Penn State University Home

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 1:30 p.m.
112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Minutes of the December 9, 2003 Meeting in The Senate Record 37:3
[http://www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 2, 2004 - Appendix A
[www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html]

Senate Calendar for 2004-2005 - Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 2, 2004

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

E. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY - Appendix C

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

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

Committees and Rules

Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules,
Constitution, Article II, Section 4, Faculty Senator Representation Ratio - Appendix E

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 - Appendix F

Intercollegiate Athletics

Resolution Endorsing the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics’ - Appendix G
“A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform”

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Faculty Benefits

Voluntary Phased Retirement (HR29) and Reemployment of University Retirees (HR45) - Appendix H

Intra-University Relations

Report on Curricular Integration Across Locations - Appendix I

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Committee on Committees and Rules

Nominating Report – 2004-2005 - Appendix J
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Elections Commission

University Faculty Census Report, 2004-2005 - Appendix K

Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2004-05 - Appendix L

Faculty Affairs

Background Checking Procedures - Appendix M

Intercollegiate Athletics

Integration of Intercollegiate Athletics within the University Community - Appendix N

Senate Council

Report on Fall 2003 Campus Visits - Appendix O

Nominating Committee Report – 2004-2005 - Appendix P

Chair-Elect
Secretary of the Senate
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

Undergraduate Education

Grade Distribution Report - Appendix Q

Summary of Petitions by College, Campus and Unit - Appendix R

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, April 27, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendix A


  University Faculty Senate
The Pennsylvania State University
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802-4613
Telephone: (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/

 

Date: March 2, 2004

To: Christopher J. Bise, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs


The Senate Curriculum Report dated March 2, 2004, 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 March 16 , 2004.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html.

Appendix B

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

SENATE CALENDAR

2004-2005

REPORTS DUE SENATE COUNCIL SENATE
August 12, 2004 August 24, 2004 September 14, 2004
September 28, 2004 October 12, 2004 October 26, 2004*
November 9, 2004 November 23, 2004 December 7, 2004
January 4, 2005 January 18, 2005 February 1, 2005
February 15, 2005 March 1, 2005 March 15, 2005
March 29, 2005 April 12, 2005 April 26, 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

 
03-04 Census
04-05
1:20
04-05 Senators
05-06
1:21.25
05-06 Target
06-07
1:22.5
06-07 Target
07-08
1:23.75
07-08 Target
08-09
1:25
08-09 Target
Abington
115
5.75
6
5.41
5
5.11
5
4.84
5
4.60
5
Agricultural Sciences
329
16.45
16
15.48
15
14.62
15
13.85
14
13.16
13
Altoona
142
7.10
7
6.68
7
6.31
6
5.98
6
5.68
6
Arts & Architecture
174
8.70
9
8.19
8
7.73
8
7.33
7
6.96
7
Behrend College
205
10.25
10
9.65
10
9.11
9
8.63
9
8.20
8
Berks-Lehigh Valley
132
6.60
7
6.21
6
5.87
6
5.56
6
5.28
5
Business Administration
119
5.95
6
5.60
6
5.29
5
5.01
5
4.76
5
Capital College
222
11.10
11
10.45
10
9.87
10
9.35
9
8.88
9
Commonwealth College
641
32.05
32
30.16
30
28.49
28
26.99
27
25.64
27
Communications
54
2.70
3
2.54
3
2.40
2
2.27
2
2.16
2
Dickinson School of Law
48
2.40
2
2.26
2
2.13
2
2.02
2
1.92
2
Earth & Mineral Sciences
170
8.50
9
8.00
8
7.56
8
7.16
7
6.80
7
Education
155
7.75
8
7.29
7
6.89
8
6.53
7
6.20
6
Engineering
500
25.00
25
23.53
24
22.22
22
21.05
21
20.00
20
Great Valley
45
2.25
2
2.12
2
2.00
2
1.89
2
1.80
2
Health & Human Development
265
13.25
13
12.47
12
11.78
12
11.16
11
10.60
11
Information Sciences & Tech.
40
2.00
2
1.88
2
1.78
2
1.68
2
1.60
2
Liberal Arts
483
24.15
24
22.73
23
21.47
21
20.34
20
19.32
19
Libraries
61
3.05
3
2.87
3
2.71
3
2.57
3
2.44
2
Medicine
759
37.95
38
35.72
36
33.73
34
31.96
32
30.36
30
Military Sciences
21
1.05
1
0.99
1
0.93
1
0.88
1
0.84
1
Science
312
15.60
16
14.68
15
13.87
14
13.14
13
12.48
12
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL
4992
 
250
 
235
 
223
 
211
 
201
CHANGE FROM '03-'04*
   
7
 
-8
 
-20
 
-32
 
-42
(based on '03-'04 census)
                     
*Number of Potential Faculty Senators in '03-'04=243


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.

Conference
Schools
ACC Duke
Big 10 Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern
Big 12 Oklahoma State, Texas
ConfUSA Texas Christian University
MAC Eastern Michigan
Mountain West New Mexico
Pac 10 Oregon, Stanford, Washington State
SEC Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Sun Belt Idaho
WAC Hawaii

 

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

Faculty (ACAD) & Academic Administrators ACAM)
SERS
TIAA CREF
Under 40
91
995
40 to 59
481
2824
60 and over
320
551
Total
892
4370
Nonacademic Administrators (ADMR) & Executives (EXEC)
SERS
TIAA CREF
Under 40
0
1
40 to 59
25
47
60 and over
13
15
Total
38
63

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.

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

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.

Institution††††††† Phased Retirement Policy Post-Retirement Policy
 
MichiganState eligibility & yrs of service†† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† No formal policy
†††††††††††††††† full-time employees 25 yrs service or
†††††††††††††††††††††††† 15 yrs service and age 62 ††††††††††††††
†††††††††††††††††††††† benefits eligibility: if one works at least
††††††††††††††††††††††††† 50% of time for at least 9 months/yr
 
Northwestern†† eligibility & yrs service: faculty age 55 No formal policy
†††††††††††††††††††††††††† with15 yrs of service
††††††††††††††††††††††† employment level: 50%
††††††††††††††††††††††† compensation: 60%
††††††††††††††††††††††††††  
Univ.Iowa eligibility: academics age 57 No formal policy
††††††††††††† yrs service: 15
†††††††††††††††††††† employment level: 50%-65%
†††††††††††††††††††† duration of plan: up to 5 yrs
†††††††††††††††††††† compensation: proportional to
††††††††††††††††††††††† scheduled salary + 10%
 
Purdue††††††††† eligibility: 55 or older No formal policy
†††††††††††††††††††††††† with (age + service) ≥ 70 yrs min
††††††††††††††††††††† employment level: 50% or less
duration of plan: up to 5 yrs
compensation: eligible to receive
retirement annuity
 
Univ. Minn. eligibility: faculty age 52†††††††††† No formal policy
†††††††††† employment level: between 25% & 75%
†††††††††††††††††††† duration of plan: up to 5 yrs
†††††††††††††††††††† compensation: considered leave
††††††††††††††††††††††††† without salary may make limited
††††††††††††††††††††††††† withdrawal from university retirement
†††††††††††††††††††††††  
Univ.Michigan eligibility:59 Ĺ for annuity†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Emeritus faculty may be
†††††††††† based on nature of position†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† reappointed for a 1 yr max.
†††††††††††††††††††††† employment level: less than full time††††††††††††† All other faculty may be
†††††††††††††††††††††† duration of plan: no stated limit††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† reappointed
†††††††††††††††††††††† compensation: proportional
 
Univ.Wisconsin†††††††††††† No formal phased retirement 30-day break in service,
    no policy special limitation
    or duration
     
Univ.Chicago†††††††††† Early retirement incentive for faculty†††††††††††††††††††† Rehired faculty may work
††††††††† but no official phased†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† for a maximum of 19 hrs/week
††††††††††††††††††††††† retirement policy†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† and are eligible for active††††
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† employee benefits

