Appendix B

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

SENATE CALENDAR

2004-2005

*Meeting at Penn State Harrisburg

Appendix C

SENATE COUNCIL

Presentation to the University Faculty Senate
on March 16, 2004
by Graham B. Spanier, President

(Informational)

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

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

Appendix D

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID

Revision of Senate Policies 34-87 (Course Add) and 34-89 (Course Drop)

(Legislative)
Implementation: Anticipated fall 2004, based upon approval by the President

Introduction

The recent changes to the academic calendar have resulted in the fall semester being typically one week shorter than spring semester. For fall semester 2003, ACUE (Administrative Council on Undergraduate Education) interpreted both Senate Policies 34-87 (Course Add) and 34-89 (Course Drop) to imply that the period for Course Add/Course Drop should be shortened from the traditional ten days to one proportional to the reduced length of the fall semester. This resulted in a nine (9) day Add/Drop period for fall semester 2003, rather than the historical ten (10) day period. The student Senators on ARSSA brought this to our attention during the September meeting. Consequently, informal discussions with a number of faculty also revealed a strong sentiment that the Add/Drop period be maintained at ten (10) days for semester-length courses, regardless of the length of any semester.

Discussion and Rationale

During the discussion of changing the length of the Add/Drop periods, ARSSA considered a number of related issues. First, we discussed whether it was useful or convenient to drastically shorten the Add/Drop period. We considered how advances in registration technology now allow students to add or drop courses using the internet, and whether a shortened "shopping" period would be beneficial for either students and/or faculty. ARSSA also considered whether the Course Drop and Course Add periods might usefully be of different length. Such a policy might be attractive to students wishing to schedule sections of courses that are "Full" at the beginning of a semester but which develop vacancies as other students exercise the Course Drop option.

After significant discussion, the ARSSA Committee concluded that a drastically shortened Add/Drop period, while potentially useful to some faculty in planning, and in assuring that students benefit from instruction early in a course, would at the same time greatly diminish the effectiveness of advising during the early days of a semester. Additionally, a shortened Add/Drop period would reduce the ability of individual students to adjust their course schedules. The Committee therefore believes there is no compelling reason to recommend a drastic change.

The Committee also concluded that making the Course Add and Course Drop periods of different length would not bring sufficient additional flexibility in managing students' schedules, to outweigh the likelihood of unintended adverse consequences. For instance, if Course Add were extended to be one day longer than Course Drop, with the intent that vacancies created by Drops could then be filled by other students, it would be possible for a student to end up with a significant course overload (i.e., having not dropped a “placeholder" course before the end of Course Drop period, and then adding a desired course that became available at the last minute) or to use Late Drop credits for the purpose of schedule management rather than for academic reasons.

The Committee concluded that the Course Add/Course Drop period should be uniformly ten (10) days for all courses of full semester length, regardless of the length of a particular fall or spring semester. For courses that are not of full semester length (e.g., some ESACT courses, or courses during summer sessions), a proportional reduction in the Add/Drop period should be made as at present. In order to accomplish these goals, an algorithm was constructed based on two principles: (a) it is based on a nominal fifteen-week (75 days) semester for definiteness; and (b) it involves rounding UP to the next higher whole number of days if the calculation results in a non-whole number (rather than a rounding up or down to the nearest whole number as is the case in the current algorithm).

Some may question why the ARSSA Committee decided to create an algorithm rather than simply write policy and allow the administration to follow through with its implementation. An algorithm was written because of the confusion that can potentially result when somewhat vague language is interpreted differently by different parties. For instance, current policy 34-87 states “. . .a student may add a course to his or her schedule during the first ten calendar days of a semester or the same percentage of time if a course is offered under a different time module.” Many faculty and student senators on ARSSA regarded this statement as clearly indicating that the length of the add period for fall 2003 should be ten days. They did not interpret the fall 2003 semester as representing “a different time module.” Conversely, the members of ACUE did interpret the existing policy as arguing for a proportional Add/Drop period. Therefore, in order to negate the need for any interpretation, the algorithm that is specified in the Recommendations below will always produce a ten-day Add/Drop period for any course equal to or longer than 68 days.

In the proposed revised wording of policies 34-87 and 34-89, some superfluous language has been deleted from the existing policies (e.g., the first sentence of 34-87). The terms Course Add Period, Course Drop Period, and Late Drop Period are introduced and used consistently. Additionally, in 34-89 the end of the Late Drop Period is now defined once, rather than three times, and its position as eighty percent (80%) of the way through the duration of a course is stated once, rather than separately for semesters and "different time modules." This simplifies the language without altering the result. Under this revised language, the length of Late Drop Period for a shortened, 14-week fall semester would be two days less than for a nominal, 15-week spring semester, consistent with actual practice in fall 2003 semester. The Committee regards the small variation from semester to semester in the duration of Late Drop period under this policy as having little academic impact, unlike the variation in the Course Add/Course Drop period.

