gray
E. Jay Holcomb
Susan L Huchinson
Eileen M. Kane
Carl Lovitt (2002-2003)
William J. Mahar
Kevin R. Maxwell
Kidane Mengisteab
Craig Meyers
Alfred Mueller
Victor Nistor
David Richards, Chair
Winston Richards
Ann Schmiedekamp
Colleen Stimpson
Robert Voight
Robert A. Walters
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers
Stamatis M. Zervanos
1/01/04

Appendix G

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Background Checking Procedures

(Informational)

In June 2002, academic and human resource officers of the Committee for Institutional Cooperation (CIC), the academic arm of the Big Ten, met at the Big Ten Center in Chicago to discuss issues, trends, and concerns. Representing Penn State at this meeting were Associate Vice President Billie Willits and Vice Provost Robert Secor. One of the items for discussion was background checks for employees, with a sense from the group that this was a question of growing interest on all of our campuses. Since that meeting, the CIC has contracted with an outside vendor, HireRight, that will be able to conduct background checks at a group rate for all of our institutions.

Subsequently, President Spanier charged Vice Provost Secor to work with Associate Vice President Willits to evaluate present Penn State practices and develop recommendations for preemployment checking procedures for the future. To assist in the process, Provost Secor convened a small group that included, along with Associate Vice President Willits, Philip Burlingame, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs; Diane Disney, Dean of the Commonwealth College; James Elliott, Director of Human Resources; and Kenneth Lehrman, Director of the Affirmative Action Office.

The group came up with a draft procedure for background checking, which Vice Provost Secor then took to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs for its review and recommendations. The Committee sought assurances that the policy would not apply to current standing faculty and made a number of recommendations to improve the process and offer some safeguards. These included the following and were accepted by the administration:

• Applicants must be given the opportunity to explain or question information that results from background checks.
• Decisions made as a result of information discovered in the self-disclosure form or the background check must take into account the seriousness of previous criminal activity, the time that has elapsed since such activity, the candidate’s explanation of such activity, and evidence of rehabilitation since the most recent offense.
• Actions taken as a result of background checks must be recorded with the Executive Vice President and Provost, so that he can monitor the process as it is being implemented.
• A report will be made to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs annually concerning the results of the background checks by the Executive Vice President and Provost.

The process will begin to be implemented Spring Semester, 2004.

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

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mohamad A. Ansari
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Clay Calvert
Francis J. Mootz
Robert Secor
Joan S. Thomson

PROCEDURES FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS
FOR ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

At the point of hire for an academic appointment, the candidate will be informed that the offer is contingent on submission of a self-disclosure form for review by the University and consent for a background check that will be conducted by an outside vendor, HireRight. The background check will be limited to felony convictions, convictions of other crimes involving sex offences or misappropriation of funds, and a verification of highest degree earned. Only information in regard to these areas will be conveyed by HireRight to the Office of Human Resources. Such information will be kept in strict confidence by the University.

At the same time, the candidate will be asked to submit a self-disclosure form identifying any felony convictions as well as convictions of other crimes involving sex offenses or misappropriation of funds and any sanctions for professional misconduct, harassment, or discrimination. Such information will also be conveyed to the Office of Human Resources and will be kept in strict confidence by the University.

Candidates will be informed of any findings of concern and be given the opportunity to verify and reply to them. In considering whether an offer is to be rescinded as a result of any finding based on the self disclosure or background check, the dean, in consultation with the Executive Vice President and Provost, will consider appropriate context, which in the case of criminal convictions will include the seriousness of the crime, the time elapsed since the conviction, and evidence of rehabilitation.

Decisions to remove a candidate from consideration based on the self-disclosure or background check will be reported to the Executive Vice President and Provost. A general report on the impact of the policy will be submitted annually by the Provost to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

As part of the final approval process of an appointment, the University verifies the receipt of academic degrees and credentials and conducts reference and background checking. The University also requires you to disclose in writing all relevant facts and information needed for a full and fair understanding of any of the following:

Professional misconduct or sanctions (e.g., debarment by a federal agency; any form of professional discipline or license restriction or surrender; an admission or determination that you have committed research misconduct);

Any harassment or discrimination you were found to have committed by a court, or which was adjudicated with a finding against you by present or former employers;

Any felony, as well as any other crime involving a sex offence or misappropriation of funds, for which you were convicted or pled no contest.