   
Univ. Illinois††† No formal phased††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† No formal policy, but President
†††††††† retirement policy†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† may approve rehire on a
    case by case basis empoyee
    must be off payroll for a
    minimum of 60 days

   
Indiana Univ.†††††††† Early retirement incentive,††
†††††††††

Early retirement participants

  but no phased retirement†† cannot be rehired for 90†days
    and are required to replay for
    cost of additional service years
    purchased through early
    retirement program

   
Ohio State††††††† No formal phased retirement policy††††††††††††††††††††

Must be separated from OSU


  for 2 months. No limitation
    on duration of employment
     

Appendix I

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Report on Curricular Integration Across Locations

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


INTRODUCTION

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

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

The report that follows provides evidence from discussions with administration and faculty that there are significant problems with curricular integration and cooperation across the University. In addition, recommendations for areas of improvement were also derived from discussions with both groups. The recommendations should be seen as an initial step in addressing this complex issue. Acceptance of these recommendations needs to be followed by the development of implementation strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

Curricular Drift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE

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


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

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

Recommendation 2. Reduce the problem of competitive duplication of academic programs by asking all proposals for new academic programs at all locations to demonstrate that they are providing a net benefit to the University and not simply redistributing students from one location to another, unless that is in the best interests of both locations.

Rationale: Many faculty and administrators are concerned about the competition for students given the current budget models and proliferation of new programs. This leads to a negative environment and reduced cooperation. While it is understood that it is important for the new colleges to have a variety of majors to serve the needs of the students in their areas, collaboration and cooperation between locations early on can ensure growth that is beneficial to the entire University. This is not a new idea. In the current University curricular guidelines a stated goal is the avoidance of competitive duplication. To ensure compliance, this needs to be added to the list of required supporting documentation for new academic programs.

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

Rationale: One of the biggest complaints of faculty in the current study was that they have difficulty finding out how courses are taught by other faculty. Currently, course proposals can be found only by contacting the Senate Office, a process unknown to most faculty. A course search on the Angel course management system will turn up many course accounts, but most of them are devoid of content. University approved course proposals are currently not available on Angel and only the short summary of the course listed in the blue book is available on-line. The programming of an on-line system for course proposals has recently been funded and is currently under development. This system might also serve as a template for the proposed archival site.

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

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

Recommendation 5. Charge the Committee on Intra-University Relations to work with other appropriate Senate committees and interested parties to develop specific implementation strategies for Recommendations 1 through 4.

Rationale: Because the problems that we are facing are complex and multifaceted, there are no simple solutions. Therefore, it is important to collaborate with relevant Senate committees, such as Curricular Affairs, and other interested parties to develop a set of implementation strategies. These would include guidelines and timelines for implementation as well as information about appropriate oversight and enforcement.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Appendix J

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Nominating Report -- 2004-2005

(Informational)


Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Faculty—University Park (Elect 1 member, 1 alternate)

Cynthia A. Brewer, Associate Professor of Geography, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences

Irene E. Harvey, Associate Professor of Philosophy, College of the Liberal Arts

Sallie M. McCorkle, Associate Professor of Art and Women’s Studies, College of Arts & Architecture


Faculty—Other than University Park (Elect 1 member)

Melvin Blumberg, Professor of Management, Capital College (Harrisburg)

Mary K. Mino, Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences, Commonwealth College (DuBois)

Sara L. Whildin, Associate Librarian, University Libraries, Commonwealth College (Delaware County)


Deans (Elect 1 member, 1 alternate)

John D. Burke, CEO and Dean, The Behrend College

William G. Cale, CEO and Dean, Altoona College

Richard W. Durst, Dean, College of Arts &Architecture


Standing Joint Committee on Tenure (Elect 1 member, 2 alternates)

Michael J. Chorney, Professor of Microbiology, College of Medicine

John A. Johnson, Professor of Psychology, Commonwealth College (DuBois)

Nicholas A. Joukovsky, Professor of English, College of the Liberal Arts

Adam J. Sorkin, Professor of English, Commonwealth College (Delaware County)

Bonj Szcygiel, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, College of Arts & Architecture


University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Elect 3 members)

Subhash Chander, Professor of Mineral Processing & Geo-Environmental Engineering,
College of Earth & Mineral Sciences

Donald D. Davis, Professor of Plant Pathology, College of Agricultural Sciences

Aldon L. Nielsen, Kelly Professor of American Literature, College of the Liberal Arts

Mary J. Tevethia, Professor of Microbiology, College of Medicine

Jose A.Ventura, Professor of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, College of Engineering


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 K


ELECTIONS COMMISSION

University Faculty Census Report for 2004-2005

(Informational)


The 2004-2005 Census of the faculty for the University Faculty Senate was conducted in the following manner.

Using an information base provided by the Office of Administrative Systems, a Senate census database was created which included all personnel within the definition of the electorate of the University Faculty Senate as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the University Faculty Senate. This electorate includes all persons who hold full-time appointments as of 10/31/03, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding professorial or librarian titles; those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers or assistant librarians; and those holding research rank (excluding non-continuing). These lists were sent to Deans and Campus Executive Officers of the various voting units for verification. For the Military Sciences, the list was compiled by the Coordinator of the Combined Departments of the Military Sciences at University Park. Military Sciences faculty at other locations were counted with that voting unit. For Librarians, the Dean of the University Libraries compiled the list. The Commonwealth College Librarians were counted with their voting unit.

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

The total membership of the 2004-2005 University Faculty Senate will be 297. This total will include 250 elected faculty Senators, 25 appointed and ex officio Senators, and 22 student Senators. The student Senators will include: one (1) undergraduate from each of the eleven (11) colleges at University Park; one (1) from each of the following locations--Abington, Altoona, Berks-Lehigh Valley, The Behrend College, Capital College, College of Medicine, Commonwealth College, The Dickinson School of Law, Division of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School, and Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies.

ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Jamie Myers, Chair
Melvin Blumberg
Peter Georgopulos
J. Daniel Marshall
Andrew Romberger
Bonj Szczygiel


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

2004-2005 2003-2004 Net Change
VOTING UNITS
Total Faculty
Senate Seats
Total Faculty
Senate Seats
in Senate Seats
Abington 115 6 111 6
0
Agricultural Sciences 329 16 333 17
-1
Altoona 142 7 132 7
0
Arts & Architecture 174 9 172 9
0
Behrend College 205 10 203 10
0
Berks-Lehigh Valley 132 7 124 6
+1
Berks 100 5 92 5
0
Lehigh Valley 32 2 32
1
+1
Business Administration 119 6 129 6
0
Capital College 222 11 219 11
0
Harrisburg 168 8 166 8
0
Schuylkill 54 3 53 3
0
Commonwealth College 641 32 634 32
0
Beaver 38 2 39 2
0
Delaware 75 4 71 4
0
DuBois 50 3 50 3
0
Fayette 56 3 55 3
0
Hazleton 61 3 61 3
0
McKeesport 43 2 41 2
0
Mont Alto 60 3 59 3
0
New Kensington 47 2 44 2
0
Shenango 32 2 34 2
0
Wilkes-Barre 44 2 43 2
0
Worthington Scranton 70 3 68 3
0
York 65 3 69 3
0
Communications 54 3 57 3
0
Dickinson School of Law 48 2 45 2
0
Earth & Mineral Sciences 170 9 163 8
+1
Education 155 8 151 8
0
Engineering 500 25 507 25
0
Great Valley 45 2 44 2
0
Health & Human Development 265 13 300 15
-2
Information Sciences & Tech. 40 2 27 1
+1
Liberal Arts 483 24 470 23
+1
Libraries 61 3 59 3
0
Medicine 759 38 662 33
+5
Military Sciences 21 1 20 1
0
Science 312 16 299 15
+1
TOTAL 4992 250 4861 242
7

Appendix L

ROSTER OF SENATORS BY VOTING UNITS: 2004-2005

ABINGTON COLLEGE
SENATORS (6)

Term Expires 2005
Le, Binh P.
Schmiedekamp, Ann
  Term Expires 2007
Alcock, James
Turner, Tramble T.
Term Expires 2006
Rebane, P. Peter
  Term Expires 2008
Smith, James F.

