 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 30, 2001,
at 1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other
emergencies, you may call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a
Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled.
This may be done after normal office hours by calling the same number
and a voice mail announcement can be heard concerning the status of any
meeting. You may also leave a message
at that time.]
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the December 5, 2000, Meeting
in The Senate Record 34:3
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
of
January 16, 2001
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 16, 2001
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS -
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS –
Committees
and Rules
Revision
of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
Committees
and Rules
Revision
to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS –
Faculty Affairs
Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring
Faculty off the Tenure Track
Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty
University Planning
Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable
University
J. INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS -
Admissions,
Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Reserved
Spaces Program
Faculty
Affairs
UniSCOPE
2000 Presentation
Senate
Council
University
Faculty Census Report – 2001-2002
Undergraduate
Education
Summary
of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location
1999-2000
First-Year Seminars: The Inaugural Year in Review
Non-Returning
Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998
University
Planning
Long-term
Debt and Debt Service of the University
A
Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign, Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for
Development
and Alumni Relations
K.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
-----------------
Note:
The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held
on Tuesday,
February 27, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112
Kern Building.
The
Informational Report entitled “A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign” will
be presented as the first informational report (under J.)
on the floor of the Senate.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: January 19, 2001
To: Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The
Senate Curriculum Report, dated
January 16, 2001, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report
must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate
Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu,
on or before February 15, 2001.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies are not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of
Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)
(Legislative)
(Implementation Date: Upon approval by the President)
Recommendation
The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules proposes the following change to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
Article II
Section 1
Membership
For the purpose of defining the
electorate of the Senate, the term University Faculty shall mean all persons who
are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full time academic
appointments, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding
professorial, research (excluding noncontinuing research appointees), or
librarian titles and those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and
lecturers, or assistant librarians.
Rationale
This rule has often been violated in the past, most often when people have sought graduate degrees in Higher Education. That, however, should not be a rationale, but support for the rationale, namely that the requirement is not necessary. The fear is that Senators will be guilty of a conflict of interest, but that is often the nature of whole committees such as Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits. The addition of the Dickinson School of Law to Penn State has allowed professors in a number of fields to desire and pursue law degrees. They should not be penalized for this. Since Senators are asked by the Senate to disclose such degree pursuit, it would be simple for the voting units to request such information and for the electorate to make their own decisions bearing this information in mind if they wish.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair
Joseph J. Cecere
Dwight Davis
Terry Engelder
Sabih I. Hayek
Deidre E. Jago, Chair
John R. Lippert
Arthur C. Miller
John W. Moore
Murry R. Nelson
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4
(Legislative)
[Implementation Date: Upon Passage by the Senate]
INTRODUCTION
As the University Faculty Senate becomes more complex, it is sometimes necessary to introduce added information in the Constitution, Bylaws and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate. Therefore, the proposed change in the Bylaws is offered to assure that election results are forwarded to the Senate Office in a timely manner.
PROPOSED
Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws:
The proposed changes are in caps:
“The names of the newly elected and newly appointed Senators to serve during the following year shall be reported TO THE SENATE OFFICE BY THE FIRST FRIDAY IN FEBRUARY IN ORDER TO BE REPORTED to the Senate at the last regular meeting of the academic year.”
RATIONALE
Despite memos from the Senate Office encouraging these elections to be held and results reported, there are units that overlook these requests and the Senate agenda is then printed with gaps where the listing of new Senators is given. This is both embarrassing to the Senate and to the units, and seems unnecessary. By printing clear guidelines in the Bylaws, units can plan precisely when they need to meet to address the election procedures. There are and will be no penalty, of course, for failure to comply in time, but it is hoped that this will make Senate procedures run more smoothly.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair
Joseph J. Cecere
Dwight Davis
Terry Engelder
Sabih I. Hayek
Deidre E. Jago, Chair
John R. Lippert
Arthur C. Miller
John W. Moore
Murry R. Nelson
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track
(Advisory/Consultative)
[Implementation: Upon Approval by the President]
INTRODUCTION
Concern has been growing at Penn State over the potential negative effects of hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (fixed term-I/ FT-I) or part-time (fixed term-II/ FT-II) positions. As a result, Intra-University Relations was charged with determining the extent to which FT-I and FT-II faculty are utilized at Penn State and Faculty Affairs was charged with determining how this affects faculty development and the academic climate. In the fall of 1999, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs conducted a limited pilot survey related to this issue. A comprehensive University-wide survey was beyond the resources of Faculty Affairs. The pilot study was a preliminary assessment to allow this issue to be brought forward for further consideration and discussion. The study was completed in the spring of 2000. Attachment 1 is a summary of the compiled results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based in part on the results of this study, the Committee on Faculty Affairs is making the following recommendations.
1.) Individual units should evaluate trends in the use of their fixed term faculty with the goal of defining how to balance meeting the needs of new programs, research, enrollment, and budget constraints with the need to maintain the academic environment and its standards. The Provost should develop a means to oversee the trends across the University for a perspective on their impact on the educational and academic environment of the University as a whole.
2.) In its strategic plan, each academic unit should describe its goals for hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (FT-I) or part-time (FT-II) positions. The plan should describe how the different kinds of faculty help achieve or contribute to the unit’s goals and objectives.
3.) Whenever a faculty member is hired, whether on or off the tenure track, the letter of offer should include the new hire’s responsibility to the unit and the unit’s responsibility to the new hire. In an effort to promote inclusiveness, the expectation is that the new hire and other faculty in the unit will understand how the new appointment is relevant to the unit’s strategic plan. Adequate resources should be allocated to support newly hired faculty in accordance with his/her qualifications, experience, and expected contribution to the unit.