Engagement in any such conduct may not, in and of itself, disqualify you for an appointment at the University. However, failure to disclose such information, or any misrepresentation made in connection with the disclosure, would be grounds to revoke an offer of appointment or terminate subsequent employment. This disclosure statement will be submitted to the Office of Human Resources and kept in strict confidence by the University.

___ I have nothing to disclose.

___ I have the following information to disclose (please provide explanation as appropriate and attach additional sheets if necessary).

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________
Please Print Name

____________________________________________
Signature

___________________
Date

Appendix H

ELECTIONS COMMISSION

University Faculty Census Report for 2004-2005

(Informational)

The 2004-2005 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 database was created which included all personnel 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 hold full-time appointments as of 10/31/03, 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 Campus Executive Officers 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 Dean of the University Libraries compiled the list. 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 Campus Executive Officers 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 2004-2005 University Faculty Senate will be 297. This total will include 250 elected faculty Senators, 25 appointed and ex officio Senators, and 22 student Senators. The student Senators will include: one (1) undergraduate from each of the eleven (11) colleges at University Park; one (1) from each of the following locations--Abington, Altoona, Berks-Lehigh Valley, 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.

ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Jamie Myers, Chair
Melvin Blumberg
Peter Georgopulos
Dan Marshall
Andy Romberger
Bonj Szczygiel

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Faculty Census Report December 2003
For the 2004-2005 Senate Elections

Appendix I

SENATE COUNCIL

Summary of Fall 2003 Officers’ Visits to University Units

(Informational)

During the Fall 2003 semester, faculty senate officers visited the following units of the Pennsylvania State University: Abington College, the Penn State Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, The Capital College (Harrisburg & Schuylkill), and the Commonwealth College Campuses of DuBois, McKeesport, New Kensington, and Delaware County. After these visits, the Senate Officers debriefed separately with Commonwealth College Dean Disney and staff, and with Provost Erickson. This report summarizes the issues raised by students, faculty, and administrative teams across these eight locations of the Pennsylvania State University.

Campus Environment
Without exception, students would recommend family and friends to attend their campus. Students highlighted strong relationships with faculty and a personal, family like atmosphere on the campus that helped them feel comfortable and successful in classes. Some students sought majors that would allow them to complete their degree at their campus location. Some deliberately chose to stay at, or change their assignment to a small campus location. The small size allowed participation in many activities and leadership roles that students would not pursue at the larger campus locations.

Diversity
Students noted an appreciation for the diversity of students at several locations, and felt it added strength to their campus and educational experience. They also supported campus programs that had taught them about other cultures and issues. Faculty and administrators expressed a desire to recruit more faculty of diverse backgrounds.

Student Life and Athletics
Students reported extensive scheduling of activities on the weekdays and weeknights and the essential need for a campus Student Life Director. Students were most happy with a common hour at locations that had the same hour every day of the week. All students found common hours important to the success of campus activities and clubs, and were displeased when classes were scheduled that overlapped the common hour, or required seminars during the common hour. Students desired additional advertising space to announce activities.

Advising
Advising for four-year programs on location, and for the first two years of a degree to be completed at another location, poses challenges for both students and faculty. An informed DUS advising center was most satisfactory to students and faculty, while the assignment of students destined for another location to faculty outside of the discipline led to difficulties in advising for both students and faculty. Strengthening DUS advising centers and having campus faculty advise only those students who are in their discipline or program was suggested by various participants.

A better flow of communication between locations about major requirements needs to be facilitated through a more thorough distribution of program check sheets. Descriptions for an eight-semester sequence for each major, and defined contacts between locations within disciplines and for each major, are not widely available or known. Students and faculty recommended the development of opportunities to visit open houses, or to host visitors, across locations.
Career development centers need full development at all locations to support students in securing internships and employment opportunities. Most locations placed an emphasis on academic help centers for students, and additional resources may be important in this area to increase retention.

Students and faculty suggested that freshmen should be required to have their advisor’s signature, or electronic sign off, on schedule registrations for the first year of classes. Senate action was encouraged on this matter.
Students and faculty felt that the FTCAP testing and placement results were not equally appropriate for the population of students at all locations. As a consequence, they argued that students were often misplaced in a sequence of courses either taking unnecessary non-degree fulfilling courses, or being placed in courses that were too difficult. Faculty felt that the senate should examine the old belief that localized rules would penalize students at a location who sought to change assignment, especially if the old sequences do not support the local students’ learning.