Recommendations

The ARSSA Committee suggests that Recommendations one and two be adopted as a package.

Recommendation 1. We recommend that Senate Policy 34-87 (Course Add)
be revised as indicated below.

Existing Policy 34-87:

In accordance with the procedure of the college in which the student is enrolled, or the Division of Undergraduate Studies if the student is enrolled in that division, a student may add a course to his or her schedule during the first ten calendar days of a semester or the same percentage of time if a course is offered under a different time module. A course may not be added to the student's schedule after this time period except under the following conditions.

1. The course is an individualized instruction course, or the student is advised by an instructor in a scheduled course to move to a lower- or higher-level course in the sequence of courses in which the student is enrolled.

2. Permission is obtained by signature of both the instructor of the course in which the student wishes to enroll and the student's academic adviser.

Proposed Revision to Policy 34-87:

A student may add a course to his or her schedule during the course's Add Period. This Period is the first ten (10) calendar days of either the fall or spring semester, if the duration of the course is equal to the duration of the semester. For all other courses (those not equal in duration to a semester of which they are part), the duration of the Add Period is calculated by multiplying ten days by the duration of the course (in days) divided by seventy-five (75) days, and then rounding up to the next higher whole number of days. A course may not be added to the student's schedule after this Add Period except under the following conditions.

1. The course is an individualized instruction course, or the student is advised by an instructor in a scheduled course to move to a lower- or higher-level course in the sequence of courses in which the student is enrolled.

2. Permission is obtained by signature of the instructor of the course in which the student wishes to enroll and the student's academic adviser.

Points of Information

The Schedule of Courses and the Registrar's Calendar, available on-line, give the start and end dates of instruction for individual courses and for semesters and summer sessions. Students and advisors can find the Add/Drop date for a particular course using eLion. All calculations of Add/Drop and Late Drop dates are done by the Registrar.

For the purpose of the calculation proposed above, the duration of a semester or a course shall be determined by the Registrar (as is current practice), including all class days from the listed start day of the semester or course to the corresponding listed end day, inclusive. If the last day of the Add period would fall on a weekend or University holiday, the Add period will be extended to include the first class day occurring thereafter.

Recommendation 2. We recommend that Senate Policy 34-89 (Course Drop) be revised as indicated below.

Existing Policy 34-89:

In accordance with the procedure of the college in which the student is enrolled, or the Division of Undergraduate Studies if the student is enrolled in that division, a student may drop a course during the first ten calendar days of a semester.

Beginning with the eleventh day and ending on the last day of the twelfth week of instruction, the student may drop a course (Late Drop), but a WP (Passing), WF (Failing), or a WN (No Grade) symbol will be entered on the student's academic record. The student must follow the procedures of the college in which he or she is enrolled, or the Division of Undergraduate Studies if the student is enrolled in that division. No student may drop a course after the last day of the twelfth week for any reason. Use of the course drop (Late Drop) from the beginning of the eleventh calendar day of the semester to the last day of the twelfth week of instruction is limited to a maximum of ten credits for those registered as nondegree, provisional, and associate degree students. Undergraduates in baccalaureate programs are limited to a maximum of 16 Late Drop credits. For any course offered under a different time module, the above limits are modified to the same percentages of time as those indicated for the normal fifteen-week course.

Note a: By dropping a course after the tenth calendar day of a semester, a student may be seriously jeopardizing his or her expected progress in the major. It is possible that a student will not be able to schedule the dropped course in the succeeding semester for a variety of reasons, thereby delaying progress toward graduation.

Note b: Students may not exceed their late drop limit (16 for baccalaureate degree; ten for associate degree) during the entire period of their enrollment.

Proposed Revision to Policy 34-89:

A student may drop a course during the Course Drop period, which is the same period of time defined under Policy 34-87 for the Course Add period.

The Late Drop period for a course begins with the first calendar day after the Course Drop period and ends on the day when 80 percent of the duration of the course is attained. During the Late Drop period, the student may drop a course (Late Drop), but a WP (Passing), WF (Failing), or a WN (No Grade) symbol will be entered on the student's
academic record. No student may drop a course after the last day of the Late Drop period for any reason. Use of the course drop (Late Drop) during the Late Drop period is limited to a maximum of ten credits for those registered as nondegree, provisional, and associate degree students. Undergraduates in baccalaureate programs are limited to a maximum of 16 Late Drop credits.

Note a: By exercising a Late Drop, a student may be seriously jeopardizing his or her expected progress in the major. It is possible that a student will not be able to schedule the dropped course in the succeeding semester for a variety of reasons, thereby delaying
progress toward graduation.