4.) Each unit should establish guidelines to promote achievement of fixed-term faculty. The expectation is that, for appropriate appointments, this will include ways to promote faculty development, ways to reward and recognize achievement, and guidelines for promotion under appropriate circumstances.
5.) Whenever a faculty member is hired off the tenure track, whether FT-I or FT-II, University policies and guidelines are pertinent to the position should be communicated to the new faculty member. These policies and guidelines are HR-05, HR-36, HR-61, HR-21, HR-24, HR-40 and Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 (Section 5E). Policies relating to benefits are in Attachment 2.
6.) The Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations should continue to provide periodic informational reports to the Senate on the use and numbers of faculty on and off the tenure track at various locations. Future reports should include data from the College of Medicine and the College of Law which were omitted from the last report.
BACKGROUND
Nationwide incremental changes have been occurring in faculty hiring over the last twenty-five years. The trends have been to hire more full-time faculty off the tenure track and to replace full-time faculty with part-time positions. The United States Education Department published a report documenting the increased use of part-time faculty (Part-Timers Continue to Replace Full-Timers on College Faculties. Chronicle Higher Ed, A18:1/28/2000). A report of data compiled by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce confirms the significant use of nontenure-track faculty who receive lower pay and fewer benefits than their tenure track peers (Study Shows Colleges’ Heavy Reliance on Their Part-Time Instructors. Chronicle Higher Ed., A12:12/1/2000). Although some institutions have converted positions from part-time to full-time, the new positions were not on the tenure track (How a University Created 95 Faculty Slots and Scaled Back its Use of Part-Timers. Chronicle Higher Ed: A18,10/22/1999). Such positions have inherent problems, especially in the sciences (Soft Money’s Hard Realities. Science 289: 2024, 2000).
Discussions among the Faculty Affairs Committee members led to the development of a different questionnaire for each group - tenure track faculty, faculty administrators and faculty not on the tenure track (without regard to full-time or part-time status). This pilot study included ten locations – Abington, Altoona, Berks, Capital College, Carlisle, Erie, Great Valley, Hershey, Mont Alto, and University Park. For the survey of faculty not on the tenure track, 24 responses were received from University Park and 37 from other locations for a total of 61 responses. For the tenure track survey, 64 responses were received from University Park and 50 from other locations for a total of 114. For the faculty administrators, 15 responses were received from University Park and 23 from other locations for a total of 38 responses. The total number of responses was 213. The percent of returned questionnaires is unknown. Attachment 1 is a summary of compiled results.
RATIONALE
The impact of faculty not pursuing tenure on the professional development of tenure track faculty and on the academic climate is highly variable throughout the University. Some units have no non-tenure track positions while others have significant numbers. From this pilot study we conclude that hiring faculty off the tenure track often gives the unit needed flexibility to address short-term problems. This has the positive effect of allowing expansion and contraction of faculty based on enrollment and new course requirements. In addition, these individuals often relieve the teaching obligations of tenure track and research faculty. The positions have budgetary advantages because they reduce personnel and research costs. These positions can also bring professional relevance to the classroom for those who have significant careers outside the classroom. In many cases these faculty have contributed significantly but too often they are under-valued, under-committed to the University and have an overall negative effect.
However, use of FT-I and FT-II faculty often creates a two-tier faculty with two cultures that can adversely affect morale – especially the morale of some non tenure-track faculty. In some units the turnover and degree of commitment of faculty hired off the tenure track are perceived to have an adverse effect on continuity for students, courses and the curriculum so that academic quality might be compromised. The Faculty Affairs Committee believes that the recommendations we have put forward will foster a positive environment for non-tenure track faculty where they will be embraced as valued colleagues and their professional development will be encouraged.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Shelton S. Alexander
Seyed Saad Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
Ingrid Blood
Melvin Blumberg
Clay Calvert
Lynn A. Carpenter
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Jacqueline R. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evenson
Veronique M. Foti
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth Hanley
Ravinder Koul
Robert LaPorte
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky, Chair
Victor Romero
William A. Rowe
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Ingrid Blood
Jacqueline P. Esposito
Veronique M. Foti
Margaret B. Goldman, Chair
Elizabeth Hanley
Valerie N. Stratton
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE THREE SURVEYS
The following is a summary of the responses to the pilot study. The percent responses to questions is given to get a sense of the magnitude of positive answers and is not meant to imply that the survey can be subject to rigorous statistical analysis. That was not the intent of the Committee on Faculty Affairs.
SURVEY OF FACULTY HIRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK
In the responses to the pilot survey, the majority of non-tenure track faculty were not actively seeking another position (78%) and were supported by departmental funds (85%). Reasons for choosing such a position varied, but for 43% this was the only option available. Twenty-four percent at UP versus 6% at other locations wanted to focus on teaching while 25% overall took a position off the tenure track because it was compatible with other responsibilities. Outside UP, 20% took the position because they lacked a Ph.D. degree. Some (14%) felt there was no advantage in such a position. UP faculty felt the advantage was less pressure and fewer responsibilities (33%) or the ability to devote more time to teaching (18%). Non-UP faculty cited advantages as the lack of a need to publish (20%), a more flexible schedule (13%) and more time devoted to teaching and students (13%). UP faculty thought the major disadvantages were the perceived lower status (35%) and less competitive salary (15%). Faculty at other campuses were concerned about their lower salary (33%) and lower benefits (15%), their lack of job security (30%), their lower status and perceived lack of respect (27%), their lack of support funds and staff (21%) and the lack of opportunities for promotion and tenure (15%).