Representative on the Senate Council: James F. Smith

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
SENATORS (16)

Term Expires 2005
Holcomb, E. Jay
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Ziegler, Gregory R.
  Term Expires 2007
Baggett, Connie D.
Cox-Foster, Diana L.
Roth, Gregory W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Wheeler, Eileen F.
Yahner, Richard H.
Term Expires 2006
Barbato, Guy F.
Hilton, James W.
Petersen, Gary W.
Yoder, Edgar P.
 

Term Expires 2008
Abdalla, Charles W.
Brittingham-Brant, Margaret
Hagen, Daniel R.

Representative on the Senate Council: Holcomb, E. Jay

ALTOONA COLLEGE
SENATORS (7)

Term Expires 2005
Brunsden, Victor W.
  Term Expires 2007
Costantino, Roselyn
Osagie, Sylvester
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara A.
Term Expires 2006
Su, Mila C.
Tormey, Brian B.
  Term Expires 2008
Brown, Douglas K.

Representative on the Senate Council: Mila C. Su

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE
SENATORS (9)

Term Expires 2005
DeCastro, W. Travis
Kennedy, Richard R.
  Term Expires 2007
Gorby, Christine L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Term Expires 2006
Kunze, Donald E.
Sommese, Kristin Breslin Szczygiel, Bonj
 

Term Expires 2008
Brinker, Daniel T.
Youmans, Charles

Representative on the Senate Council: Sommese, Kristin Breslin

BEHREND COLLEGE
SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2005
Fernandez-Jimenez, Juan
  Term Expires 2007
Khalilollahi, Amir
Term Expires 2006
Becker, Paul E.
Irwin, Zachary T.
McCarty, Ronald L.
Simmonds, Patience L.
 

Term Expires 2008
Blasko, Dawn G.
Troester, Rodney L.

Representative on the Senate Council: Ronald L. McCarty

BERKS-LEHIGH VALLEY COLLEGE

Penn State Berks
SENATORS (5)

Term Expires 2005
Zambanini, Robert A.
  Term Expires 2007
Romberger, Andrew B. Spigelman, Candace
Term Expires 2006
Ansari, Mohamad A.
Zervanos, Stamatis M.
  Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State Lehigh Valley
SENATORS (1)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
none
  Term Expires 2008
Young, Richard R.

Representative on the Senate Council: Romberger, Andrew B.

SMEAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SENATORS (6)

Term Expires 2005
Lewis, Holly S.
  Term Expires 2007
Stevens, John M.
Term Expires 2006
Harrison, Terry P.
Spychalski, John C.
 

Term Expires 2008
Novack, Robert A.
Woolridge, J. Randall

Representative on the Senate Council: John C. Spychalski

CAPITAL COLLEGE

Penn State Harrisburg

SENATORS (7)

Term Expires 2005
Richards, Winston A.
  Term Expires 2007
Blumberg, Melvin
DuPont-Morales, Toni
Wilson, Matthew
Term Expires 2006
Mara, Cynthia M.
  Term Expires 2008
Cecere, Joseph J.
Sachs, Howard G.

Penn State Schuylkill
SENATORS (4)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
Cardamone, Michael J.
Vickers, Anita M.
Term Expires 2006
Urenko, John B.
 

Term Expires 20078
Tellep, Andrew

Representative on the Senate Council: Sachs, Howard G.

COMMONWEALTH COLLEGE

Penn State Beaver
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Wijekumar, Kay
 

Term Expires 2008
TBD

Penn State Delaware County
SENATORS (4)

Term Expires 2005
Wyatt, Nancy
  Term Expires 2007
Franz, George W.
Term Expires 2006
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Horwitz, Alan L.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State DuBois
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Breakey, Laurie Powers
  Term Expires 2007
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Term Expires 2006
May, James E.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State Fayette
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Maxwell, Kevin R.
  Term Expires 2007
Adams, Fred
Term Expires 2006
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State Hazleton
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Jago, Deidre E.
 

Term Expires 2008
Hester, Anne
Richards, David R.

Penn State McKeesport
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
Bittner, Edward W.
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
Conti, Delia

Penn State Mont Alto
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Mueller, Alfred
  Term Expires 2007
Donovan, James M.
Term Expires 2006
Glumac, Thomas E.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State New Kensington
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
Bridges, K. Robert
Term Expires 2006
Cancro, John P.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Penn State Shenango
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
Perrine, Joy M.
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
Elder, James T.

Penn State Wilkes-Barre
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Goldstein, Lynda R.
 

Term Expires 2008
Marsico, Salvatore A.

Penn State Worthington Scranton
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
Barnes, David E.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
Holen, Dale A.

Penn State York
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Russell, David W.
  Term Expires 2007
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Term Expires 2006
Casteel, Mark A.
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Senate Council Representative for the Commonwealth College: TBD


COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Berner, R. Thomas
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Oliver, Mary Beth
 

Term Expires 2008
Frank, Russell

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora

THE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
Mootz, Francis J.
  Term Expires 2007
Kane, Eileen
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora

COLLEGE OF EARTH & MINERAL SCIENCES
SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2005
Bise, Christopher J.
Macdonald, Digby D.
  Term Expires 2007
Engelder, Terry
Hellmann, John R.
Term Expires 2006
Lee, Sukyoung
Scaroni, Alan W.
 

Term Expires 2008
Brewer, Cynthia A.
Kump, Lee R.

Representative on the Senate Council: Engelder, Terry

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2005
Peck, Kyle L.
Soto, Lourdes Diaz
  Term Expires 2007
Farmer, Edgar I.
Myers, Jamie M.
Vandiver, Beverly J.
Term Expires 2006
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Semali, Ladislaus M.
 

Term Expires 2008
Freedman, Debra M.

Representative on the Senate Council: Evensen, Dorothy H.

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
SENATORS (25)

Term Expires 2005
Boothby, Thomas E.
Coraor, Lee D.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Levin, Deborah A.
Pauley, Laura L.
Tikalsky, Paul J.
Salvia, A. David

  Term Expires 2007
Hannan, John J.
Harmonosky, Catherine M.
Lau, Andrew S.
Miller, Arthur C.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Smith, Nadine B.
Voigt, Robert C.
Term Expires 2006
Atchley, Anthony A.
Catchen, Gary L.
Mason, John M.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Simpson, Timothy W.
Smith, Edward C.
Stoffels, Shelley M.
 

Term Expires 2008
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Mockensturm, Eric
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Sathianathan, Dhushy

Representative on the Senate Council: Pytel, Jean Landa

PENN STATE GREAT VALLEY
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
Koul, Ravinder
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
Marker, Anthony W.

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
SENATORS (13)

Term Expires 2005
Burgess, Robert L.
Fosmire, Gary J.
Hupcey, Judith E.
Ricketts, Robert D.
  Term Expires 2007
Frank, Thomas A.
Dansky, Kathryn H.
Hutchinson, Susan L.
Smith, Carol A.

Term Expires 2006
Challis, John H.
Corwin, Elizabeth J.
Cranage, David A.
Mattila, Anna S.

 

Term Expires 2008
Blood, Ingrid M.

Representative on the Senate Council: Ricketts, Robert D.

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Rosson, Mary Beth
 

Term Expires 2008
Bagby, John W.

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora

COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS
SENATORS (23)

Term Expires 2005
Bernhard, Michael H.
Browne, Stephen
Browning, Barton W.
Carlson, Richard A.
Clask-Evans, Christine
Tachibana, Reiko

  Term Expires 2007
Gonzalez-Perez, Anibal
Gouran, Dennis S.
Monicat, Benedicte
Moore, John W.
Osagie, Iyunolu
Selzer, John L.
Welch, Susan
Term Expires 2006
Anderson, Douglas R.
Benson, Thomas W.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Love, Nancy S.
Mengisteab, Kidane
Moses, Wilson J.
 