Curricular Coherence, Alignment, and Drift
Faculty generally felt that leadership from the disciplines at the University Park location is required to eliminate curricular drift and make sure that courses prepare students adequately for sequences within a major. The suggested reemphasizing the past agreement on courses offered at multiple locations: 80 percent of the content should be the same, and 20 percent is up to the individual instructor. Some courses at the University Park location have electronic components that are not available to faculty and students at other locations.

As students consider changing assignment they often find that some courses will not transfer into the major requirements at another location. This coherence problem also applied to World Campus courses, and components of University wide programs offered at multiple locations. Often articulation agreements with non-PSU institutions are better than moving credits within PSU to change the campus of assignment.

Scheduling, Course Offerings, and Program Development
As new locations develop four year programs, faculty wish to be fully involved in the decision making about what majors to offer at their location. Faculty and students expressed the importance of beginning new majors with the faculty, material, and equipment resources essential to maintain the highest quality.

Students at the Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies especially liked the 7-week course calendar. Based on their awareness of competition, they also believed that the campus should be more active in working with area industry to customize entire degree programs for cohorts of students.

First Year Seminar
Students find orientation information for campus and university life especially helpful, but do not like assignments that require attendance at external events, large group meetings, or seminars during the common hour. Some students reported difficulty learning all the orientation information when the seminar was connected to a 3 credit content course. Some administration and faculty felt that the original idea of a first year seminar was to have academic content and not just orientation information. Students appreciated having all of the electronic resources like ANGEL and elion introduced in the first year seminar.

Technology Instruction and Access
Technology access was only a problem in the residence area of the McKeesport location. Students reported that many classes used the ANGEL course management system, but only a few classes utilized many of its functions.

Textbooks and Bookstore
Students find books to be too expensive and buyback prices to be especially low. The continual introduction of new editions and specialized shrink-wrap editions eliminate the used book market. Students’ attempts to buy books from non-PSU bookstores are thwarted because course text information is treated as proprietary and not available beyond the bookstore. Some faculty and administrators believe that the university should consider reviewing its agreement with Barnes and Noble regarding fair competition and scholarship donations; perhaps a discount on textbooks would be a better way to distribute to all students the benefit of an exclusive bookstore relationship.

Reorganization into the Commonwealth College
There is an overwhelming feeling that the entire university does not have balance in the operation of a 24-location organization. Before the Commonwealth College was organized, the 12 campus locations were part of an entire university system and resources were used from the entire system to support every location and college. Now, the resources for 12 locations are drawn from a smaller unit that doesn’t have the same strength as the whole system, yet these 12 locations continue to prepare students for the entire system. Taken in the context of increasing enrollments at University Park, and declining enrollments in the Commonwealth College, the system doesn’t seem to be taking care of all its members.

Connections between faculty have disappeared or are considerably lessened. Commonwealth College faculty feel abandoned because there is little activity to maintain disciplinary ties across the whole system. Some faculty would like to be more involved in research collaborations with faculty in other colleges.

Locations would like to market their programs beyond their constrained geographic borders, especially for unique programs that are offered at only one location statewide. Collaborative marketing at all locations could seek students for any location because a student recruited at any location for study at any other PSU location should be a good thing. Budget for marketing is equally divided across the 12 locations no matter the differential costs of advertising within a particular geographic area.
Faculty wonder how their local campus faculty senate is to work in coordination with the Commonwealth College faculty governance body.

Equity Budget Model Pressures
Some students felt pressure to take extra courses so they would remain at a location before changing assignment, or choose a major that would be completed entirely at that location. Faculty felt that program development was being driven by aging equipment, small classes, and the pressure to develop popular majors that will enroll the most students for the least investment in faculty and facility.

Formulas and processes for allocating permanent and temporary funds were unclear to faculty and administrators. Some had difficulty understanding how their increased enrollments, and consequent increased demand for instructional funding, might result in a reduction of temporary funds. Some had difficulty understanding why changes in permanent funds have to follow so far behind enrollment changes, and why the allocation per FTE has remained the same while tuition increases.