Faculty who are not on the tenure track are evaluated (88%) but sometimes only by students (19%). They also have the opportunity to participate in professional development seminars (89%), and have adequate academic support (90%) and office space (72%) compared to their colleagues. However, there are problems because only half felt they were adequately recognized and valued. Although the faculty who responded to the survey participate in curriculum development (73%), they do not advise student organizations (70%), and neither participate actively in faculty governance (74%) nor in departmental governance (55%). Forty-one per cent feel constrained in expressing their opinions in academic matters so that academic freedom may be undermined.
SURVEY OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY
The group felt policies toward them could be improved by better communication of University policies, improvement in pay and benefits with increased use of multi-year contracts, establishment of a reward and recognition system and establishment of uniformity and clarity in evaluation.
The survey of tenure track faculty showed that half felt they saw a shift to hiring more full-time faculty off the tenure track and half felt their courses and teaching had been affected. At UP the majority of respondents (73%) saw no shift to hiring more part-time faculty. At other locations half the respondents saw a shift and often this was to meet the needs of increased enrollment and sometimes as a response to new programs. Tenure track faculty (79%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track solved some problems such as helping teaching, meeting short-term needs without having to make a commitment, saving money and aiding research. They enable flexibility and accommodation of special situations. Tenure track faculty (77%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track creates problems as well. Non-tenure track faculty are often treated as second-class citizens, they are often undervalued and exploited and they can be less committed to the department, the University and to teaching. The overall consequences are negative.
Tenure track faculty felt that policies could be improved by developing official guidelines that would include standards for hiring and retention of faculty not on the tenure track. The responsibilities of each of these faculty members within the unit need to be defined clearly and the units need to develop a more inclusive approach to these faculty members. Various suggestions were made to address the perceived negative effect of these positions. They included developing more uniform salary and rewards as a disincentive for hiring off the tenure track, limiting the number of these positions or providing better opportunities for conversion to the tenure track or to multi-year contracts.
SURVEY OF FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS
Faculty administrators surveyed (73%) are using more full-time faculty not on the tenure track (FT-I) because of increases in enrollment, scarcity of Ph.D.’s in certain fields, research needs, clinical needs, and the need for special courses. They (49%) are using more part-time faculty (FT-II) as well. Part-time faculty are used because of course demands resulting from increased enrollment and because some hires only want to work part-time. The respondents (46%) felt that the use of faculty not on the tenure track sometimes affected the mission of the department/college and sometimes affected relations within the department and between departments (31%). Their use impacts the departmental budget (66%). Half the respondents felt the use of these faculty affected how courses were taught (47%), curriculum planning (47%), and faculty development (39%). For the group that was sampled, the use of FT-I and FT-II faculty appears to have had less of an impact at UP than at other locations in the following areas: faculty and peer evaluation (13% UP vs. 56% elsewhere); faculty advising and mentoring (15% UP vs. 61% elsewhere); faculty committee work (20% UP vs. 57% elsewhere); faculty retention (no effect UP vs. 30% elsewhere).
ATTACHMENT 2
REPORT ON
BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO FACULTY H IRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK IN FULL-TIME (FIXED
TERM I) AND PART-TIME (FIXED TERM II) APPOINTMENTS
The following report was approved by the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Spring 2000.
All Penn State faculty are classified either
as "regular" or "non‑regular" employees. A regular faculty employee is one appointed
under the sub‑classification heading of "Academic" or
"Academic Administrator" in a full-time position that exists for at
least 6 months. The only exception is
that persons on an academic appointment designated as "Visiting" are
classified as non‑regular employees.
A non‑regular faculty employee is anyone granted a Fixed Term II
or Visiting academic appointment, OR who fills a position that will exist for
less than 6 months, OR who is working on less than a full‑time work
schedule, OR whose position title includes the words "part‑time". Full-time faculty members on the tenure
track have a Standing appointment.
Full-time faculty members on not on the tenure track have a Standing
Appointment, a Fixed term I single-year appointment or have a Fixed term I-
Multi-year appointment. Faculty
members, who are not on the tenure track and are part-time, receive a Fixed
Term II appointment.
By these definitions, a faculty member appointed as Standing, Fixed Term Multi‑Year or Fixed Term I is considered a regular employee and thus is covered by all policies applicable to the University's employee benefits plans, educational privileges for employees and eligible dependents, plus Workers' Compensation and Unemployment Compensation programs. With respect to benefits, two provisions are different for Fixed Term I appointments relative to Standing appointments. The first is that only Standing Appointment tenure track faculty may apply for sabbatical leave. The second concerns the option for having a 9‑month (36 week) salary paid in 12 installments instead of 9. Fixed Term I faculty classified as "exempt" with no summer duties cannot receive 9/12ths of their annual salary each month during the first 2 years of their employment and thus are paid only during the months worked. Any person appointed on a "non‑exempt" basis will only receive a paycheck while working, not in 12ths.
The benefits available to
part-time faculty are considerably different from those of full-time
faculty. Major differences that apply
to Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty are itemized here.
1. University‑sponsored
healthcare plans (PPO, POS plans, HMOs, etc.) are available to these faculty
once they complete 24 months of University service and have taught at least 15
credits in each 12 month period. Once
qualified, Fixed Term II faculty must continue to meet these criteria. Monthly costs will vary by healthcare plan
and are equal to the full‑time employee cost plus one-half of the
employer cost.