Term Expires 2008
Adesanmi, Pius
Atwater, Deborah F.
Clark, Paul F.
Nealon, Jeffrey

Representative on the Senate Council: Dennis S. Gouran

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2005
Bazirjian, Rosann
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Cheney, Debora
 

Term Expires 2008
Brockman, William S.

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
SENATORS (33)

Term Expires 2005
Boehmer, John P.
Eslinger, Paul J.
Marshall, Wayne K.
Romano, Paula J.
Tenser, Richard B.
Vary, Thomas C.

  Term Expires 2007
Johnson, Ernest W.
Leure-duPree, Alphonse
Long, Thomas J.
Rannels, D. Eugene, Jr.
Ropson, Ira J.
Singh, Harjit
Term Expires 2006
Burkhart, Keith K.
Chorney, Michael J.
Davis, Dwight
Floros, Joanna
Lynch, Christopher J.
Meyers, Craig M.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Verner, Keith
Vgontzas, Alexandros N.
 

Term Expires 2008
Ambrose, Anthony
Scaduto, Russell C.
Simons, Richard J., Jr.
Spector, David J.

Representative on the Senate Council: Marshall, Wayne K.

MILITARY SCIENCES
SENATORS (1)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
Boland, Donald J.
Term Expires 2006
none
 

Term Expires 2008
none

Representative on the Senate Council: Cheney, Debora


EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
SENATORS (15)

Term Expires 2005
Berlyand, Leonid V.
Mcdonel, James L.
Pugh, Frank
Strauss, James A.
  Term Expires 2007
Cameron, Craig
Du, Qiang
Li, Bing
Term Expires 2006
Cole, Milton W.
Falzone, Christopher J.
Jurs, Peter C.
Schaeffer, Stephen W.
Wade, Richard A.
 

Term Expires 2008
Feigelson, Eric D.
Marden, James H.
Tempelman, Arkady

Representative on the Senate Council: Peter C. Jurs


RETIRED FACULTY SENATORS
SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2005
none
  Term Expires 2007
none
Term Expires 2006
Heinsohn, Robert J.
 

Term Expires 2008
Lundegren, Herberta M.

 

EX OFFICIO AND APPOINTED SENATORS

Ex Officio Senators: (7)

Douglas A. Anderson, Chair, Academic Leadership Council
Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University
Janis E. Jacobs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs
Eva J. Pell, Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School
Graham B. Spanier, President of the University
J. James Wager, University Registrar
Eric R. White, Executive Director, Division of Undergraduate Studies

Appointed Senators: (18)

Cheryl L. Achterberg
P. Richard Althouse
Patricia A. Book
Arthur W. Carter
Jeremy Cohen
Diane M. Disney
Anna Griswold
Madlyn L. Hanes
John T. Harwood
W. Terrell Jones
Stephen J. MacCarthy
Anita D. McDonald
John J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Vicky L. Triponey
Craig D. Weidemann
Billie S. Willits
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS

No results
Christopher E. Kovalchick
Patrick Q. Shuler
Alexis A. McCune
Jason J. Flaherty
Michael J. Hines
Todd J. Bednash
No results
Lindsay E. Loveless
Michelle J. Costa
No results
Sara M. Yerger
No results
No results
Katie L. Slagle
Rishi Das
Ashley E. Harris
No results
  Abington College
College of Agricultural Sciences
Altoona College
College of Arts and Architecture
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
Berks-Lehigh Valley College
Smeal College of Business Administration
Capital College
Commonwealth College
College of Communications
Division of Undergraduate Studies
College of Earth & Mineral Sciences
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Health & Human Development
School of Information Sciences & Technology
College of the Liberal Arts
Eberly College of Science

GRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS

Kristy L. Wagner
No results
No results
Stacy R. Wessel
  College of Medicine
Dickinson School of Law
Graduate School
Penn State Great Valley

Appendix M

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Background Checking Procedures

(Informational)


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

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

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

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

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

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


PROCEDURES FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS
FOR ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

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

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

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

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


THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

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

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

Any harassment or discrimination you were found to have committed by any court, adjudicative body or administrative body, including but not limited to any findings of harassment or discrimination made by present or former employers;

Any felony convictions or convictions of other crimes involving sex offenses or misappropriation of funds.

Engagement in any such conduct may not, in and of itself, disqualify you for an appointment at the University. However, failure to disclose such information, or any misrepresentation made in connection with the disclosure, would be grounds to revoke an offer of appointment or terminate subsequent employment. Information is kept confidential and available on a need-to-know basis only.

___ I have nothing to disclose.

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

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________
Please Print Name

____________________________________________ ___________________
Signature Date


PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES BOX 18, 120 S. BURROWES ST, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16801; FAX 814-863-4267; EMAIL bet3@psu.edu



THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

INFORMATION AND CONSENT CONCERNING CONSUMER
AND INVESTIGATIVE CONSUMER REPORTS FOR ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

(Required before proceeding with background checks by Act 15 U.S.C.)


Requesting College_____________________________________



This form, which you should read carefully, has been provided to you because the University may request a consumer report and/or investigative consumer report, as those terms are defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which governs also the procurement of background reports for employment purposes. The University will request such reports only for an individual determined to be a finalist for a position and solely for employment-related purposes.

The consumer report and/or investigative consumer report will be obtained from HireRight, Inc., (“HireRight”) located at 2100 Main Street, Suite 400, Irvine, CA 92614. They can be contacted at 800-400-2761. The information sought will be limited to felony convictions, convictions of crimes involving sex offenses or misappropriation of funds, and a verification of highest degree earned. The information will be kept in strict confidence by HireRight and the University.

Although HireRight will not be doing a background check on your credit, the rules outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a), also apply to criminal background checks and, upon your request, HireRight shall disclose to you a copy of the report in your file at the time of the request. Also on request, you can receive a copy of the “Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” prepared pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c), and you have the right to request additional disclosures of the nature and scope of the investigation pursuant to a pre-adverse or adverse action by the University.

CONSENT

I have read carefully and understand this Information and Consent form and, by my signature below, consent to the release of a consumer and/or investigative consumer report, as defined above, to the University in conjunction with my letter or indication of interest and resume or application for employment. This consent form in original, faxed, photocopied or electronic form, will be valid for any reports that may be requested by the University at this time or in the future relative to any employment position.

Applicant Last Name __________________________________ First _________________ Middle ___________
Social Security # ________________________ Date of Birth (for ID purposes only) ________________________
Present Address ____________________________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip ______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Signature __________________________________________________ Date ___________________

NOTICE TO CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS
Under section 1786.22 of the California Civil Code, you may inspect the file maintained on you by HireRight. You may also obtain a copy of this file, upon submitting proper identification and paying the cost of duplication services, by appearing at HireRight offices in person, during normal business hours and on reasonable notice, or you may receive a summary of the file by mail. HireRight has trained personnel available to explain your file to you, including any coded information. If you appear in person, you may be accompanied by one other person.

CALIFORNIA, MINNESOTA AND OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS ONLY
In accordance with the laws of California, Minnesota and Oklahoma, a resident of one of those states has the right to receive a free copy of his or her consumer report and/or investigative consumer report by checking the box.
__I wish to receive a free copy of the consumer report and/or investigative consumer report on me that is requested.

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES BOX 18, 120 S. BURROWES ST, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16801; FAX 814-863-4267; EMAIL bet3@psu.edu

Appendix N


SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

The Integration of Intercollegiate Athletics Within the University Community

(Informational)


Penn State Director of Athletics, Tim Curley, will discuss the following topics:

I. The importance of properly integrating the Intercollegiate Athletics program within the University community and review three important areas to support the collegiate model for delivering a NCAA Division 1A athletics program:

· Academic and educational success must serve as our primary goal of intercollegiate athletics;

· We must respect the concept that the student-athlete is central to our daily activity;

· The athletics community must be integrated programmatically and financially with the University community.