Faculty Annual Review
Faculty were concerned that SRTE’s scores are being used in annual reviews for salary merit increase decisions, when they felt that the evaluations are meant only for promotion and tenure review decisions. Faculty supported being evaluated yearly on their recruiting and retention activities only as a form of self-selected service activity, but strongly opposed it becoming a mandatory or regular expectation. Some felt that review results should be shared more fully, especially any numerical rankings devised to determine salary merit decisions.

Graduate Location Issues
Capital College graduate students felt a lack of connection to the larger Penn State graduate student community, while the Great Valley students were more likely to be in the workforce, expanding their skills through graduate study, thus have families and other communities of valued communication.

Capital students have experienced an increase in their class sizes from 10 to 20 and they feel the significant quality of small graduate classes that attracted them to Penn State is disappearing. Faculty reported difficulty recruiting graduate students because they have limited graduate assistantships.

Great Valley faculty expressed a desire for greater involvement with the Faculty Senate, especially with those issues that related to graduate education. They suggested webcasting senate meetings, electronic participation, proxy voting, rotating senator attendance, and moving the senate meeting around the Commonwealth.

Great Valley faculty were very supportive of highly knowledgeable teachers who came from the workforce to teach part-time, and were frustrated when qualified experts had difficulty securing approval from UP to teach a graduate course because they didn’t have a Ph.D.

Great Valley students, faculty, and administrators described the need to develop new programs to compete with nearby universities, and the Smeal College EMBA program, who offer programs with businesses in the Philadelphia area that recruit students for an entire customized degree.

Submitted by
Jamie Myers
Secretary, University Faculty Senate.

Appendix J

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Grade Distribution Report

(Informational)

In March 1987, the Senate passed legislation requiring an annual review of grade distribution data for baccalaureate students. The attached tables show data that has been provided by the Registrar' Office for each spring semester from 1975 to 2003, with detailed data for spring semester 2003. Figure 1 is a plot of the Average GPA from the right column of Table 1.

Tables Attached Include:

Table 1 - Percentage of Grades Awarded in 0 - 499 Resident Instruction Courses Comparison Spring Term/Semester 1975 to 2003

Table 2 - Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction Spring Semester 2003 (All locations - All Courses for All Colleges except the College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)

Table 3 - Grade Point Averages and Dean’s List - Summary by College Spring Semester 2003

Table 4 - All University Distribution of Semester Grade Point Averages for Baccalaureate Students

The Grade Distribution Report presented at the March 25, 2003 Senate meeting provides a detailed analysis of the data. This report can be found at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/agenda. The GPA data of this year show the continuing trend of an increase in the number of A grades awarded and a decrease in the number of C grades.

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

Source: Office of the University Registrar
Reports: SRRP091, VPARA & B (Info from Table 2)
12/22/03 C. Gallagher
Grade Distribution 2003a

Source: Office of the University Registrar
Reports: SRRP121, VPAR1074A, AIDAE, SRRP091, J, K
12/3/03 C. Gallagher
Table 3 SP03

Appendix K

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Summary of Petitions by College, Campus and Unit

(Informational)

The Senate through its committees has permitted students to petition for exceptions to the Senate academic rules found in the Academic Policies, Rules and Procedures for Students. Implementation and exceptions to these policies are the responsibility of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education unless otherwise assigned to another standing committee.

The committee regularly reports to the Senate on the number of student petition actions. This report provides a summary of petitions over the last two years by colleges and campuses.

The petition provides an opportunity for the student to receive consideration on extenuating circumstances affecting his/her progress. It is composed of a petition letter and transcript from the student, supporting documents from advisors, instructors, physicians or other appropriate personnel and a review statement by the student’s dean or campus executive officer. The final decision by the committee represents an effort to weigh the personal circumstances of the individual while maintaining the academic standards of the University.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

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

Summary of Petitions by College/Campus/Unit

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 20, 2004– 1:30 p.m.
102 Kern Graduate Building

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

Guests/ Others: C. Brewer, D. Blasko, G. Franz, D. Hagen, P. Hufnagel, J. Jacobs, T. Jones, S. McCorkle, P. Poorman, D. Richards, J. Romano, R. Secor, S. Youtz

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Christopher J. Bise called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, January 20, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2003