2. Fixed Term II or
Part‑Time faculty are not eligible for participation in University‑sponsored
dental or vision plans, the Long‑Term Disability insurance plan, the
Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment plan, and or the University‑sponsored
Life Insurance plan, and/or the Flexible Benefits Reimbursement Accounts.
3. Benefits-eligible
Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty may utilize the Employee Assistance
Program, and may elect to have the cost of their medical coverage deducted on a
pre-taxed basis.
4. Participation in
a University retirement plan is mandatory once the employee has reached 750
hours worked in one calendar year; continuation in subsequent years is required
but no minimum number of hours worked is specified to remain in the plan.
5. Fixed Term II and
Part‑Time faculty are covered by Workers' Compensation and Unemployment
Compensation Insurance to the extent allowed under State regulations. For details of these coverages, the employee
should contact the Human Resources representative in their College.
6. All Fixed Term II
and Part‑Time faculty may also elect to participate in a
University-sponsored tax‑deferred annuity (TDA) plan. Deductions are based on a percentage of
salary (up to legal limits) but may be taken only if sufficient salary remains
to cover required deductions (e.g. taxes, fees). Previously TDA participation was limited to those part-time
employees enrolled in a University retirement plan.
7. Educational
privileges for self and eligible dependents are available for those appointed
on a full time Fixed Term II or full time Visiting Faculty appointment for at
least 1 semester or summer session if their appointment covers both the
beginning and end of the semester or summer session.
8. Faculty are
eligible for participation in the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act program
if they have worked for the University for at least 12 months and at least
1,250 hours during the 12‑month period immediately prior to the leave.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS (1999-2000)
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
COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Recommendations
for Emeritus/Retired Faculty
(Advisory/Consultative)
[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]
INTRODUCTION
In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Committee on Faculty Affairs began discussing issues related to emeritus faculty. Based on casual observations and recent articles dealing with nation-wide concerns, we were aware of some dissatisfactions with respect to the degree of involvement retirees have with the University. There is limited University-wide effort to maintain relationships with retired faculty or to utilize their valuable expertise. One notable exception is the Provost's Emeritus Faculty Teaching Scholars program. Under this program, funding is made available to the academic unit for use by the emeritus faculty member to support his/her teaching, research, and outreach activities. Recently, the University of Iowa conducted an extensive study to explore how the University might better serve their emeritus faculty and how the emeritus faculty might better serve the University. No such study has ever occurred at Penn State, and no surveys of retired faculty have been conducted.
Thus, the Committee on Faculty Affairs decided to conduct a survey of retired faculty to assess the degree of satisfaction among Penn State retirees. The survey included questions to determine retirees' use and awareness of available benefits, areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and degree of involvement with the university since retirement (See Attachment A). The survey was sent to a random sample of 300 retirees, both emeritus and non-emeritus, from all locations. A total of 170 usable surveys were returned.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based in part on the results of the survey, the Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the following:
- Departments, colleges, and campuses should be encouraged to make more use of qualified emeritus and other retired faculty. They may substitute for faculty who are on leave or attending conferences, or teach introductory or specialty courses when needed. They may serve on thesis and dissertation committees when appropriate. Some incentives to support their teaching, research, or outreach-related activities should be offered when retired faculty members teach a regular course or take on substantial instructional responsibilities.
- Departments and/or colleges should make retired faculty aware of opportunities to mentor students and faculty at all levels.
- Retired faculty who are active in research, teaching, or University service should be provided office space on campus within their home college when feasible. Departmental/ college support, such as secretarial services, supplies, travel stipends, software, parking, etc., should be encouraged as appropriate to the retiree's contribution to the program. Whenever possible, lab space should be provided for retirees who maintain an active research program that contributes to the field and the department's mission.
- Retired faculty should be encouraged by their departments, colleges, and campuses to remain involved in departmental and collegiate activities. This may be accomplished through newsletters, email announcements, invitations to department/campus events, use of retirees on committees and in other service capacities as needed, such as contacting potential donors in fund-raising efforts. Deans should be made aware of how department/division heads are engaging retired faculty.
- The Office of Human Resources should designate an Employee Benefits officer to be responsible for retired faculty and staff issues. This person should ensure that faculty at all University locations have equal access to information and problem resolution concerning all retirement benefits.
- The Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits should continue to consider extending medical insurance for retirees to include some amount of vision and dental insurance, and should explore the availability of a deductible policy that could provide long-term care or coverage for catastrophic events at a reasonable cost.
- The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules should propose the establishment of representation of emeritus faculty in the University Faculty Senate by having a voting member elected from and by emeritus faculty.
- The University should consider establishing or extending the equivalent of senior-citizen discounts for University-sponsored activities and events.
- Periodic surveys of retired faculty should be conducted by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs to monitor the success of any steps taken by the University and to identify other areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within other samples and in other time periods.
BACKGROUND
Retirement is different for academics than for many other professions. While in most careers retirement is seen as a time to leave that work behind and relax or go on to something else, the career of being a university faculty member is much more tied to a person's identity and intrinsic interests; it is more of an avocation than a vocation. Additionally, the ultimate goal and focus of academics - wisdom - is something that comes only with experience and age, just about when the average faculty member retires. Indeed, many faculty are reluctant to retire, and since the repeal of a mandatory retirement age, more faculty are staying on the job beyond the age of 65 or older.
Recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education have addressed this issue. Nation-wide, nearly one-third of full-time faculty are 55 or older due to a surge of hiring in the 60s and 70s. Within the next ten years, this large block of faculty will be reaching the traditional age of retirement. Two problems will develop for universities at that time. If many of those faculty retire, universities will be losing a valuable resource. Those faculty include some of the best teachers and mentors; they provide a connection between alumni and the institution; and they have the experience, wisdom and institutional memory needed by younger faculty to avoid reinventing the wheel. On the other hand, if those faculty don't retire, universities lose the opportunity to hire new blood, change program foci, diversify the faculty and hire specialists in modern areas. Many of the faculty who don't retire at 65 or 70 are at top research universities and are the most productive in research areas. To quote one article from the Chronicle (Magner, 2000), "Universities don't want these faculty to go away. They would just like them to stop getting paid."
Another reason faculty may not want to retire is the poor treatment they receive after retirement. As another article in the Chronicle (Parini, 2000) points out, there is no merit in emeritus in most colleges. Once retired, faculty are forgotten about and cut off from their life work.
Detailed results of our survey are attached. Attachment B presents a summary of the demographics of the respondents; Attachment C shows the extent of usage and awareness of the various benefits available for retirees; and Attachment D gives the percentages of respondents who supported the recommendations from the University of Iowa report. Overall, the results indicate that the observations made above are true for Penn State retirees. There are many dissatisfactions among Penn State retirees. One open-ended question asked respondents to identify specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions with respect to support from or involvement with the university since retirement. Far more dissatisfactions were reported than satisfactions, with higher rates of dissatisfactions at non-UP locations. The satisfactions identified included having office space, use of department facilities, health insurance, computer access account, teaching opportunities, athletic facilities, and being informed and involved with department activities. But it was a minority of the respondents who reported these benefits. Far more respondents reported dissatisfactions including lack of parking (primarily at UP), lack of vision and dental insurance, not being permitted to teach, and lack of involvement or contact with the department. Many comments dealt with feeling ignored and rejected. One respondent said his use of facilities to continue research was questioned by University attorneys. Another said the Engineering library asked that he not use the facility. Two references were made to other universities with which the respondents had better experiences in terms of being encouraged to stay involved and with respect to medical coverage. Several felt that retirees represent a vast pool of expertise not being used by the University.
The survey asked for suggestions for ways to improve the relationship between the University and retired faculty. Many of the suggestions, of course, related to the dissatisfactions described above. The suggestions included: make occasional parking cheaper and easier; add vision and dental insurance; allow half-time contracts for emeritus faculty as Iowa and Texas do; give discounts for events at Eisenhower, Schwab, etc.; send the Intercom to all retirees who want it. Many suggestions related to the issue of contact and involvement: have departments make more effort to include retirees; give occasional acknowledgments of services; show retirees more respect; give retirees faculty voting power. The most strongly supported recommendations from the University of Iowa study were to make more use of retirees for teaching, to provide office space and other support, to urge departments to make retirees more welcome to participate in departmental activities, to have a liaison in the Employee Benefits office to assist retirees with questions and problems, and to conduct periodic surveys of the retired faculty. One respondent simply said, "Do something!"
RATIONALE
The recommendations being made are direct responses to the comments and suggestions made by the respondents to our survey. More opportunities for greater involvement in teaching, research, and service, and a more welcoming atmosphere are clearly desired by the retirees. With respect to health benefits and retirement information, greater consistency across the system is needed, and a designated Employee Benefits officer could help ensure this occurs. Vision and dental insurance may currently be too expensive to provide, but this was a clearly expressed need by the retirees and should be explored on an on-going basis. Senate representation for emeritus faculty was suggested and would provide some voice in University affairs from an important and experienced group.
The primary goal of these recommendations is to help bring the University to a position where it is better serving the retirees and the retirees are better serving the University. Retirement need not be a cause of losing the expertise of senior faculty. The survey results strongly indicate the desire for such changes among the retirees, other universities have already implemented such measures, and these suggestions are simply decent things to do. Indeed, the establishment of the Emeritus Teaching Scholars program represents a recognition by the University of the valuable resource which retired faculty are. However, this is just a beginning. We believe that the University must continue to move in the direction of these recommendations for the ultimate benefit of all involved.
References
Magner, D.K. (March 17, 2000). The imminent surge in retirements. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A18-20.
Parini, J. (May 12, 2000). Living up to the meaning of 'emeritus.' The Chronicle of Higher Education, p A68.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Shelton S. Alexander
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
Ingrid Blood
Melvin Blumberg
Clay Calvert
Lynn A. Carpenter
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Jackie R. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evensen
Veronique M. Foti
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth Hanley
Ravinder Koul
Robert La Porte
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky, Chair
Victor Romero
William A. Rowe
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Ingrid Blood
Jackie R. Esposito
Veronique M. Foti
Margaret B. Goldman, Chair
Elizabeth Hanley
Valerie N. Stratton
RETIRED FACULTY SURVEY
This
survey is being conducted by the Faculty Affairs Committee at The Pennsylvania
State University. The purpose of the survey is to assess how the university
might support retired faculty and how retired faculty might serve the
university. The survey is confidential. Please take a few minutes to respond to
the following questions. Upon completion, please return the survey using the
postage paid envelope.