II. Review the academic success of the program.

III. Discuss the structure and philosophy of Penn State's athletics program.

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

Appendix O

SENATE COUNCIL

Summary of Fall 2003 Officers’ Visits to University Units

(Informational)


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

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

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

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

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

A better flow of communication between locations about major requirements needs to be facilitated through a more thorough distribution of program check sheets. Descriptions for an eight-semester sequence for each major, and defined contacts between locations within disciplines and for each major, are not widely available or known. Students and faculty recommended the development of opportunities to visit open houses, or to host visitors, across locations.

Career development centers need full development at all locations to support students in securing internships and employment opportunities. Most locations placed an emphasis on academic help centers for students, and additional resources may be important in this area to increase retention.

Students and faculty suggested that freshmen should be required to have their advisor’s signature, or electronic sign off, on schedule registrations for the first year of classes. Senate action was encouraged on this matter.

Students and faculty felt that the FTCAP testing and placement results were not equally appropriate for the population of students at all locations. As a consequence, they argued that students were often misplaced in a sequence of courses either taking unnecessary non-degree fulfilling courses, or being placed in courses that were too difficult. Faculty felt that the senate should examine the old belief that localized rules would penalize students at a location who sought to change assignment, especially if the old sequences do not support the local students’ learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Locations would like to market their programs beyond their constrained geographic borders, especially for unique programs that are offered at only one location statewide. Collaborative marketing at all locations could seek students for any location because a student recruited at any location for study at any other PSU location should be a good thing. Budget for marketing is equally divided across the 12 locations no matter the differential costs of advertising within a particular geographic area.

Faculty wonder how their local campus faculty senate is to work in coordination with the Commonwealth College faculty governance body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by
Jamie Myers
Secretary, University Faculty Senate.


Appendix P

SENATE COUNCIL

Report of Nominating Committee for 2004-2005

(Informational)


The Nominating Committee consisting of the elected representatives of Senate Council was convened on January 20, 2004. The following list of nominees was transmitted to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate following the March 2, 2004, Nominating Committee meeting. Additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate on March 16, 2004.


SENATE OFFICERS

CHAIR-ELECT OF THE SENATE

Jamie M. Myers, Associate Professor of Education, College of Education

Arthur C. Miller, Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering


SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Dawn G. Blasko, Associate Professor of Psychology, The Behrend College

David R. Richards, Senior Instructor in Information Sciences and Technology, Commonwealth College (Hazleton)

FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE PRESIDENT

(Two to be elected)

Other than University Park (Elect one, term expires 2007)

Mark A. Casteel, Associate Professor of Psychology, Commonwealth College (York)

Joanna Floros, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, College of Medicine


University Park (Elect one, term expires 2006)

Caroline D. Eckhardt, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, College of the Liberal Arts

Dorothy H. Evensen, Associate Professor of Education, College of Education


NOMINATING COMMITTEE
Connie Baggett
Robert Burgess
Jacqueline Esposito
Dorothy Evensen
Tom Glumac
Dennis Gouran
Peter Jurs
Alphonse Leure-duPree
Jean Landa Pytel
Ron McCarty
John Moore, Chair
Jamie Myers
Howard Sachs
Alan Scaroni
James Smith
Kristin Sommese
John Spychalski
Mila Su

Appendix Q

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Grade Distribution Report

(Informational)

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

Tables Attached Include:

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

Table 1 - Percentage of Grades Awarded in 0 - 499 Resident Instruction Courses†††
Comparison Spring Term/Semester 1975 to 2003
Spring
Terms A A- B+ B B- C+ C D F W LD AVE. GPA
1975 29.8 33.1 20.4 5.7 3.7 2.3 2.86
1976(a) 28.0 32.6 20.1 5.8 3.0 4.1 2.86
1977 28.3 32.2 20.1 5.7 2.7 5.5 2.87
1978 28.6 33.5 21.8 6.1 2.7 6.0 2.85
1979 28.0 34.2 22.2 6.3 2.6 5.6 2.84
1980 29.0 34.1 21.8 6.1 2.8 4.9 2.86
1981 28.1 33.8 22.3 6.3 3.0 5.2 2.83
1982 28.6 33.8 21.9 6.5 3.2 4.9 2.83
1983 28.9 33.4 21.9 6.5 3.0 5.0 2.84
Spring
Semesters A A- B+ B B- C+ C D F W LD AVE. GPA
1984(b) 28.2 33.1 21.4 6.7 4.1 5.1 2.80
1985 28.3 32.6 21.4 6.8 4.1 5.5 2.80
1986 29.2 32.8 21.3 6.7 4.1 5.1 2.81
1987 28.6 33.1 21.1 6.8 4.1 5.1 2.80
1988(c) 19.0 9.8 9.6 16.4 8.0 7.0 13.3 6.3 4.0 5.2 2.82
1989 18.8 10.6 10.2 15.8 8.5 7.6 12.7 6.0 3.9 5.1 2.84
1990(d) 18.8 10.6 10.1 15.3 8.4 7.2 12.1 5.7 3.4 1.5 5.8 2.87
1991 18.9 10.7 10.2 15.1 8.3 7.3 12.3 5.4 3.4 1.8 5.7 2.87
1992 19.3 10.8 10.2 15.1 8.5 7.2 12.1 5.4 3.5 1.7 5.3 2.88
1993 20.0 10.9 10.1 14.8 8.3 7.1 11.9 5.5 3.7 1.8 5.3 2.88
1994 20.8 11.1 9.9 14.5 8.1 6.9 11.6 5.2 3.6 2.1 5.2 2.91
1995 21.5 11.0 10.2 14.3 8.0 6.6 11.2 5.1 3.7 2.1 5.0 2.92
1996 21.9 11.3 10.3 13.8 7.9 6.6 10.9 5.2 3.9 2.1 5.0 2.92
1997 22.6 11.5 10.1 13.4 7.7 6.4 10.8 4.9 4.0 2.0 5.4 2.94
1998 23.2 11.8 10.3 13.6 7.8 6.4 10.2 4.7 3.9 1.9 5.0 2.96
1999 23.9 11.8 10.4 13.7 7.4 6.2 10.1 4.6 3.9 2.0 4.9 2.97
2000 24.9 12.1 10.3 13.3 7.4 6.0 9.8 4.4 4.0 2.0 4.8 2.99
2001 25.8 12.2 10.4 13.2 7.4 5.8 9.6 4.2 3.7 1.9 4.7 3.02
2002 26.4 12.6 10.5 13.1 7.3 5.7 9.1 4.2 3.7 1.9 4.7 3.04
2003 26.7 12.7 10.7 13.0 7.2 5.6 8.8 4.1 3.7 1.9 4.7 3.05
(a) - 8 week drop rule in effect
(b) - 10 week late drop rule in effect
(c) - plus/minus grading began
(d) - 12 week, 16 credit late drop rule in effect
W - includes WP, WN, WF, W prior to 1990
LD - includes WP, WN, WF starting 1990

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


Table 2 - Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction Spring Semester 2003
(All locations - All Courses for All Colleges except the College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)
  NG A A- B+ B B- C+ C D F R DF AU P W LD Total
0-399not UP 579 27641 12547 11268 14675 8814 7192 12031 5887 6211 0 713 59 0 3221 5976 116814
0-399 UP 80 31969 16641 13726 16551 8939 7006 10521 5142 3653 1 291 68 0 1701 6075 122364
Total 0-399 659 59610 29188 24994 31226 17753 14198 22552 11029 9864 1 1004 127 0 4922 12051 239178
% 0.3% 24.9% 12.2% 10.4% 13.1% 7.4% 5.9% 9.4% 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 2.1% 5.0%  
                                   