Note b: Students may not exceed their late drop limit (16 for baccalaureate degree; ten for associate degree) during the entire period of their enrollment.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Michelle Costa
Randall C. Deike
Lynda R. Goldstein
Anna Griswold
Anibal Gonzalez-Perez
Catherine M. Harmonosky
Christopher J. Lynch
Robert A. Malloy
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Nadine B. Smith
Richard A. Wade, Vice-Chair
Eileen F. Wheeler

Appendix E

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

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

Constitution, Article II, Section 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

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

(Legislative)
Implementation: Upon Approval by the President

Introduction

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

Rationale

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

Recommendation

Current version of SR III, 6. c:

(c) The Faculty Advisory Committee shall include:

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix G

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Resolution Endorsing the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics’ (COIA)
“A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform”

(Legislative)

Background

The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics was originally formed in 2002 as an email network of faculty leaders from over 50 Division I-A schools in Bowl Championship Series conferences, including the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big-12, the Big East, the Big Ten, the Pac-10, and the Southeastern Conference. In the Fall of 2003, the COIA began a transition to a coalition of faculty senates, welcoming membership from all Division I-A schools. It seeks to become a faculty voice in the national debate over the future of college sports.

The coalition functions through a Steering Committee of twelve members, nominated by faculty leaders in each conference. The COIA works with the American Association of University Professors, the Association of Governing Boards (a national organization representing college and university trustees), and the NCAA to promote serious and comprehensive reform of intercollegiate sports, so as to preserve and enhance the contributions athletics can make to academic life by addressing longstanding problems in college sports that undermine those contributions.

The Coalition's structure and mission is described in its charter document. A more detailed description of its goals is developed in the “Framework for Intercollegiate Athletics Reform,” which the Steering Committee has proposed for adoption by faculty governance at schools involved in the coalition.

The COIA has asked that faculty senate members review the COIA Framework document posted on their website (http://www.math.umd.edu/%7Ejmc/COIA/Framework?Text.html) and consider endorsement of the COIA and its aims on the basis of this framework. The COIA drafted and revised the framework based on recommendations from many of the 60 schools that they contacted. The framework is proving to be a useful document in conveying the initial direction of the COIA and in opening discussions with other groups, but there has never been full consensus on all its points. It is anticipated that the thinking of the coalition will continue to evolve as they move forward in working for meaningful change.

Currently, 21 schools have endorsed the framework and joined the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (Table 1). Many of the senates at these schools have specified that they endorse the framework only in principle, and that this does not mean agreement with all points. This is what the COIA has said that they interpret endorsement to mean, and they feel that this level of support is the proper basis for a national faculty coalition aiming to accomplish practical results.

**Most of the material in this background section is taken directly from the COIA Web homepage and communication from Bob Eno of Indiana University, the COIA Steering Committee Chair, to the COIA Steering Committee members.

Involvement of the Penn State Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (SCIA)

John Nichols, former Senate Chair and current member of the SCIA, is a founding member of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and a member of the COIA Steering Committee. Professor Nichols requested that the SCIA consider the COIA Framework for possible action by the SCIA and the full senate.

A discussion of the framework was held at the February 3, 2004 meeting of the SCIA, and the following motion was passed (18 in favor, 0 opposed, 8 abstentions):

            Whereas, Penn State has a long tradition of supporting athletic programs that are compatible with the core academic mission of the University; and

            Whereas, Penn State wishes to support the current national effort to better integrate intercollegiate athletics with the purposes of higher education; therefore,

            Resolved that the Faculty Senate of the Pennsylvania State University endorses the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics’ "A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform" in principle and joins the coalition as a participating member.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Charles L. Burchard
Paul F. Clark
Timothy M. Curley
Gordon F. DeJong
Susan Delaney-Scheetz
James T. Elder, Vice-Chair
Bruce D. Hale
Elizabeth A. Hanley
John R. Hellmann
Kane M. High
Janis Jacobs
R. Scott Kretchmar
Russell Mushinsky
John S. Nichols
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
Tammy R. Rishel
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Stephen M. Smith
Kenneth Swalgin
Vicky L. Triponey
Thomas C. Vary
Susan Welch
Jerry J. Wright
Edgar P. Yoder

A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform
Coalition On Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), August 2003

Executive Summary

Reform of intercollegiate athletics is an urgent priority. Successful reform will require a broad consensus and a comprehensive approach. Some issues may be resolved quickly, others may require much more time, but national agreement on a comprehensive plan in the near future is essential to accomplish meaningful reform; the piecemeal approach has not succeeded. The COIA Framework, aimed at Division I-A, outlines essential features such a plan should include, and calls for the NCAA and national academic constituencies to develop detailed, appropriately flexible strategies for implementation. The goal of reform is not negative; it is to bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics, which contribute to the personal development of athletes and enhance college life on campus and off.

Academic Integrity. Colleges should admit only students with realistic prospects of graduation. Admissions practices should confirm that high schools must prepare athletes to meet such standards. Continuing eligibility standards should ensure that only academically engaged students compete in athletics. Faculty must take responsibility to ensure academic integrity in all programs. Athletics advisors must be closely integrated with academic advising to ensure prioritization of academic goals and integrity.