Please indicate which
of the following University benefits you use, you don't use but are aware of,
or you don't use because you were not aware of them:
Benefits for all retired faculty:
USE AWARE OF, BUT NOT AWARE OF,
DON'T USE DON'T USE
o o o PSU ID card
o o o Library privileges
o o o Computer access account
o o o "True PSU" long-distance
telephone service
o o o Use of athletic facilities
o o o Tuition reduction benefits
o o o Member of Faculty-Staff Club
o o o Member of Retired Faculty-Staff Club
Benefits for Emeritus faculty:
o o o Parking permit
o o o Listing in Faculty-Staff Directory
o o o Receive the Intercom (also available after 25 years
service)
What other
benefits/privileges do you receive through your college/division/department
(e.g., office/lab
space, announcements, secretarial help, etc.)?
The
following recommendations were made by a recent task force at the University of
Iowa which explored issues related to Emeritus/Retired Faculty. Please indicate which of the following
recommendations you feel Penn State should institute.
SHOULD SHOULD
DO
NOT DO
o o 1. Form a corps of
retired faculty to serve on committees, meet with
prospective students, assist with freshman
orientation, etc.
o o 2. Allow emeritus
faculty to mentor new faculty members and
departmental/divisional heads.
o o 3. Use retired
faculty for instruction when regular faculty are on leave,
to fill in on dissertation committees.
o o 4. Provide
office/lab space, facilitate funding applications, etc. to support
retired faculty
who are teaching and/or conducting research
o o 5. Urge
departments and colleges to welcome retired faculty to participate
in departmental and college activities.
o o 6. Encourage
retired faculty to mentor faculty members contemplating
retirement.
o o 7. Have retired
faculty encourage and assist faculty approaching
retirement to save and donate to the
University Archives papers that
have historical significance for the
university.
o o 8. Establish an
ongoing emeritus council which will share responsibility
for emeritus affairs with an
administrative office.
o o 9. Appoint a
member of the Employee Benefits office as liaison for
retired faculty and staff for assisting
with benefits questions and
problems.
o o 10. Conduct
periodic surveys of retired faculty to gather additional ideas
on ways they and the university can better
serve each other, and to
explore the extent of retirees' interest
in maintaining a close relationship
with the university.
Overall, how
satisfied are you with the support and degree of involvement you have with the
university and/or your department/division?
1 2 3 4 5
very somewhat neutral somewhat very
unsatisfied
unsatisfied satisfied satisfied
When planning to
retire, did you receive enough information with respect to retirement issues
such as pension, benefits, department status, etc.? Explain.
In what ways have you
been involved with university/department/division activities since you retired?
Please identify any
specific satisfactions or dissatisfactions you have with respect to support
from or involvement with the university since you have retired.
Do you have any
additional suggestions for ways to improve the relationship between the
university and retired/emeritus faculty?
Year you retired
___________ Emeritus? yes
o
no o
Number of years at
Penn State ______ Rank at
retirement ___________________
Current age ________ Sex M ___ F ___
College/Department/Campus
___________________________________________
Thank you
Summary of Demographics of Respondents
Of the surveys returned, 56% were emeritus faculty from UP, 17% were non-emeritus from UP, 14% were emeritus from non-UP locations, and 13% were non-emeritus from non-UP locations. Of the 170 respondents, only 19 were female. The table below gives average years at Penn State, average years since retiring, and average ratings of satisfaction with support and degree of involvement since retirement (a five point rating scale was used with 1 indicating "very unsatisfied" and 5 "very satisfied").
|
|
Emeritus |
Non-Emeritus |
||
|
UP |
non-UP |
UP |
non-UP |
|
|
Years at PSU |
30.20 |
26.00 |
29.60 |
24.80 |
|
Years since retiring |
7.50 |
5.90 |
10.10 |
10.00 |
|
Satisfaction with degree of involvement (5 point scale) |
3.40 |
3.33 |
3.25 |
2.80 |
TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO USE, DON'T USE
BUT ARE AWARE OF, OR ARE UNAWARE OF AVAILABLE BENEFITS
|
|
USE |
DON'T USE |
UNAWARE OF |
|||
|
UP |
NON-UP |
UP |
NON-UP |
UP |
NON-UP |
|
|
PSU ID |
69 |
30 |
22 |
26 |
9 |
43 |
|
LIBRARY |
54 |
48 |
38 |
26 |
6 |
26 |
|
COMPUTER ACCESS |
56 |
37 |
31 |
20 |
11 |
43 |
|
TRUE PSU |
8 |
9 |
11 |
13 |
76 |
78 |
|
ATHLETIC FACILITIES |
29 |
9 |
62 |
47 |
7 |
44 |
|
REDUCED TUITION |
7 |
9 |
76 |
65 |
13 |
26 |
|
FAC/STAFF CLUB |
12 |
2 |
59 |
39 |
25 |
59 |
|
RETIREES CLUB |
20 |
4 |
49 |
24 |
29 |
72 |
|
PARKING* |
40 |
|
36 |
|
22 |
|
|
PSU DIRECTORY* |
67 |
46 |
15 |
8 |
32 |
46 |
|
INTERCOM** |
72 |
49 |
6 |
11 |
19 |
29 |
* Emeritus only **Emeritus or 25 years of service
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF
RESPONDENTS WHO SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT -
SEPARATED ACCORDING TO LOCATION
AND EMERITUS
STATUS
|
|
LOCATION |
STATUS |
||
|
UP |
NON-UP |
EMER |
NON-
EMER |
|
|
1. Form corps of retirees for service activities |
44 |
63 |
48 |
51 |
|
2. Allow emeritus faculty to mentor new faculty |
49 |
65 |
59 |
39 |
|
3. Use retired faculty as substitute instructors |
72 |
80 |
79 |
65 |
|
4. Provide office space and other support |
83 |
87 |
90 |
71 |
|
5. Urge departments to welcome retirees in activities |
80 |
80 |
85 |
71 |
|
6. Have retirees mentor faculty contemplating retirement |
67 |
67 |
68 |
67 |
|
7. Have retirees assist in saving information in University Archives |
69 |
72 |
64 |
82 |
|
8. Establish emeritus council to work with admin. office |
58 |
61 |
67 |
39 |
|
9. Have liaison in Employee Benefits to aid retirees |
82 |
91 |
86 |
82 |
|
10. Conduct periodic surveys of retired faculty |
82 |
89 |
86 |
78 |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University
(Advisory and Consultative)
[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]
BACKGROUND
In September 1998, a group of Penn State faculty, staff and students released The Penn State Indicators Report. This report did something that had never before been done--it examined Penn State through the lens of sustainability to evaluate whether the University was moving toward or away from sustainable practices. This analysis relied on thirty-four sustainability indicators in areas such as energy, food, water, waste, transportation, buildings, and decision-making.
