Recommendation

Rationale for Proposed Change:

BACKGROUND

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Implementation Date: Upon passage by the Senate

INTRODUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Introduction

The charges of the joint committee were:

49-20 Academic Integrity

3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition and expectations: Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest and responsible manner. Academic integrity is a basic guiding principle for all academic activity at The Pennsylvania State University, and all members of the University community are expected to act in accordance with this principle. Consistent with this expectation, the University's Code of Conduct states that all students should act with personal integrity, respect other students' dignity, rights and property, and help create and maintain an environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of their efforts.

Academic integrity includes a commitment not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.

To protect the rights and maintain the trust of honest students and support appropriate behavior, faculty and administrators should regularly communicate high standards of integrity and reinforce them by taking reasonable steps to anticipate and deter acts of dishonesty in all assignments.1 At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide students with a statement clarifying the application of University and College academic integrity policies to that course.

Committee on Academic Integrity: Each College Dean2 shall appoint a

Committee on Academic Integrity made up of faculty, students, and academic administrators with faculty being the majority. This committee shall:

When Academic Dishonesty Is Suspected: The instructor will offer to meet to discuss the situation and give the student an opportunity to respond. The student should be told what the allegation is and what the college procedure is for handling such cases. A drop of or withdrawal from the course after this point may be reversed3. The instructor may assign an academic sanction ranging from failure on the assignment to failure in the course. College Committees will provide guidelines on ranges of appropriate sanctions for given types of infractions.

If the student accepts responsibility for the violation and the proposed academic sanction, the instructor will have the student sign the Academic Integrity form, which closes the case. The instructor will forward this form to the College Committee, which will forward it to the Office of Judicial Affairs for record keeping.

If the student signs that he/she did not accept responsibility, the student can appeal the case to the College Committee. In this case, the instructor will forward all relevant case materials to the Committee, which will review the facts of the case and/or the proposed academic sanctions. For academic sanctions, the decision of the College Committee is final. At the close of proceedings, the College Committee will notify all relevant parties of its decision and (if the student is found responsible) forward the outcome to the Office of Judicial Affairs for record keeping.

Referring Cases to Judicial Affairs: Cases must be referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs when the College Committee recommends the application of formal University disciplinary sanctions. In these cases, in accordance with University procedure for handling disciplinary incidents,4 Judicial Affairs will review the facts of the case and assign disciplinary sanctions when appropriate. Under current University policy and practice, Judicial Affairs has the authority to initiate disciplinary sanctions for repeat offenders.

The "XF" Grade: An "XF" grade is a formal University disciplinary sanction that indicates on the student's transcript that failure in a course was due to a serious act of academic dishonesty. To record an "XF," the instructor, College Committee, and Judicial Affairs must concur that this penalty is appropriate. Each College Committee must develop conditions that, if met to the Committee's satisfaction, would allow a student to change an "XF" mark to an "F."

Record Keeping: The appropriate Assistant or Associate Deans5 shall be responsible for convening Committees of Academic Integrity and seeing that students and faculty have ready access to such bodies. They shall also be responsible for seeing that all cases handled on the college level, in which a student was found responsible for dishonesty, are reported to Judicial Affairs. Judicial Affairs alone will be responsible for central record keeping of all academic dishonesty cases. These records are confidential and kept for five years, or in accordance with University guidelines concerning students' educational records.6

A Committee on Academic Integrity, dean, or faculty member may request information from Judicial Affairs on whether students found responsible for academic dishonesty had previously been sanctioned for other acts of dishonesty. This information may not be used as a basis for judging a student's guilt; but it may be used as a basis for imposing sanctions or deciding whether disciplinary action is warranted.

1 See Senate Policy 44-40: Proctoring of Examinations.

2 Or Campus Executive Officer as determined by College policy.

3 If the student is found guilty and assigned an F for the course the drop or withdrawal from that course will be reversed.