Athlete Welfare. The design and enforcement of limits on athlete participation in non-academic activities must be improved; assessment of coaches must reflect commitment to athletes’ academic opportunities. Optimal season schedules for each sport should be designed and adopted. The terms and bases of scholarships should be reexamined so as to support student academics, and athletes should be fully integrated into campus life.

Governance. Shared oversight of athletics between governing boards, administrations, and faculty should involve clear communication and complementary responsibilities. Best-practice designs for the interaction of faculty athletics representatives, campus athletics committees, and faculty governance should be designed nationally, and adapted locally. Uniform reporting standards for athletics budgets should be established, to provide more financial transparency. Stable athletics conferences should support the linkage of athletics and academics, and become the basis for intercollegiate relationships beyond athletics competitions and finances.

Finances. The link between winning and financial solvency undermines the values of college sports and contributes to the athletics arms race. Broadened revenue sharing, and limits on budgets and capital expenditures should be implemented. Amateur goals appropriate to each sport should determine standards of expectations. Cost cutting in the areas of scholarships, squad size, season length, and recruitment should be explored.

Over-commercialization. Excesses in marketing college sports impair institutional control and contribute to public misperception of the nature and purpose of higher education. Schools must step back from over-commercialization by cutting costs and setting clear standards of institutional control and public presentation of college sports.

A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform
Recommended by the COIA Steering Committee, October 2003

The need for reform of intercollegiate athletics is serious and requires immediate action. The problems are not new, but they are worsening. During the 1990s, universities and the NCAA responded to the 1989 Knight Commission report, yet in 2000 the Commission concluded that intercollegiate athletics was more troubled than ever. The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), a national network of Division I-A faculty leaders, believes that reform requires a comprehensive approach that addresses five issues: (1) academic integrity, (2) athlete welfare, (3) governance of athletics at the school and conference level, (4) finances, and (5) commercialization. Some of these issues may be resolved quickly, but others may require as much as a decade. With a comprehensive plan, however, we can avoid the ineffectiveness of the piecemeal approach of the 1990s. The present document reflects a consensus within the COIA; not every faculty leader associated with the Coalition will agree with all points. It is our hope that in conversation with other groups and individuals-such as the NCAA, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), the AAUP, and university presidents-it can contribute to a plan of action for the coming decade. The Coalition encourages efforts to compile and analyze relevant data, and remains open to rethinking its positions as information becomes available.

There is wide diversity among college sports. While some issues may be of general concern, others may pertain very differently to team and individual sports, or to sports where the highest levels of competition are professional or amateur. A document as brief as this cannot attempt comprehensiveness. The process of reform we envision would appropriately adapt to each sport the general approaches we advocate. While some aspects of reform can and should be carried out immediately, others may involve complex solutions and significant lead time. The goal of the Coalition is to work with all groups over the next two years to develop a comprehensive plan that can be practically implemented as a series of scheduled steps.

The goal of reform is not negative; it is to bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics, which contributes to the personal development of athletes, connects schools to their alumni and communities, and enhances life on campus and off.

I. Issues of Academic Integrity

1. Initial eligibility and admissions. In football and men's basketball especially, many athletes are academically under-prepared, and have such heavy commitments to sports that they have little or no prospect of graduation. Students should not be enrolled if they do not have reasonable prospects of graduation. The Coalition supports the NCAA's initiative to raise initial eligibility standards through strengthening core course requirements, and supports the proposal to increase this requirement to 16 courses within five years. The NCAA's sliding scale of GPA and SAT/ACT scores has significantly increased reliance on high school grades. Universities should be required to inform high schools of the academic success rates of their graduates by sport, so that they can assess whether graduating athletes are really prepared to succeed academically. Admissions decisions regarding athletes with scores below institutional standards should involve academic review procedures no less rigorous than apply to other types of students; faculty review is recommended.

2. Continuing eligibility. The COIA supports the NCAA's recent strengthening of continuing eligibility standards, and its incentives/disincentives proposal. Exceptional cases may occur with regard to both GPA and progress-towards-degree requirements; appeals in such cases should involve faculty and NCAA review.

3. Grading and program integrity. At some schools athletes are given preferential treatment to ensure continuing eligibility, either through academically unchallenging programs or differential grading practices. Such practices can only be addressed at the institutional level. Faculty at all schools should be provided with data concerning the majors and academic performance of all athletes, disaggregated to the highest degree permitted by law and distinguished by sport; procedures should be developed that allow faculty to determine there are no pressures to lower academic standards, and that permit abuses to be easily reported.

4. Academic advising and related services. Because athletes have such heavy burdens on their time, schools typically provide them enhanced support. Advising programs supervised through the Athletics Departments are a common source of academic violations. COIA recommends that Athletics Department advisors be appointed in the regular campus advising system, report through the academic advising structure, and be assessed by an academic-side review.