The minutes of the November 25, 2003 meeting were approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Announcements by Chair Bise

• The Faculty Advisory Committee met on January 20. The following topics were discussed: Background checks, Dickinson School of Law; Academic Investments; Search for Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Budget Update; GI Requirement; Senate Meeting at Penn State Harrisburg on October 26, 2004; Self-Study Recommendations: Relationship Between Senate and Graduate Council; and Proliferation of Sexual Assaults
• The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President will be scheduled for a date to be determined in March. Any items for discussion at FAC may be submitted to a Senate Officer or one of the three elected members: Wayne Curtis, Travis DeCastro, Peter Rebane.
• Councilors were encouraged to submit nominations for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and the University Promotion and Tenure Committee to Pam Hufnagel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.
• Spring visits have been scheduled to the Eberly College of Science, College of Communications, College of the Liberal Arts, College of Health and Human Development, and Division of Undergraduate Studies. Dates for these visits can be found on the Senate website under “Important Dates.” Councilors are urged to encourage attendance at these meetings in their units.
• A special Senate Council meeting has been scheduled for February 10 at 1:30 p.m. to debate and discuss the functions and responsibilities of the Council. The Nominating Committee will meet earlier that morning in the Nittany Lion Inn. Meeting information will be sent to Nominating Committee members.
• In 2001-2002 the Faculty Senate passed legislation to have the retired faculty of the University represented by two retired faculty senators and to serve on the Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits committees. Judd Arnold and Bob Heinsohn were elected. Judd Arnold’s term ends at the end of the Spring 2004 semester. Committees and Rules sought nominations for the retired senator election. Sabih Hayek, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Engineering Mechanics and Herberta Lundegren, Professor Emerita in Health And Human Development, and Senate Chair in 1984-85 have agreed to stand for election.
• The new ratio of one Senator for each 25 members of the electorate will be implemented in the 2005-2006 Senate year. Later this year voting units will receive guidelines and a request for an implementation plan for decreasing the number of Senators in their voting units over four years. In the meantime, the Senate Officers and CC&R strongly encourage units to forego adding any new and additional Senators for the 2004-2005 year.

Provost Erickson announced that the Pennsylvania legislature passed and the governor signed Penn State’s 2003-2004 appropriation. There was a five percent budget reduction and the appropriation was $306 million, a budget far behind where the University was ten years ago. At the last minute $1.4 million was added for the Cooperative Extension line item. With the appropriation being approximately seven months late in arriving, the University has realized $600,000 in lost interest on reserves. Dr. Erickson noted that the University’s 2004-2005 budget hearing is set for February 25 before the House and Senate. He hopes that the University will see a modest increase in the budget.

The Provost turned his comments to the summer and Fall 2004 admission cycle, noting that undergraduate admissions are even with last year at this time and that in-state applications are increasing and out-of-state applications are down. Dr. Erickson went on to note that graduate applications are down 23.5 percent, and the Graduate School is seeing a decline in the number of international students’ applications--down 35-40 percent. Dr. Erickson noted that the latter is due to limitations in travel because of the SARS epidemic and students’ difficulty in obtaining access to the GREs. He also observed that the United States is viewed as a less welcoming environment for international graduate students. More countries including Australia and the UK are aggressively recruiting international students. Dean Pell will make a presentation to the Board of Trustees on January 23, Dr. Erickson encouraged Councilors to review her presentation on the Trustees’ web site (http://www.psu.edu/trustees).

Dr. Erickson encouraged Councilors to nominate candidates for the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs position that recently became open when Bob Secor announced his plan to retire at the end of June. Former Senate chair, John Nichols will chair this committee.

In response to a question about the status of applications to the Campus Colleges, Dr. Erickson commented that with the exception of the Commonwealth College, all campus colleges are on a par with last year at this time. He noted that the Commonwealth College faces significant enrollment challenges.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

Peter Deines had no additional comments to make about the December 10, 2003, Graduate Council meeting.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2004

Forensic Business
none

Legislative Reports

Committees and Rules—Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules, Constitution, Article II, Section 4, Faculty Senator Representation Ratio. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Spychalski/Su motion. As a proposed Constitutional amendment this item will be discussed at the February 3 Senate meeting and stay on the table until the March 16 Senate meeting.