The 1998 Indicators Report attracted both local and national attention and in late 1999 the "Indicators" group created Penn State's Green Destiny Council, a faculty-staff-student association committed to promoting ecological responsibility at Penn State. The Green Destiny Council believes that institutions of higher education can be leverage points in the transition to a sustainable society in so far as they model sustainable practices and foster ecological literacy.
In April 2000, the Green Destiny Council released Indicators 2000, an update of the original 1998 Indicators Report (http://www.bio.psu.edu/Greendestiny/indicators.shtml). The new report cites some improvements at Penn State but makes it clear that there is still a considerable sustainability deficit at our university. The Report suggests that the time has come to join Penn State's individual environmental initiatives into a comprehensive Ecological Mission.
What would an Ecological Mission look like for Penn State? Simply stated, it would define the pre-conditions for genuine sustainability at Penn State. For example, in the area of energy use, an essential precondition for long-term sustainability is the significant reduction in university's reliance on fossil fuels. The unrestrained use of fossil fuels throughout the world causes air pollution, acid precipitation, chronic health problems, and, very likely, climate change. American universities, like Penn State, are in a position to set an example to students, business and society in general of ecological responsibility by articulating an ecological mission which includes a commitment to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Indeed, leading the way on this important effort is intimately related to the mission of a great university. In fact it is paramount that we, the University, set an example for our students on being ecologically sustainable.
Another precondition for genuine sustainability is the adoption of practices that dramatically reduce waste. At present, Penn State continually receives products from distant sources, consumes these products, and then funnels enormous quantities of waste to distant landfills. Instead Penn State needs, as a component of its long-term ecological mission, the clear intent to minimize solid, liquid and hazardous wastes.
A comprehensive ecological mission for Penn State would also include long-term targets in the realms of water conservation, land stewardship, low-impact transportation, sustainable food production, and "green" building construction.
Of course, all of us in the Penn State community recognize that there will be up-front costs involved in doing such things as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, promoting zero-waste technologies, and constructing "green" buildings, but we also know that waste is expensive and that up-front investments in sustainable practices might pay off over the long-term, especially if environmental and social costs were calculated and educational benefits were tallied.
Another major result of the University adopting a policy and actions in regards to sustainability is the impact on students. Indeed, some would say that this is the most important outcome. If the University sets an example of sustainability it would be a powerful role model for our students and greatly multiply the effects of the undertaking. Graduates having experienced living in such an environment while attending Penn State will carry this orientation with them throughout their lives and influence other individuals and organizations.
RATIONALE
There is a need for Penn State to develop long term goals in regards to ecological sustainability and to incorporate them into the University’s Strategic Plan. These goals would encourage all sectors of the University to explore resource-use options that are more conserving, healthful, and efficient. It is our sincere hope that the Faculty Senate will endorse the recommendation listed below which supports the Green Destiny Council's general ecological mission policy statement. By doing so, we will set an example for our students and society on how to meet the many environmental challenges of today and in the future. Supporting ecological sustainability will not only promote environmental improvements within the University and Pennsylvania, but also economic health. As Senator Gaylord Nelson put it, “the environment is the economy.” By adopting a strong position on these issues, our University will stand out as a leader on this front. This leadership role will attract students, faculty and funding for the University in addition to enhancing Pennsylvania’s reputation with regard to environmental stewardship.
RECOMMENDATION
The Faculty Senate hereby recommends that Penn State incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, the following LONG-TERM GOALS into all future University Strategic Plans.
- Significantly Reduce Polluting Emissions Associated with the Usage of Fossil Fuels
- Conserve and Protect Water Resources
- Minimize Solid, Liquid, and Hazardous Wastes
- Utilize, to the Fullest Extent Possible, Food Produced Using Sustainable Practices
- Create and Abide by a Land Ethic that Promotes Stewardship of Natural Processes, Ecosystems, and the Conservation of Green Space
- Promote and Use Sustainable Transportation Options
- Strive to Create Sustainable Campus Environments by Considering Ecological Impacts in the Planning, Design, Construction, Renovation and Maintenance of all University Facilities
- Promote Ecological Literacy by Modeling Sustainable Practices
- Act as a “Role model” for Students and Society for Ecological Sustainability
- Act as a Lead Institution in Promoting and Supporting Research for a Sustainable World.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta, V-Chair
Michael J. Cardamone
David Chao
Peter Deines, Chair
Peter B. Everett
William M. Frank
Daniel R. Hagen
Ali R. Hurson
Ernest W. Johnson
Daniel G. Kiefer
Rodney Kirsch
Robert N. Pangborn
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Gary C. Schultz
Marley W. Watkins
Beno Weiss
Daniel E. Willis
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Reserved Spaces Program
(Informational Report)
"Reserved
Spaces" represent spaces at the University Park Campus reserved for
eligible freshmen with special needs that cannot be met at non-University Park
locations. These spaces are generally
for students whose predicted GPA's are below the cutoffs for regular fall
admissions for University Park.