II. Issues of Athlete Welfare

1. The 20-hour rule. The NCAA places a 20-hour weekly maximum on in-season non-academic athletics activities to ensure that athletes can give adequate time to academics. Athletics departments must not permit coaches to schedule explicitly or implicitly mandatory training beyond the limit. Athletes often wish to devote more time to training individually, and this is their prerogative, but coaches and advisors should discourage it when it appears to interfere with academics. The Coalition supports efforts underway among NCAA Faculty Athletics Representatives (FARs) to develop better methods for enforcing the limit. Not only training, but all explicitly or implicitly required activities should be considered part of the 20-hour limit. Schools should empower Athletics Governance Committees to develop principles for training schedules and to monitor compliance. Evaluation of coaches should include their compliance with training limits, and encouragement of a balanced approach to academic and athletic needs. Athletics conferences should consider training-limit violations an infringement on conference rules, and review practices at member schools.

2. Schedules for competition. Schedules should provide an adequate competitive season with the least possible interference with the academic needs of athletes. In recent years, seasons in many sports have grown in length and number of competitions; no further expansion should be adopted, and efforts should be made to reduce season schedules. The Coalition recommends that the NCAA and FARs lead an effort to develop and adopt optimal scheduling principles for each sport. Certain principles should apply generally: weeknight competitions during the regular season should generally be eliminated; seasons must be designed to minimize travel. In this same spirit, spring football practice should be curtailed and closely monitored.

3. Scholarships. No athlete should feel the need to shortchange academic commitment in order to retain scholarship support. Scholarship support should never be terminated for a student who has demonstrated effort in athletics, who wishes to continue in athletics, and who has met standards of academic and personal conduct. Lengthening the term of athletes' scholarships should be explored.

4. Integration in campus life. Athletes on campus are students first, and should have the opportunity to participate fully in campus life. They should participate in normal orientation activities. Athletic advisors should make athletes aware of the full range of campus opportunities available to them. They should help them coordinate major requirements and the demands of athletics. No athlete should be discouraged from pursuing a major because of athletics.

5. Professionalization. Athletics departments should make their goal the development of well-rounded students. While coaches work to win, those who win at the cost of the balanced development of their athletes should not be rewarded or retained. The NCAA, through the work of FARs, athletics directors, and coaches, should develop 'best-practice' criteria for the evaluation of coaches and other athletics staff, to reward excellence that conforms with the best amateur ideals, rather than the standards of professional sports.

III. Governance Issues
The ultimate authority for athletics governance must lie with university presidents. Athletics programs must enhance the academic mission. For presidents to be effective in aligning athletics with the academic mission, they must have the backing of governing boards and effective input from faculty. Our focus here is on the faculty role.

1. Faculty Athletics Representatives. The effectiveness of the FAR is central to athletics governance. The appointment and evaluation of the FAR must be credible to administration and faculty, and the FAR must be supported with funds, release time, and authority. Guidelines designed to assess FAR offices have been developed at PennState University. The Coalition proposes these be used to develop a 'best-practice' model for other schools during 2003-04. Individual schools must be responsible for the effectiveness of the FAR office, but NCAA review should be part of a best-practices model.

2. Athletics Governance Committee. An Athletics Governance Committee should exist on every campus, bringing faculty (including the FAR), administrators, and students together to oversee intercollegiate athletics. It should be the chief policy-setting organ for athletics programs, and should review special admissions, major personnel decisions and reviews, and assessment of budgets and financial performance. The constitution, appointment and authority of the committee must ensure credibility. The Coalition proposes that Penn State Guidelines be used in this case too, as the basis for a best-practices model.

3. Faculty senates. Faculty senates or their executive committees should receive detailed reports on campus sports programs at least annually from the FAR and Athletics Governance Committee, including academic performance of athletes, program budgets, and NCAA infractions. Faculty senates should be involved in the appointment of both the FAR and faculty members of the Athletics Governance Committee. A best-practices model should be developed for faculty senates in these regards.

4. Financial reporting principles. Uniform reporting standards for athletics budgets should be established, to allow the development of common guidelines and practices, and to provide more transparency in how colleges and universities account for revenues and expenses. At most schools, athletics program expenses exceed revenues and require funds from the academic side or the assessment of student fees. These should be determined through an open governance process, in which governing boards, administration, and faculty participate.

5. The role of conferences. Conferences enhance the role of athletics by creating traditions of rivalry central to school identity, and alumni and community loyalty. As a level of athletics governance, the conference can create or influence policies concerning academic standards, athlete welfare, limits of program scale, and so forth. The conference has its fullest effect when its members share regional identity, academic standards and goals, or longstanding common traditions. Lasting reform of college sports requires stable conference structures that represent academic rather than simply financial relationships. Conferences that also serve as academic consortia, such as the Big Ten, and recent initiatives by faculty leaders in the SEC to create structures of conference-wide faculty governance to complement and monitor athletics relationships, are models of the direction the Coalition believes conferences should take. Coalition partners such as the AGB and the AAUP can play a role in promoting models for intercollegiate relationships, but ultimately, university presidents and conference commissioners must set long-term conference goals beyond athletic revenues.