4 Office of Judicial Affairs "Procedures for the Discipline System 1999-2000." November 4, 1999. Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/procediscp/html

5 Or Directors of Academic Affairs at other locations.

6 Penn State Student Affairs. Office of Judicial Affairs. "Student Discipline Records." August 10, 1998. Available: http://www/sa/psu.edu/ja/records.html

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
Henry Abromson
William Asbury
John Bardi
David Barnes
Dennis Calvin
Nicholas Carter
Wayne Curtis
Joanna Floros, Chair
Arthur Goldschmidt, V-Chair
Nichola Gutgold
Laura Munro
Deborah Preston
Joseph Pyzycki
Mario Sznaier
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Cheryl Achterberg
William Asbury (ex officio)
John Cahir
Bill Ellis
Tonya Faust
Joanna Floros
Lynn Hendrickson
Jan Jacobs
Daniel Larson
Joseph Pyzycki
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Valerie Stratton
Linda Trevino

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

(Advisory and Consultative)

[Implementation Date: Upon approval by the President]

The Joint Committee on Academic Integrity was charged with streamlining the University's policy for dealing with violations of academic integrity. If we expect faculty to support and enforce expectations of academic integrity, it is essential that we have a policy that is clear and easy to follow. One goal of having a clear, easy-to-follow policy is to reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty. Recent surveys on the national and local level indicate a rise in various forms of cheating on college campuses1. In the Penn State Pulse survey conducted in March 1999, 66% of the 734 students that responded said that the chance of getting caught is a deterrent to cheating. Thus, if faculty acted to punish more cases of cheating, there should be a reduction in such violations.

However, the committee feels strongly that developing a clear policy and procedures is not sufficient to accomplish the goal of increasing academic integrity. For integrity is at the heart of all that is done in a great university; Penn State people practice it and live it, and new members of our community, notably freshman, should learn about the high expectations that are customary to a Penn State education. Accordingly, steps must be taken to establish a stronger climate of academic integrity at Penn State.

The responsibility for supporting and promoting academic integrity lies first of all, with the administration and faculty. The Center for Academic Integrity, a consortium of 200 colleges and universities of which Penn State is a member, identifies five fundamental values underlying academic integrity: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility. The Center suggests that a climate of integrity is built by continuous conversations about how these values are, or are not, embodied in institutional life. The members of this committee believe that the University faculty and administration must implement specific steps aimed at enhancing the climate of academic integrity at Penn State. Students must also actively participate in this effort. Penn State has clearly committed itself to pursuing excellence in research, scholarship, and teaching, but without a commitment to academic integrity, those other activities become suspect and meaningless. Thus, the Joint Committee on Academic Integrity and the Senate Committee on Student Life make the following recommendations:

1McCabe, D.L. & Trevino, L.K. 1996. What we know about college cheating. Change. January/February.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
Henry Abromson
William Asbury
John Bardi
David Barnes
Dennis Calvin
Nicholas Carter
Wayne Curtis
Joanna Floros, Chair
Arthur Goldschmidt, V-Chair
Nichola Gutgold
Laura Munro
Deborah Preston
Joseph Pyzycki
Mario Sznaier
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Cheryl Achterberg
William Asbury (ex officio)
John Cahir
Bill Ellis
Tonya Faust
Joanna Floros
Lynn Hendrickson
Jan Jacobs
Daniel Larson
Joseph Pyzycki
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Valerie Stratton
Linda Trevino

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

(Legislative)

[Implementation Date: Fall 2000]

Senate Policy 42-50 describes how students can earn credit through the successful completion of comprehensive examinations. While credit by examination differs from initial placement exams, both provisions require the student to have completed at least one three credit course at Penn State before credit is recorded on the student transcript. We believe that this provision may have been put in place so students could not initiate a Penn State transcript, then not complete any additional courses. This scenario has not occurred. Instead, the delay causes advising difficulty for students because their transcript does not have all of the essential information required for appropriate advising and scheduling of future course work. This is especially a problem for new students.

The proposed legislation eliminates the notation that students must have completed three credits at Penn State before credit by examination or proficiency examination results are recorded on the student transcript. The delay in recording these exam results distresses students and makes appropriate advising impossible as students plan for their first semesters at Penn State. At the point of these exams students have already paid an admission fee and achieved registration status, so there is no need to make them wait until the completion of their first semester of courses before proficiency exam results are posted. Recording results immediately is also congruent with transfer credits which are entered on the student record at admission before any courses are taken.

The Faculty Senate recommends the removal of the following note from two places within Senate Policy 42-50:

Note: A student must have enrolled and completed at least one course of three credits or more at Penn State before any credit earned appears on the student record.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg
John J. Cahir
William J. Campbell
Joseph J. Cecere
Paul Clark
Gregory K. Farber
Ericka R. Fullerton
M. Margaret Galligan
Andrzej J. Gapinski
David J. Green
Catherine Harmonosky
Lynn Hendrickson
Gary L. Hile
William C. Lasher
Jamie M. Myers, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice Chair
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith
Jane Sutton
Eric R. White
Charles E. Yesalis
Robert Zelis

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

(Advisory/Consultative)

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. TO AN EVER GREATER DEGREE WE HAVE ALSO BEEN INSISTING THAT TEACHING BE A MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN TENURE AND PROMOTION DECISIONS FOR FACULTY AT ALL LOCATIONS. (FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1998 THE FACULTY SENATE VOTED TO INCLUDE EXTENSIVE REVISIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR HR-23 IN ORDER TO PLACE GREATER EMPHASIS ON THE EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN THE P&T PROCESS.) Today we are proud of a system-wide faculty that consists of strong teachers and researchers.