In
nearly all cases, students admitted at the University Park Campus through the
Reserved Spaces Program meet the basic admission standards of the
University. In some instances, it is not
possible to calculate a predicted GPA (there were 4 such cases in 2000). This is sometimes the issue for an
international student. There are, on
occasion, special circumstances that warrant dropping below the 2.00 minimum
predicted GPA, although there were no cases of this in 2000 admissions.
A
large number of the reserved spaces (50% in 2000) are for specially talented
students in such areas as athletics, the arts and the Blue Band. Most of these students contribute uniquely
both to the educational and cultural life of the entire University Park
community. Spaces are also reserved for
veterans, those entering under the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) and
those entering the recently instituted College Assistance Migrant Program
(CAMP). These three groups, along with
Arts and Architecture talent admits, are Senate approved. Two other general classifications account
for the remaining students admitted through the Reserved Spaces Program. "Other Academic" admissions
involve students granted entrance by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions'
Admissions Review Committee, and students on ROTC scholarships. Administrative admissions include athletes,
members of the Blue Band, and a few additional administrative spaces.
The
first table contains data giving a profile of admissions through the Reserved
Spaces Program for six of the years since the program began in 1984. During this time, the approved maximum for
the program has been reduced and the number actually admitted each year through
the program has been below the approved limit.
In 2000, 5.81% of the entering fall semester freshman class at
University Park was admitted through the Reserved Spaces Program. This is a substantial reduction from 1984,
both in absolute number and percentage of new freshmen. The second table provides a distribution by
category over the same six years. Thethird table indicates the distribution of
admissions through the Reserved Spaces by admission category (predicted GPA) for
each general classification.
The last table displays the approved limits for Fall 2001
by specific category. These limits are
the same as those for 2000.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS SCHEDULING AND
STUDENT AID
Deborah F. Atwater
Kevin R.
Cheesbrough
JoAnn Chirico, Chair
Lynn E. Drafall
Peter Georgopulos, Vice Chair
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Terry P. Harrison
Amanda Hudnall
Victor Nistor
P. Peter Rebane
John J. Romano
J. James Wager
Roger P. Ware
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
UniSCOPE
2000 Presentation
(Informational)
As distributed at the September 12 Senate meeting, the UniSCOPE Learning Community has developed a “multidimensional model of scholarship for the 21st century.” This report recognizes the three missions of the University – teaching, research, and service – as a continuum of scholarship. The UniSCOPE model serves as a basis for identifying, assessing, and rewarding the types of scholarship in the University.
After the December Senate meeting, the Faculty Affairs Committee will review the UniSCOPE report, examine its implications in the promotion and tenure process, and report to the Faculty Senate. For your information and access, the URL of the UniSCOPE report is: http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASPROF/keystone21/uniscope/default.htm
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Shelton S. Alexander
Syed S. Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
Ingrid M. Blood
Melvin Blumberg
Clay Calvert
Lynn A. Carpenter
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Jacqueline P. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evensen
Veronique M. Foti
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Ravinder Koul
Robert LaPorte
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky, Chair
Victor Romero
William A. Rowe
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim C. Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair
The Pennsylvania State University
The University Faculty Senate
Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
Date: January
16, 2001
To: The
University Faculty Senate - For Your Information
From: John
W. Moore, Chair, Election Commission
The 2001-2002 Census of the faculty for the University
Faculty Senate was conducted in the following manner.
Using an information base provided by the Office of
Administrative Systems, a Senate census data base was created which included
all personnel falling within the definition of the electorate of the University
Faculty Senate as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution
of the University Faculty Senate. This
electorate includes all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn
State, who hold full-time appointments as of 10/30/00, and who fall into one of
the following categories: those holding
professorial or librarian titles; those who are full-time instructors, senior
lecturers and lecturers or assistant librarians; and those holding research
rank (excluding non-continuing). These
lists were sent to Deans and Directors of Academic Affairs of the various
voting units for verification. For the
Military Sciences, the list was compiled by the Coordinator of the Combined
Departments of the Military Sciences at University Park. Military Sciences faculty at other locations
were counted with that voting unit. For
Librarians, the list was compiled by the Dean of the University Libraries. The Commonwealth College Librarians were
counted with their voting unit.
Both a copy of the verified list together with a letter
informing the academic voting unit of the number of its electorate and the
number of Senate seats to be filled were sent to each Dean and Director of
Academic Affairs as well as to the Coordinator of the Military Sciences and the
Dean of University Libraries. A copy of
the memo was sent to each Senate Council representative.
The total membership of the 2001-2002 University Faculty
Senate will be 265. This total will
include 222 elected faculty Senators, 22 appointed and ex officio Senators, and
21 student Senators. The student
Senators will include: one (1) undergraduate from each of the ten (10) colleges
at University Park; one (1) from each of the following locations--Abington,
Altoona, Berks-Lehigh Valley, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College, Capital
College, College of Medicine, Commonwealth College, The Dickinson School of
Law, Division of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School, and Great Valley
School of Graduate Professional Studies.
ELECTION COMMISSION