IV. Financial Issues
The rising costs of athletics programs place a strain on schools at a time of budget scarcity, and attempts to solve this problem through increased commercialization can lead to an impairment of institutional control over athletics, increased financial commitments (e.g., facilities), and violations of taste that can alienate donors. Reform in this area is likely to take longer than in the others, because of the complexity of the issues. However, so many problems can be traced to issues of cost and commercialization that no reforms will be effective unless these are successfully addressed. Gradual but firmly scheduled changes pertaining to cost and commercialization must accompany the more rapid implementation of reforms in the areas of academics, welfare, and governance.

1. Winning and revenues. Winning is the goal of athletes and coaches, and programs appropriately promote winning. In the revenue sports, winning is also generally viewed as essential to financial health. However, to the degree that financial success is tied to winning, intercollegiate athletics cannot be healthy on the national level: not only do half of all competitors lose,but the emphasis on post-season tournaments and national championships raises the bar and increases the number of programs that fall short. The link between winning and financial success induces programs to invest in sports with the goal of financial returns, and drives a competitive cost spiral. The Coalition supports increased revenue-sharing (beyond the participants in events) to minimize revenue-driven incentives for winning. To the degree allowable under federal anti-trust laws, conferences should also seek to control expenses and capital investment, to create as level a playing field as possible. Increasing revenue-sharing and limiting expenses may disadvantage programs that are currently most successful financially; developing a plan that buffers these effects during the period of reform is necessary and will take time.

2. Professional standards and costs. Increased media attention and rising expectations among fans have led to the application of professional standards to college sports, including increasingly sophisticated equipment, facilities and specialized coaching staffs. Training for professional sports careers is not a goal of intercollegiate athletics, nor does it benefit the vast majority of college athletes; higher education gains nothing from serving as a minor league for professional sports. Conferences should establish standards for equipment, facilities, and coaching staffs appropriate to amateur competition, and restrain excesses as violations.

3. Other cost reduction possibilities.

a. Scholarships. The present number of athletic scholarships may be too high, and should be reviewed for each sport, with the goal of fostering amateurism and reducing the impact of commercial expectations. Scholarships based on need should be considered as an alternative to the current system, consistent with the concerns raised in the earlier discussion of scholarships and athlete welfare.
b. Football squad sizes. The size of football squads should be reassessed.
c. Season length and design. Shortening seasons (and post-seasons) is justified on student welfare grounds and would also cut costs. Schedules should be designed to emphasize conference play, reducing travel costs.
d. Off-campus recruitment. Off-campus recruitment by coaches places a heavy demand on coaches' time, requiring more staff, and it encourages students' self-identification as athletes rather than students. This costly competition for prospects provides no net gain for higher education, and rewards coaches for success as recruiters, rather than for adding value as teachers, mentors, and coaches. The Coalition recommends exploring limitations on off-campus recruitment.

V. Over-commercialization
Televising games can deepen the loyalties of nationally dispersed alumni and raise public awareness of higher education. However, the marketing of intercollegiate athletics impairs institutional control, and may undermine support for academics. It may link universities to products and corporate sponsors that present conflicts with institutional values; may impair institutional control over scheduling and contracts; and may lead to misjudgments of taste that damage public perception of higher education. 'Name recognition' and 'fan loyalty' based on televised sports has not been demonstrated to contribute to the academic mission, and is costly and unproductive for American higher education; it contributes to a misperception by young people and parents of the nature and purpose of higher education, and reinforces an emphasis on athletics over academics in high schools. Moreover, college programs increasingly emulate features of professional sports, raising costs that eliminate revenue gains. Stepping back from over-commercialization entails cost-cutting and the articulation by presidents and conferences of firm standards of presentation and control.

Table 1. Schools that have joined the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics through a faculty senate vote.

Appendix H

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Voluntary Phased Retirement (HR29) & Reemployment of University Retirees (HR45)

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

INTRODUCTION
Many faculty and administrators arrange their retirement so that they can continue serving the University in teaching, research and administrative duties at a reduced level pursuant to policy HR29, Voluntary Phased Retirement and policy HR45, Reemployment of University Retirees. These policies benefit both retirees and the University but generally not understood and are often confusing.

HR29 and HR45 affect individuals differently depending on whether they retire within the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) or within TIAA CREF. The table below summarizes the number of full-time employed academic faculty (ACAD), academic administrators (ACAM), nonacademic administrators (ADMR) and executives (EXEC) enrolled in each retirement system in 2001-2002 and provides insight into the number of individuals that might pursue HR29 and HR45 in the future. Academic administrators (ACAM) include, department heads, etc., nonacademic administrators include heads of university operating divisions and executives (EXEC) include deans, vice presidents, etc.

TABLE 1 – Individuals Enrolled in SERS and TIAA CREF in 2001-2002

The number of individuals currently in phased retirement (HR29) is small. Similarly, the number of individuals currently engaged as SERS emergency rehires or TIAA CREF post-retirement rehires (HR45) is also small.