400 not UP 86 5451 2131 1562 1673 866 527 761 232 225 11 201 8 0 232 377 14343
400 UP 118 13761 6173 4948 5429 2651 1836 2705 914 781 21 223 62 0 492 1328 41442
Total 400 204 19212 8304 6510 7102 3517 2363 3466 1146 1006 32 424 70 0 724 1705 55785
% 0.4% 34.4% 14.9% 11.7% 12.7% 6.3% 4.2% 6.2% 2.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 3.1%  
                                   
500 not UP 6 2413 863 393 249 60 22 41 12 10 52 49 0 0 65 36 4271
500-UP 88 6010 1732 869 791 209 40 47 18 15 343 214 195 296 52 243 11162
Total 500 94 8423 2595 1262 1040 269 62 88 30 25 395 263 195 296 117 279 15433
% 0.6% 54.6% 16.8% 8.2% 6.7% 1.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 2.6% 1.7% 1.3% 1.9% 0.8% 1.8%  
                                   
0-499 not UP 665 33092 14678 12830 16348 9680 7719 12792 6119 6436 11 914 67 0 3453 6353 131157
0-499 UP 198 45730 22814 18674 21980 11590 8842 13226 6056 4434 22 514 130 0 2193 7403 163806
Total 0-499 863 78822 37492 31504 38328 21270 16561 26018 12175 10870 33 1428 197 0 5646 13756 294963
% 0.3% 26.7% 12.7% 10.7% 13.0% 7.2% 5.6% 8.8% 4.1% 3.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 1.9% 4.7%  
800 not UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                   
Grade Points   4 3.67 3.33 3 2.67 2.33 2 1 0              
Totals   166067 77579 64270 77696 42809 33184 52124 24380 21765              
GP*Totals   664268 284715 214019 233088 114300 77318.72 24380 0              
                                  220414
GP*Tot 399   238440 107120 83230.02 93678 47400.51 33081.34 45104 11029 0         2.99   659082.8
                                  52626
GP* Tot 400   76848 30475.68 21678.3 21306 9390.39 5505.79 6932 1146 0         3.29   173282.2
                                  13794
GP* Tot 500   33692 9523.65 4202.46 3120 718.23 144.46 176 30 0         3.74   51606.8
                                  273040
GP* Tot 499   315288 137595.6 104908.3 114984 56790.9 38587.13 52036 12175 0         3.05   832365
Table 2 - Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction Spring Semester 2003 (continued)
(All locations - All Courses for All Colleges except the College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)
 
NG
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
D
F
R
DF
AU
P
W
LD
Total
Total 0-399                                  
Level Courses                                  
Dist by % 0.3% 24.9% 12.2% 10.4% 13.1% 7.4% 5.9% 9.4% 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 2.1% 5.0% 100.0%
                                   
Dist by Count 659 59610 29188 24994 31226 17753 14198 22552 11029 9864 1 1004 127 0 4922 12051 239178
GPA = 2.86                                  
                                   
Total 400                                  
Level Courses                                  
Dist by % 0.4% 34.4% 14.9% 11.7% 12.7% 6.3% 4.2% 6.2% 2.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 3.1% 100.0%
                                   
Dist by Count 204 19212 8304 6510 7102 3517 2363 3466 1146 1006 32 424 70 0 724 1705 55785
GPA = 3.19                                  
                                   
Total Courses                                  
Level 0-499                                  
Dist by % 0.3% 26.7% 12.7% 10.7% 13.0% 7.2% 5.6% 8.8% 4.1% 3.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 1.9% 4.7% 100.0%
                                   
Dist by Count 863 78822 37492 31504 38328 21270 16561 26018 12175 10870 33 1428 197 0 5646 13756 294963
GPA = 2.92                                  
                                   
Total 500                                  
Level Courses                                  
Dist by % 0.6% 54.6% 16.8% 8.2% 6.7% 1.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 2.6% 1.7% 1.3% 1.9% 0.8% 1.8% 100.0%
                                   
Dist by Count 94 8423 2595 1262 1040 269 62 88 30 25 395 263 195 296 117 279 15433
GPA = 3.69                                  

Table 3 - Grade Point Averages and Deanís List
†† Summary by College Spring Semester 2003
I.Baccalaureate Degree
Number on
Total
% on
Sem GPA
Cum GPA
Sem GPA
Sem GPA
††† Academic Unit
Dean's List
Enrollment
Dean's List
2003
2003
1998
1993
             
Arts & Architecture
559
1534
36.4%
3.23
3.13
3.00
2.92
Abington
221
1007
21.9%
3.00
2.80
2.87
n/a
Agricultural Sciences
363
1729
20.9%
2.86
2.89
2.77
2.69
Altoona
245
753
32.5%
3.09
2.99
3.08
n/a
Business Administration
1674
5803
28.8%
3.08
3.07
2.98
2.89
Behrend
551
2250
24.4%
2.99
2.94
2.92
2.81
Berks-Lehigh
140
601
23.2%
3.06
2.93
3.04
n/a
Capital
469
1715
27.3%
3.12
3.01
3.13
3.04
Commonwealth College
569
2244
25.3%
3.09
2.97
3.11
n/a
Communications
998
3350
29.7%
3.05
3.06
2.94
2.82
Earth & Mineral Sciences
204
770
26.4%
3.00
2.95
2.91
2.83
Education
1372
2827
48.5%
3.37
3.35
3.21
3.19
Engineering
1744
6940
25.1%
2.99
3.05
2.92
2.81
Health & Human Development
1301
4230
30.7%
3.08
2.99
3.01
2.91
Inter-college
6
13
46.1%
3.72
3.55
n/a
n/a
Info, Science & Tech
616
1971
31.2%
3.14
3.12
n/a
n/a
Liberal Arts
1801
5858
30.7%
3.03
3.02
2.97
2.90
Science
923
2882
32.0%
3.07
3.15
3.05
2.95
DUS
1126
5763
19.5%
2.86
2.85
2.62
2.63
Total
14882
52240
28.4%
3.05
3.03
2.88
2.79
II.Associate Degree
Number on
Total
% on
Sem GPA
Cum GPA
Sem GPA
Sem GPA
††††† Academic Unit
Dean's List
Enrollment
Dean's List
2003
2003
1998
1993
Abington
7
141
4.9%
2.87
2.95
2.42
n/a
Agricultural Sciences
16
114
14.0%
2.72
2.77
2.59
2.83
Altoona
20
237
8.4%
2.51
2.71
2.62
n/a
Business Administration
0
14
0.0%
3.19
3.29
3.46
2.83
Behrend
4
73
5.4%
2.43
2.68
2.59
n/a
Berks-Lehigh
19
125
15.2%
2.59
2.62
2.51
n/a
Capital
25
165
15.1%
2.80
2.90
2.81
n/a
Commonwealth College
208
1475
14.1%
2.78
2.87
2.76
n/a
Engineering
116
616
18.8%
3.02
2.97
2.82
2.83
Health & Human Development
52
386
13.4%
3.00
3.02
2.83
2.99
Info, Science & Tech
87
456
19.0%
3.03
3.05
n/a
n/a
Liberal Arts
1
28
1.0%
2.79
2.98
2.96
2.65
Total
555
3830
14.4%
2.85
2.92
2.96
2.65
III. Provisional Students
Number on
Total
% on
Sem GPA
Cum GPA
Sem GPA
Sem GPA
Dean's List
Enrollment
Dean's List
2003
2003
1998
1993
Provisional
52
709
7.3%
2.42
2.51
2.68
2.32
Nondegree
113
3564
3.1%
2.54
2.20
2.17
2.67
Total
165
4273
5.2%
2.48
2.36
2.50
2.49