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 RECOMMENDED 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 IS SUFFICIENT FOR 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 indicd below so that the presumption is that a positive TENURE decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT FOR 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 for an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT promotion to associate professor.; In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; HOWEVER, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE(S) OR ADMINISTRATOR(S) WHO WISH TO SEPARATE PROMOTION FROM A POSITIVE TENURE DECISION TO SHOW WHY PROMOTION IS NOT WARRANTED.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

(Informational)

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs here presents a series of charts showing the tenure and promotion decisions that were made in the academic year, 1998-99. The figures show the following:

TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 57 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 1998-99 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended 57 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 56 cases. Eleven of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR, SENIOR SCIENTIST, AND LIBRARIAN

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor, senior scientist, and librarian for 50 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 48 faculty members for promotion and the President approved promotion for 48 candidates.

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

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor, senior research associate, and associate librarian for 59 candidates were forwarded b the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 58 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for 58 candidates.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
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

INTRODUCTION

Recent changes in the Senate's Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f), have specified that the Committee on Faculty Benefits is charged with reporting changes in travel policies to the Senate at least annually, making recommendations as may be necessary. This is to be carried out in concert with the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies. In the past there has been no formal mechanism for keeping the Senate informed of travel policy changes, although it is generally recognized that such changes impact a wide variety of University operations, from teaching, research, and scholarship to athletics and administration. Anticipating the broad interest in how travel policy is administered, the Committee on Faculty Benefits met in October, 1999, with Marguerite Gustkey, Manager of Penn State Travel Services, to learn more about the operations of the Travel Services Office and to receive an update on certain travel policy issues that are of continuing interest. The following is a summary of information transmitted to the Committee at that meeting.

SUMMARY

1. Organization:

Penn State Travel Services is an operation of the Procurement and Materials Management Division, Office of Business Services. Their offices are located in 104 Procurement Services Building.

2. Functions performed:

3. Mechanisms for providing faculty and staff with current information:

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith Burkhart
James May
Timothy Ovaert
Laura Pauley, Vice-Chair
Allen Phillips, Chair
Lawrence Sinoway
Gerhard Strasser
Jose Ventura
Anita Vickers
Billie Willits
J. Randall Woolridge

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(Informational)

I am pleased to present the report of the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (FR&R) to you today. During the 1998-99 academic year, the committee dealt with eight cases, two fewer cases than in the previous year. Three of the grievances involved promotion and/or tenure denial; the others dealt with a variety of issues related generally to the interactions between faculty and their administrators.

Of the three petitions concerning denial of promotion and/or tenure, all alleged procedural irregularities. For two of the cases, the committee did not find evidence of significant procedural irregularities; for the other, the irregularities were substantial and recommendations for corrective actions were sent to the Vice-Provost.

The number of petitions disputing decisions about promotion and/or tenure is fewer than was historically true. The number of cases before the FR&R committee in the period 1992-96 was large (ranging from 21 to 24 cases) and most dealt with promotion and/or tenure decisions. The committee believes that the reduction in the number of cases reflects a better-defined process of review and also the decision of the Senate to modify HR-23 allowing cases with unanimous positive reviews at the department and college committee levels to be considered by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. However, from our review of cases in the last few years, it is clear to the committee that faculty need to be very attentive to issues or concerns raised by the reviews conducted at the second and fourth (and perhaps intervening) years and that a very clear understanding of expectations on the part of both faculty being reviewed and those doing the reviewing should exist.

The other cases considered by the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee were varied. The cases included a dispute over teaching assignments and its effects on annual evaluation and salary, a case involving a concern for how the university responded to an accusation of sexual harassment, a case involving assignment of responsibilities without adequate resources to carry out the tasks, a case which raised questions about the procedures followed and decisions made in a grade mediation dispute, and finally an on-going case involving a complaint alleging a lack of professional ethics and retaliation. As can be seen, the cases were drawn from a number of different areas, but are mostly disputes arising from the interactions between administrators and faculty.