The Appendix is a comparison of programs comparable to our Voluntary Phased Retirement (HR29) and Reemployment of University Retirees (HR45) policies followed at Big Ten Universities.

DISCUSSION
Individuals interested in exploring the usefulness of HR29 and HR45 should begin discussions with their department, (or section) head, and the Human Resources representative in their college. Following this they will need to discuss their plans with the Office of Human Resources before initiating action. It is not possible, or prudent, to write the policies contained in HR29 and HR45 with such specificity that “one size fits all.” This occurs because each individual’s use of these policies must be approved by the Office of Human Resources and as such the policies need to be written with sufficient generality to allow the Department Head to “fine tune” details to benefit both the University and the individual and remain within the statutes of SERS and IRS and the policies of TIAA CREF.

The purpose of this report is to examine HR29 and HR45 and identify issues that can improve their implementation. Because reemployment is impacted by which retirement system individuals are enrolled in, the Discussion is organized in two parts. Parts 1.1 and 1.2 paraphrase HR29 Voluntary Phased Retirement policy for individuals enrolled in SERS and TIAA CREF respectively. Parts 2.1 and 2.2 paraphrase HR45 Reemployment of University Retirees policy for individuals receiving annuities from SERS and TIAA CREF.

(1) HR29 - Voluntary Phased Retirement

Part (1.1) – Individuals Enrolled in SERS
Normally HR29 individuals reduce their responsibilities and compensation in increments of 15% to 25% per year, typically for a period of up to three years. Participation in the program must be supported by the Department Head, Dean or Administrative Officer and campus Executive Officer (as appropriate) before approval. The final agreement to participate in the program is irrevocable. Renewal of the program after three years may occur with mutual consent. During the agreement period, individuals WILL NOT receive retirement payments from SERS but will accrue proportionately reduced service credit. Healthcare, dental, vision, life insurance and VADD benefits are retained during the period of phased retirement. LTD benefits continue based on the reduced salary. When individuals formally retire and begin to draw an annuity from SERS, they are called SERS annuitants.

Observations regarding individuals enrolled in SERS
(a) Individuals need to realize they will receive reduced University compensation but no SERS annuity payments. Thus, they will experience a short-fall in their annual income. State law prohibits SERS annuity payments during voluntary phased retirement.

(b) Individuals might possibly change their appointment to one of a lesser rank while maintaining full-time status and a reduced salary in a recognition of redefined duties, e.g. changing from the rank of professor to the rank of lecturer with a reduction in salary but accruing full-time SERS credit during the period of reduced salary.

Part (1.2) – Individuals Enrolled in TIAA CREF
HR29 is available on the same terms to individuals enrolled in TIAA CREF. During the agreement period, individuals WILL NOT receive retirement payments from TIAA CREF but will continue to receive contributions to their retirement plan based on their reduced salary. Healthcare, dental, vision, life insurance and VADD benefits are retained during the period of phased retirement. LTD coverage will be continued based on the reduced salary.

Observations regarding faculty enrolled in TIAA/CREF
(a) Individuals need to realize they will receive reduced University compensation but no TIAA CREF annuity payments. Thus, they will experience a short-fall in their annual income.

(2) HR45 – Reemployment of University Retirees

Part (2.1) - HR45 Reemployment of SERS Annuitants
Retirees receiving SERS payments are called “SERS Annuitants”. Other than for emergency purposes, no SERS annuitant may be employed by the University, either on a full-time or part-time basis and continue to receive annuity payments from SERS. Failure to abide by these rules may result in financial penalty to the individual. Now however, a SERS annuitant may continue to receive annuity payments if: (1) the annuitant is employed because a bona fide emergency exists in a particular college or department, or (2) in special circumstances that permits the individual to be retained as an independent contractor (e.g. consultant). A SERS annuitant may be employed on an emergency basis for a maximum of 95 days per calendar year if the following is satisfied:

(i) an emergency exists that would increase the workload and seriously impair service to the public, and/or
(ii) the reemployment is necessary to resolve the emergency situation

However, the state law and IRS regulations narrowly proscribe the circumstances under which an annuitant may be considered an independent contractor. In general, a SERS annuitant reemployed by the University to teach classes would not be considered an independent contractor. Guidance must be sought, and approval given by the Associate Vice President for Human Resources and University Tax Counsel, before commitments are made to retain a SERS annuitant as an independent contractor. The period of reemployment may not exceed ninety-five (95) working days in one calendar year. Reemployment normally may not exceed a total of three calendar years. The services rendered will not be considered creditable SERS service and, as such, no University SERS contribution will be withheld. Any University retiree benefits in effect prior to reemployment shall continue.