Committees and Rules—Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules, Standing Rules, Article III, Section 6. c (5), Faculty Advisory Committee to the President Membership Change. This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Sachs motion.

Advisory and Consultative Reports

Intra-University Relations—Report on Curricular Integration Across Locations. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Smith /Su motion. Committee leadership Dave Richards and Dawn Blasko presented the report, noting that the committee hoped that this report would “open up” discussion of curricular drift across the University. They responded to questions on the following topics:

· What is the magnitude of the curricular drift problem and how are students and faculty disadvantaged by it?
· Curricular consultation is a significant problem.
· Who is in charge of maintaining the integrity of a course?
· Is curricular drift more prevalent in some disciplinary areas?
· What is the time limit for archiving course syllabi on-line?

The IRC chair and vice-chair noted that curricular drift is affecting students’ preparedness, especially in foundational courses. Also, students who change campus assignment may be adversely affected by a lack of curricular integration. Several councilors observed that the problem with drift was exacerbated with the reorganization of the University in 1997.

There were several questions about the timetable for implementation and the budgetary implications of the recommendations. Executive Secretary Youtz noted that Provost Erickson has invested resources in the development of an electronic course proposal and review system. A programmer has been hired and planning meetings are underway with various groups to discuss the applications needed for this new system.

Concern was expressed about the intra-University competition for students as campuses grow new programs. The committee’s survey suggested that business, psychology, and communications are experiencing this “competitive duplication” of programs.

Informational Reports

Faculty Affairs—Background Checking Procedures. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Baggett/Spychalski motion. Committee Chair Sallie McCorkle provided an overview of the committee’s participation in reviewing the Background Check materials, specifically noting that the Faculty Affairs committee was not asked to approve the procedures but instead to provide review, consultation, and input to the procedures.

Vice Provost Robert Secor noted that following the publication of the Procedures for Background Checks on the Senate Council Agenda that the Senate Officers, Sallie McCorkle and other committee members received comments expressing concern about the document. These concerns were then shared with Dr. Secor who took them to the January 20, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President meeting and as a result of that meeting a number of changes were made to the Background Check procedures. Dr. Secor summarized the revisions as follows:

1. Background checks for the final candidate will be restricted to felony convictions; misappropriations of funds; and sex offenses.
2. To ensure confidentiality, background check findings will only be reviewed at the level of the dean and provost. Department heads or search committees will not have access to background check findings.
3. To minimize intrusiveness, only the final candidate will be asked to submit a self-disclosure form.
4. The Faculty Affairs committee recommends that an annual report on this process be provided to the Senate, similar to the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities report.

Vice Provost Secor then responded to the following comments and questions:

• Will the finalist be given a chance to respond to any negative findings? Yes.
• Faculty searches are very time-sensitive, how long will it take to obtain the results of a background check? Most checks can be completed in 24-48 hours.
• Does this process apply to fixed-term II hires? Yes.
• On the Disclosure Statement (point #2) harassment and discrimination are defined differently across different Universities and other employers, how are “findings” defined and how may this ambiguous statement be clarified. The question will be discussed with University legal counsel and Vice Provost Secor will work on a clarification of the wording.

Considerable discussion was had among Council members about the readiness of the revised report to be placed on the Senate Agenda. Some councilors asked that the report be returned to the Faculty Affairs subcommittee for further review; councilors advocated that the report was ready to be presented to the full Senate, and that the revised documents show great improvement over the previous ones. It was determined that the revised report be sent electronically to Faculty Affairs committee members and that if there were no significant objections the report would be placed on the Senate Agenda. With three dissenting votes, the report was placed on the Agenda and twenty minutes was allocated for discussion.

Senate Council—University Faculty Census Report, 2004-2005. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Romberger/Su motion.

Senate Council—Report on Fall 2003 Campus Visits. This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Esposito motion. Secretary Myers noted several editorial revisions. In response to a question, Senate Officers observed that concerns heard on campus visits were frequently referred to Senate committees for consideration.

Senate Council—Presentation by Graham B. Spanier, Penn State President. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Pytel motion. Chair Bise announced that President Spanier requested that this presentation be moved to the front of the Senate Agenda.

Undergraduate Education—Grade Distribution Report. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Burgess/Scaroni motion. Ten minutes will be allocated for this presentation.