This year we have been attempting to complete case reviews within sixty days as mandated by the Senate. In several cases, we have not been able to accomplish the review within the allotted time. This is partly due to the difficulty in scheduling given the conflicting demands on the faculty and deans selected for this committee, but also due to the complexity of the issues in a number of the cases.

I close with the observation that the members of this committee approach the work of this committee with great seriousness, care, and thoughtfulness. I applaud the efforts of my fellow committee members in fulfilling the demands of this important committee of the university.

FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMMITTEE
Nancy L. Eaton
Gary J. Fosmire, Chair
Peter D. Georgopulos
Linda V. Itzoe
Margaret M. Lyday
James M. Rambeau, Vice-Chair
Robert D. Steele
Leon J. Stout
David N. Wormley

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

(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 1999, with detailed data for spring semester 1999.

Table 1 presents the percentage of grades awarded in courses numbered 0 through 499 in resident instruction courses for the spring term/semester 1975 to 1999. Several conclusions can be interpreted from the data. First, there is an increase in the total number of F, W, and LD grades given as shown in Figure 1 (the figures are not part of the original data supplied by the Registrar’s Office but included in the report to help interpret the data). The increases are distinct for particular time periods. There is a plateau from 1975 to 1983, then when the 10 week late drop rule went into effect beginning 1984, there is a second plateau from 1984 to 1989, and with the 12 week, 16 credits late drop rule in effect beginning in 1990, there is a third plateau, all showing an increase in grades given as F, W, and LD. The average change for those three periods of time went from 7.8, 9.2 to 10.9, respectively.

Table 2 presents a summary of grade distribution for resident instruction for the spring semester 1999 at all locations for all courses for all colleges except the College of Medicine. Table 3 is the grade point averages and Dean’s list summary by college for the spring semester 1999. And finally, Table 4 presents an all-University distribution of semester grade point averages for baccalaureate students.

Please call the Senate Office for copies of the tables.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg
John J. Cahir
William J. Campbell
Joseph J. Cecere
Paul Clark
Gregory K. Farber
Ericka R. Fullerton
M. Margaret Galligan
Andrzej J. Gapinski
David J. Green
Catherine Harmonosky
Lynn Hendrickson
Gary L. Hile
William C. Lasher
Jamie M. Myers, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice Chair
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith
Jane Sutton
Eric R. White
Charles E. Yesalis
Robert Zelis

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:30 PM 101 Kern Graduate Building

Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 1:40 PM on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. The Minutes of the January 18, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed on a Lukezic/Jurs motion.

Dr. Nelson announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met this morning, Tuesday, February 15 and discussed the following items: Search Updates; Budget Hearings; Microsoft Software Restrictions; Consultation and General Education (follow-up); Prerequisites (follow-up); Emeritus Faculty Teaching Fellows (update); Faculty Handbook; Distance Education Policy; Domestic Partners Benefits Comments; and Post Doctoral Fellows.

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14. If anyone has any items you want 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 visited the College of the Liberal Arts on February 8. Their next visit is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16 to the Smeal College of Business Administration. Next week they will visit the College of Communications on February 22 and the University Libraries on February 24.

Provost Erickson shared the basic outline of the Governor's proposed funding for the state-owned and the state-related universities for the coming fiscal year. There was some disappointment last week when the Governor's proposal was presented. Everyone will be working very hard over the next few weeks to work with the General Assembly to get significant changes in the proposal. We hope to get not only some additional line items, but additional funding for education in general. Contrary to what we had been led to believe the funding for the new School of Information Sciences and Technology is still a grant processed through the Pennsylvania Department of Education. We've argued very strongly that those funds must be in our base budget. During President Spanier's presentation before the Senate Appropriations Committee, a lot of time was spent talking about the needed support for the College of Medicine and the State's poor level of support for public medical education.

It is going to be a tight budget for next year for the entire institution. Obviously, if the state is not going to appropriate a reasonable amount of funding to the University, it will put upward pressure on tuition. We will all be doing everything conceivable to receive the best appropriation as possible.

The second thing that Dr. Erickson addressed was an update on the dean searches. We have gone through the process for the new dean of the College of Arts and Architecture and the announcement of that selection will be forthcoming shortly. Moving to the search for the dean of the Smeal College of Business Administration, there will be three candidates coming in over the next three weeks. The Altoona College dean's search is also going well. Shortly, the search process will be starting for a new dean for the Berks/Lehigh Valley College. The replacement of the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs/Dean of the College of Medicine has begun, but is in a very early stage.