Wages earned by SERS annuitants will be paid under wage-payroll at a rate recommended by the Dean or Administrative Officer and approved by the Associate Vice President for Human Resources, in consultation with the Vice Provost and other administrators as necessary and appropriate. Payments should generally not exceed the hourly equivalent of the salary earned by the individual at the time of retirement, subject to adjustments for any general salary increase that may have occurred in the interim. [The following sentences were added as a friendly amendment at the March 16, 2004, Senate Meeting] Teaching responsibilities will be compensated with an eye toward the University’s “Part-Time Faculty, Fixed-Term II” schedule. Other responsibilities such as research shall be prorated as appropriate to the workload and compensation in the respective work unit.

Observations regarding SERS Annuitants
(a) While there are advantages to defining “emergency” in general terms, the lack of specificity also obscures the value of HR45 to employees contemplating reemployment. SERS annuitants sometime satisfy “emergency” conditions while performing teaching duties for colleagues on sabbatical leave, or teaching duties for new subjects included in a department, or teaching duties performed in other departments adding new subjects to their curricula. SERS annuitants who were formerly administrators have been known to occupy acting administrative duties in different units or occupy administrative roles in newly defined positions.

Part (2.2) - HR45 Reemployment of TIAA CREF Annuitants
Retirees receiving annuity payments from TIAA CREF are called a “TIAA CREF annuitants” and may be reemployed on a part-time basis and continue to receive their annuity payments. Reemployment normally may not exceed a total of three calendar years. The annuitant shall be paid on wage-payroll and such wages shall not be considered compensation for retirement purposes. The service period will not be considered creditable service and, as such no University TIAA CREF contributions will be withheld. Guidance must be sought and approval given by the Associate Vice President for Human Resources before commitments are made to reemploy a TIAA CREF annuitant.

Wages earned by TIAA CREF annuitants will be paid under wage-payroll at a rate recommended by the Dean or Administrative Officer and approved by the Associate Vice President for Human Resources, in consultation with the Vice Provost and other administrators as necessary and appropriate. Payments should generally not exceed the hourly equivalent of the salary earned at the time of retirement, subject to adjustments for any general salary increase that may have occurred in the interim. Teaching responsibilities will be compensated with an eye toward the University’s “Part-Time Faculty, Fixed-Term II” schedule. Other responsibilities such as research shall be prorated as appropriate to the workload and compensation in the respective work unit.

Observations regarding TIAA CREF Annuitants
(a) The state’s restrictions on the reemployment of SERS annuitants do not apply to TIAA CREF annuitants. Thus individuals are free to negotiate with the University whatever reemployment terms are agreeable to both parties (subject to the restrictions above).

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Office of Human Resources should clarify and publish policies HR29 and HR45 in ways that make clear their applicability to individuals enrolled in SERS and TIAA CREF.

2. The Office of Human Resources should provide orientation seminars for faculty and administrators nearing retirement to fully explain and clarify questions about policies HR29 and HR45.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith K. Burkhart
Gary L. Catchen, Vice Chair
Michael Dooris
Thomas A. Frank
Robert J. Heinsohn
Deidre E. Jago
Amir Khalilollahi
Cynthia M. Mara
Salvatore A. Marsico
Benedicte Monicat
Gregory W. Roth
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis G. Shea, Chair
Harjit Singh
Marley W. Watkins
Billie S. Willits

APPENDIX – BENCHMARKS

SUMMARY OF BIG TEN POLICIES
VOLUNTARY PHASED RETIREMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY RETIREES

Voluntary Phased Retirement
Eligibility for Voluntary Phased Retirement varies significantly among institutions. All institutions with formal policies require individuals to meet a minimum age of between 52 and 62 years of age. Many institutions also require a minimum length of service.

• Michigan State, Northeastern, Purdue – 15 years
• Iowa – 15 years for Academics and 20 years for Staff
• University of Michigan – service time which when added to age equals at least 70 years

Institutions also vary in the percent of time individuals in Voluntary Phased Requirement are eligible to work.

• Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue – 50% FTE
• Minnesota – 25% to 75%
• Iowa – 50% to 60%
• University of Michigan – “less than full-time”

Only Purdue and Minnesota limit the duration of Voluntary Phased Retirement, both to five years. Ohio, Chicago, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana have no formal Voluntary Phased Retirement policy.

Reemployment of University Retirees
Five Big Ten institutions do not currently maintain a policy for Reemployment of University Retirees (Michigan State, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue and Minnesota). A number of institutions require a minimum break in service (Wisconsin, - 6 months, Illinois – 60 days, Indiana – 90 days, Ohio – 2 months). Michigan and Chicago are the only institutions which formally limit the percent of time or duration a retiree can be reemployed, University of Michigan – 1 year and Chicago – 19 hours per week.

The table below is an overview of some aspects of the Big Ten and other university policies. Because the terminology used by these institutions is not always clear, it is not possible to provide more detail about these plans. Where possible the phased retirement and reemployment policies are presented with regard to the following criteria: eligibility& minimum age, minimum years of service, employment level, duration of plan, compensation, benefits eligibility.