Undergraduate Education—Summary of Petitions by College, Campus and Unit. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Sachs/Jurs motion. Five minutes will be allocated for the presentation.

University Planning—Sale of Circleville Farm. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Scaroni motion. Councilors asked Committee Chair Dan Hagen the purpose of the report and if this was the same report that the Board of Trustees received in November. Councilors suggested to Chair Hagen that the purpose of the report be discussed with UPC and that given the length of the February 3 Senate Agenda that Council should defer action on this item until a copy of the Power Point presentation can be reviewed by Council members in March.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2004

The Agenda was approved on a McCarty/Romberger motion and on a Scaroni/Gouran motion the Agenda was reordered to accommodate President Spanier’s request to place his presentation early in the Agenda.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Proposed Senate Calendar for 2004-2005. The 2004-2005 Senate Calendar was presented to Senate Council for approval. The calendar was accepted on a Jurs/Smith motion and will be presented as a Communication to the Senate in the February 3, 2004 Senate Agenda.

2. Revision of the Graduate School Constitution. Jamie Myers provided a summary of changes to the Graduate School Constitution. On a Su /Evensen motion the constitutional amendments were ratified.

3. Unit Constitution Subcommittee. In response to a request from Chair Bise, Altoona College Councilor Mila Su volunteered to serve out former Councilor Lou Milakofsky’s term on the subcommittee.

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Chair Bise thanked Council members for their attendance and participation and accepted a Romberger /Gouran motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary

To: Senate Council Members

From: Peter Deines, Senate Liaison to the Graduate Council

The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, December 10, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building, with Dean Eva Pell presiding. Dean Pell called the meeting to order at 3:35.

1. The Minutes of the 19 November 2003 Meeting were approved.

2. Communications and Remarks of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School.

Dean Pell remarked on the very low number of international students applying the year for study in the United States. At Penn State, as of the beginning of December, there were 41percent fewer applications from international students compared to last year. The mean academic scores of the current international applicants are about the same as last year, which means that Penn State is not losing selectively more talented students from its applicant pool to other universities. Possible causes for this decline may include the temporary discontinuation of the computer based testing by ETS, and more extensive visa procedures among others.

3. Announcements: None

4. Reports of Standing Committees

Committee on Academic Standards -Richard Ready
Changes to "Advisors and Doctoral Committees" policies for the Graduate Bulletin.

The discussion of the proposed changes centered on the appointment of the outside committee member. After extensive discussion and suggestions to clarify the criteria to be used to appoint outside members, the report was send back to committee.

Committee on Fellowships and Awards -Anil Kulkarni
There was no formal report. The committee has selected the recipients of the Graduate School Awards. A firm date for their announcement has not been set.

Committee on Graduate Research -Michael Verderame
There was no formal report. The committee continues to work on the preparation for the Annual Graduate Exhibition which will be held on March 26 and 28, 2004 in the HUB. The committee reviewed the brochure for the judges of the exhibition and decided not to change the weights of the different criteria by which the presentations are evaluated.

Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues -Leslie MacRae
There was no formal report. The committee encourages a wide distribution of Graduate School information among graduate students. Workshops on grant writing and career choices are being planned for the Spring Semester. The committee is examining safety concerns of students on campus and is soliciting input. The chair announced that the University’s University Park Campus Night Map website was re-established.

Committee on Programs and Courses -Mark Wardell: No report

5. Reports of Special Committees: No report

6. Graduate Student Association: No report

7. Special Reports: No report

8. Unfinished Business: None

9. New Business: None

10. Comments and Recommendations for the Good of the Graduate Community: None.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35

Date: January 26, 2004

To: All Senators and Committee Members

From: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary

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

Monday, February 2, 2004

Tuesday, February 3, 2004

Date: January 26, 2004

To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from campuses, colleges, and locations other than University Park)

From: Thomas E. Glumac and Tramble T. Turner

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2004 – 8:30 p.m.
PENN STATE ROOM
NITTANY LION INN
Guest: Judy Ozment Payne, Acting Associate Dean, Schreyer Honors College

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2004 – 11:15 a.m.
BOARDROOM 1
NITTANY LION INN
A buffet luncheon will be served in the Alumni Lobby at 12:15 p.m.

The Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

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

III. Reports from Committee Chairs

IV. Other Items of Concern/New Business

V. Adjournment and Lunch