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


Table 4 - All University Distribution of Semester Grade Point Averages
†††† for Baccalaureate Students
Semesters
Below 1.00
1.00-1.99
2.00-2.99
3.00-3.99
4.00
Total
1992
Students
1,000
3,975
16,706
18,936
1,407
††††† 42,024
%
2.4%
9.5%
39.8%
45.1%
3.3%
1993
Students
1,319
4,035
15,777
18,765
1,395
††††† 41,291
%
3.2%
9.8%
38.2%
45.4%
3.4%
1994
Students
1,296
3,752
15,214
18,561
1,498
††††† 40,321
%
3.2%
9.3%
37.7%
46.0%
3.7%
1995
Students
1,478
3,666
14,953
19,130
1,584
††††† 40,811
%
3.6%
9.0%
36.6%
46.9%
3.9%
1996
Students
1,671
4,136
15,705
20,788
1,688
††††† 43,988
%
3.8%
9.4%
35.7%
47.3%
3.8%
1997
Students
1,852
4,262
15,912
21,861
1,932
††††† 45,819
%
4.0%
9.3%
34.7%
47.7%
4.2%
1998
Students
1,940
4,071
15,880
23,728
2,206
47,825
%
4.1%
8.5%
33.2%
49.6%
4.6%
1999
Students
1,811
4,318
16,149
24,832
2,284
49,394
%
3.7%
8.7%
32.7%
50.3%
4.6%
2000
Students
2156
3,998
15,869
25,034
2,513
49,570
%
4.4%
8.1%
32.0%
50.5%
5.1%
2001
Students
1934
3,893
15,564
26,403
2,710
50,504
%
3.8%
7.7%
30.8%
52.3%
5.4%
2002
Students
1519
3,791
15,370
27,971
2,906
51,557
%
3.0%
7.40%
29.8%
54.3%
5.6%
2003
Students
1978
3,760
15,041
28,253
2,968
52,000
%
3.8%
7.2%
28.9%
54.3%
5.7%


Appendix R


SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Summary of Petitions by College, Campus and Unit

(Informational)

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

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

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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

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


Summary of Petitions by Type
 
2000-2001
Type Submitted Granted Denied
     
Drop/Add 778 647 131
Withdrawal 560 451 109
Late Registration 246 246 0
Corrected Grades 41 40 1
Other: Deferred Grades, Course Cancellations,††††††††††††† Re-enrollment 17 16 1
   
   
TOTALS 1642 1400 242
     
Trauma Petitions 39 37 2
eLion (primarily late drops) N/A    
Appeals 23 16 7
2001-2002
Type Submitted Granted Denied
       
Drop/Add 630 481 149
Withdrawal 416 342 74
Late Registration 243 238 5
Corrected Grades 43 42 1
Other: Deferred Grades, Course Cancellations,††††††††††††† Re-enrollment 8 7 1
     
     
TOTALS 1340 1110 230
       
Trauma Petitions 12 12 0
eLion (primarily late drops) N/A    
Appeals 16 11 5
2002-2003
% Incr/Decr in Submitted Petitions from 01/02 to 02/03
Type Submitted Granted Denied Cncl/Pendg
         
Drop/Add 721 478 230 13 14%
Withdrawal 440 332 89 19 6%
Late Registration 281 273 8 0 16%
Corrected Grades 54 54 0 0 26%
Other: Deferred Grades, Course Cancellations,††††††††††††† Re-enrollment 45 34 9 2 463%
       
       
TOTALS 1541 1171 336 34 15%
         
Trauma Petitions 25 23 1 1 108%
eLion (primarily late drops) 70 42 27 1
Appeals 7 6 1 0 -56%

Summary of Petitions by College/Campus/Unit

  Submitted Submitted % Increase/ Granted Denied Pendg/Cncl
  2001-2002 2002-2003 Decrease 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003
             
Abington College 86 86 0% 54 29 3
Agricultural Sciences 40 43 8% 35 7 1
Altoona College 65 63 -3% 43 17 3
Arts and Architecture 35 41 17% 35 6 0
Behrend College 89 99 11% 56 41 2
Berks-Lehigh Valley College          
†††††††† Berks Campus 31 53 71% 43 9 1
†††††††† Lehigh Valley Campus 8 5 -38% 3 2  
Business Administration 102 127 25% 94 33 0
Capital College          
Harrisburg 42 31 -26% 25 6 0
Schuylkill 24 19 -21% 14 4 1
Commonwealth College          
Beaver 3 10 233% 9 1 0
Delaware County 23 21 -9% 21 0 0
DuBois 9 12 33% 12 0 0
Fayette 12 15 25% 14 0 1
Hazleton 15 13 -13% 8 5 0
McKeesport 18 29 61% 15 14 0
Mont Alto 11 12 9% 6 5 1
New Kensington 4 13 225% 9 4 0
Shenango 13 8 -38% 5 3 0
Wilkes-Barre 15 8 -47% 6 2 0
Worthington Scranton 38 41 8% 38 1 2
York 34 32 -6% 28 4 0
Communications 73 104 42% 77 22 5
Div. Of Undergraduate Studies 61 102 67% 83 16 3
Earth & Mineral Sciences 25 16 -36% 13 2 1
Education 25 21 -16% 19 2 0
Engineering 107 142 33% 113 28 1
Health & Human Development 93 116 25% 100 12 4
Information Sci. & Tech. 5 11 120% 8 3 0
Liberal Arts 168 152 -10% 111 38 3
Registrar's Representative 18 31 72% 24 7 0
Science 48 65 35% 50 13 2
           
Totals 1340 1541 15% 1171 336 34


  University Faculty Senate
The Pennsylvania State University
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802-4613
Telephone: (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 2, 2004– 1:30 p.m.
102 Kern Graduate Building

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

Accounted For: R. Burgess, W. Curtis, P. Deines, J. Jacobs, R. McCarty, H. Sachs, G. Spanier

Guests/Others: C. Brewer, G. Franz, R. Filippelli, R. Heinsohn, P. Hufnagel, T. Jones, J. Nichols, P. Poorman, D. Richards, J. Romano, R. Secor, R. Wade, S. Youtz

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Christopher J. Bise called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2004

The minutes of the January 20, 2004 meeting were approved as presented on a
Spychalski/Esposito motion. The minutes of the February 10 special Senate Council meeting were approved on a Su/Glumac motion.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Announcements by Chair Bise:

Chair Bise announced that Michael Navin, one of the first senators from the Dickinson School of Law and former chair of the Intra-University Relations Committee died unexpectedly last week. A letter of condolence will be sent to the family.

Comments by the Executive Vice-President and Provost:

Provost Erickson commented that the University budget hearings before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees went well noting that President Spanier was well received and engaged in positive dialogue with legislators about many topics including the lack of funding for the medical school. The Provost went on to observe that the University is optimistic that when all negotiations are completed that Penn State could see an overall three percent appropriation increase. This increase would also be received by the other state-related institutions and state system schools. In response to a question, Dr. Erickson commented that Rep. Matthew Baker’s legislation on background checks is very similar to Penn State’s.

Dr. Erickson then focused his comments on Fall 2004 admissions noting more work has to be done and on some of the smaller campuses applications and admissions are less than expected due to higher tuition and regional economy concerns. To date, approximately 6,000 students have been accepted for fall 2004 at the University Park campus.

Provost Erickson was asked to comment on the recent announcement of a Penn State Altoona faculty member’s termination. He noted that this was a very difficult personnel situation and the decision was not easily made and because it is a personnel issue the University will not reveal any details and that strict confidentiality will be maintained.

Dr. Erickson then was asked to comment on his thoughts on the role of Senate Council in reviewing the establishment of new programs across the University, especially in relation to standards, resources, and demonstration of need. The Provost expressed his concern about a growing proliferation of new programs with small numbers of students enrolled. He stated that there are concerns about the effective deployment of resources, the adequacy of resources and the criteria being utilized to evaluate new program openings. Noting enrollment data that he reviewed, the Provost said that increasingly lower division students are being taught by fixed-term/part-time faculty, while full-time standing faculty are teaching upper division sections with small numbers of student. A campus councilor recalled the former Senate committee on the Commonwealth Educational System that routinely reviewed feasibility studies for extended degree programs. Another campus councilor observed that he would regret seeing Council review expansion proposals. Dr. Erickson encouraged Council to consider these issues and suggest strategies for improving the situation.