The summary of the minutes of the Graduate Council meeting of January 19, 2000 by Philip Klein is attached to these minutes.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid -- "Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students." Renata Engel presented this report and asked if there were any questions from Council concerning the report. The members of Council had no questions, and the report was accepted for the Senate Agenda on a Lukezic/Richman motion.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid -- "Revision of Policy 51-50 Cumulative Grade-point Average." Dr. Engel clarified some of the sections of the report and asked for questions from Council. There were none and the report was passed on a Tormey/Lukezic motion.

Committee on Committees and Rules -- "Revision of Standing Rules, Article III,
Section 7(b)." Professor Nelson addressed this report and noted that it is the follow up report to the revision to the duties of the Faculty Benefits Committee that were a part of the Senate Agenda of last month. The report was accepted on a Richman/Gouran motion.

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity -- "Academic Integrity Report." Cara-Lynne Schengrund presented this report, reviewed the history and made some editorial changes. Council had questions regarding the inclusion of the information from the Pulse Survey of Penn State students and, because the data was not available, this section was struck from the report. The report was included for the Senate Agenda on a Jurs/Richman motion.

Undergraduate Education -- "Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination." Jamie Myers noted that this was a simple change to the policy. Council had no questions, and the report passed on a Richman/
Richards motion.

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity -- "Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate." Professor Schengrund explained that this was an accompanying report to the Joint Committee’s legislative report above. It was the sense of the Joint Committee that the climate surrounding academic integrity must be addressed also, and thus, the need for this report. The report was passed on a Broyles/Smith motion.

At this point in the proceedings, Chair Nelson asked that Council allow a change in the order of the Senate Agenda so that the above advisory and consultative report can appear on the February 29 Senate Agenda directly after the legislative report from the Joint Committee. Council passed a Kenney/Tormey motion changing the Order of Business.

Faculty Affairs -- "Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99." John Nichols noted that this is a mandated report, and asked if Council had any questions. There were none and a Jurs/Richman motion was passed to accept this report.

Faculty Benefits -- "Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office." Allen Phillips stated that this report pertained to a discussion that occurred in October at the Faculty Benefits Committee with Marguerite Gustkey on the operation on travel services. The report is being offered so that this information can be more widely distributed. The report was passed for the Senate Agenda on a Chellman/Richman motion.

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities -- "Annual Report for 1998-99." Gary Fosmire indicated that this is an annual report and that he would like to offer it as written. The report was placed on the Senate Agenda with a Richman/Chellman motion.

Undergraduate Education -- "Grade Distribution Report." Dr. Myers offered the report without comment. Council had no questions and passed the report on a Gouran/Lukezic motion.

At this point, Chair Nelson declared the above passed reports to be the Senate Agenda for the February 29 Senate meeting.

Dr. Nelson asked Council to address the proposal to form a new department of Bioengineering in the College of Engineering. Reservations were expressed by Council considering the February 2 memo from the Intra-University Relations Committee. This memo recommended that the new department construct the requirement for any new programs or majors in such a way that students who begin their Penn State career at non-University Park locations may make appropriate degree progress and experience a smooth change of assignment. Concern was also introduced that the documents do not include evidence of consultation with the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. At this point in the discussion, a Gouran/Chellman motion to implement the proposal as received was voted down by a 7 to 10 vote.

The following motion was passed on a Berkowitz/Lukezic motion: In accordance with our duties as prescribed in Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that the proposal to form a new Department of Bioengineering in the College of Engineering be implemented only if the following concerns can be resolved. First, that the College of Agricultural Sciences is consulted and that evidence of this consultation is probided to Senate Council; and second, that the concerns raised by the Intra-University Relations Committee be resolved.

Council considered a proposal by Jacob De Rooy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities, entitled "Creation of Liaison between the Senate Council Subcommittee on External Matters and the University Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach Activities." Professor Nelson asked for a sense of the Council so that the proposal could be sent to the Committee on Committees and Rules to consider a legislative report to revise Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(f). The proposal suggests that the membership of the External Matters subcommittee include representation from the Outreach Activities Committee. Council took a non-binding vote indicating that this is a useful suggestion and that it should be considered by the Committee on Committees and Rules. The vote was a positive one.

Senate Chair Nelson thanked Council for their attention to the Agenda and adjourned them at 3:08 PM.

Respectfully Submitted
George J. Bugyi
Executive Secretary

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

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

Date: February 10, 2000

To: Senate Council

From: Philip A. Klein, Graduate Council Liaison

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

Date: February 18, 2000

From: George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary

To: All Senators and Committee Personnel