Announcements/Comments by Councilors:

Councilor Peter Jurs noted with regret that the Monster Trucks were returning to the Bryce Jordan Center. He observed that performances like this and professional wrestling do not represent a positive reflection on the University.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

Minutes from the February 18, 2004, Graduate Council meeting were received with no comment.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 16, 2004

Forensic Business
none

Legislative Reports

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, Revision of Senate Policies 34-87 (Course Add) and 34-89 (Course Drop). This report was placed on the Agenda on a Romberger/Su motion. The report was presented by committee Vice-Chair Richard Wade, who responded to questions about how ARSSA reaffirmed the 10-day course add period especially when faculty have concerns about what is perceived by faculty as an overly extended late add period. Similar comments were made about the endorsement of the length of the course drop period.

Intercollegiate Athletics, Resolution Endorsing the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics’ (COIA) “A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform.” This report was placed on the Agenda on a Scaroni/Rebane motion. Committee member John Nichols presented this report and responded to questions about what it means to have the Senate endorse or make a commitment to this resolution. Other questions were asked about the legislative nature of this report and if President Spanier will need to approve the report if the Senate votes to endorse the resolution. Parliamentarian Franz commented on the precedent for this type of legislative resolution and that the President will not be asked to sign this report for implementation. Questions were asked about how the Penn State liaison with the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) would be selected. Chair Bise noted that this is an operational issue and will be discussed by Committees and Rules. Dr. Nichols commented that Penn State’s Faculty Senate has provided significant leadership in the establishment of COIA.

Advisory and Consultative

Faculty Benefits—Voluntary Phased Retirement (HR29) and Reemployment of University Retirees (HR45). This report was placed on the Agenda on a Glumac/Pytel motion. Senator Heinsohn presented the report and responded to questions about re-employment.

Intra-University Relations—Report on Curricular Integration Across Locations—Amended Report. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Su/Esposito motion. Committee chair Richards commented on the addition of a new recommendation about the development of implementation strategies.

Informational Reports

Committee on Committees and Rules—Nominating Report – 2004-2005. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Gouran /Pytel motion.

Elections Commission—Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2004-2005. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Glumac/Smith motion.

Intercollegiate Athletics—Integration of Intercollegiate Athletics Within the University Community. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Romberger/Esposito motion with one dissenting vote. Several councilors expressed concern about the vagueness of the report and the relevance to the Senate. Concern was also noted that the presentation of informational reports similar to this report contradicted Council’s and the Senate’s efforts to minimize these reports. Chair Bise will write to Athletic Director Tim Curley and request that he focus his comments on issue #3: Structure and Philosophy of Penn State’s athletics programs and the connections between academics and athletics. This presentation is expected to be 15 minutes in length with 10 minutes for questions.

Senate Council—Nominating Committee Report—2004-2005. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Smith/Gouran motion. Immediate Past Chair Moore announced that Senator DeCastro withdrew his nomination for Chair-Elect and that Jamie Myers agreed to stand for election for Chair-Elect. Professor Moore also announced that David Richards agreed to be nominated for Secretary of the Senate.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 16, 2004

The Agenda was approved on a Romberger/Scaroni motion.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Proposal from the College of the Liberal Arts to change the status of the Program in Linguistics and Applied Language Studies to a Department of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. On a Gouran/Su motion, Senate Council took the following action:

In accordance with our duties as prescribed in the Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that:

The College of the Liberal Arts proposal to change the status of the Program in Linguistics and Applied Language Studies to a Department of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies be implemented as described in the documents we have received.
2. Election of five 2004-2005 Committees and Rules Members. The following senators were elected for a two-year term (2004-2006) to CC&R: Melvin Blumberg, Lynn Carpenter, Pamela Hufnagel, Deidre Jago, Nancy Wyatt. Guy Barbato was elected as the first alternate.

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Chair Bise thanked Council members for their attendance and participation and accepted a Smith/Romberger motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary

  University Faculty Senate
The Pennsylvania State University
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802-4613
Telephone: (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/

Date: February 23, 2004
To: Senate Council Members
From: Peter Deines, Senate Liaison to the Graduate Council
Re: Graduate Council Minutes of February 18, 2004

The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building, with Dean Eva Pell presiding. Dean Pell called the meeting to order at 3:35.

1. The minutes of the January 21, 2004 meeting were approved.

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

Dean Pell had no comments at this time but indicated that she would give a report in the latter part of the meeting.

3. Announcements:

Assistant Dean Pennypacker reported on the successful completion of a workshop on career opportunities, resume and CV preparation for graduate students.

4. Reports of Standing Committees

Committee on Academic Standards -Richard Ready:

The committee brought forward a recommendation that the No Grade Policy (Senate Policy 48-50) for graduate students would be made consistent with that for undergraduate students. Council members discussed and voiced support for proposed change, however, in the absence of a quorum, no formal vote was taken.

Committee on Fellowships and Awards -Anil Kulkarni

There was no report.

Committee on Graduate Research -Michael Verderame:

There was no formal report. The committee continues to work on the preparation for the Annual Graduate Exhibition, which will be held on March 26, and 28, 2004, in the HUB. About 50 students attended the information session on January 21, 2004. A total of some 60 judges for the exhibition have been identified, including 23 alumni, however, an additional 70 judges are needed, and all graduate faculty are encouraged to sign-up.

Following earlier Council discussions, the chair of the Graduate Council Research Committee will meet with the chair of the Senate Committee on Research to discuss the potential merger of the two committees.

Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues -Leslie MacRae

There was no report.

Committee on Programs and Courses -Mark Wardell:

The guidelines for submitting proposals for extended and off-campus graduate degree programs have been modified by the committee and were brought before the Council for action. After a brief discussion, Council voted (with a quorum now present) to adopt the proposed change. The guidelines will include a reference to the appropriate document, in which the extended degree is defined.

5. Reports of Special Committees:

There was no report.

6. Graduate Student Association:

Two major issues that concern graduate students currently are the status of the health insurance plan for graduate students and the need for an ombudsperson for graduate students. Council discussed the latter issue at some length and was supportive of the suggestion to have ombudspersons for graduate students. Dean Pell referred the matter to the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues. The committee will develop recommendations for consideration by Council.

7. At this time additional council members had arrived and a quorum was in attendance. The No Grade Policy for Graduate Students was brought up for a vote and council approved it unanimously.

8. Special Reports:

Dean Pell presented an informational report on recruitment, retention and graduation rates.

9. Unfinished Business: None

10. New Business: None

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

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM



  University Faculty Senate
The Pennsylvania State University
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802-4613
Telephone: (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/

Date: March 3, 2004

To: All Senators and Committee Members

From: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary


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


Monday, March 15, 2004

7:00 p.m.
Officers and Chairs Meeting††
102 Kern Graduate Building

8:30 p.m.††
Commonwealth Caucus Meeting
Penn State Room, Nittany Lion Inn

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

7:30 a.m.
Intercollegiate Athletics
233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

8:00 a.m.
Faculty Affairs 122 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Heritage Hall
(Please note change in location)
 
Outreach Activities
502 Keller
8:30 a.m.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

203 Shields Building
 
Committees and Rules 114 Kern Graduate Building
 
Curricular Affairs 102 Kern Graduate Building
 
Faculty Benefits 201 Kern Graduate Building
 
Intra-University Relations 325 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
 
Student Life 107 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
 
Undergraduate Education 330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
 
University Planning

327 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
9:00 a.m. Computing and Information Systems 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Libraries 510A Paterno Library
 

Research (Please note change in time)

106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
1:30 p.m.
University Faculty Senate 112 Kern Graduate Building


  University Faculty Senate
The Pennsylvania State University
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802-4613
Telephone: (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/

Date: March 3, 2004

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

From: Thomas E. Glumac and Tramble T. Turner

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2004 – 8:30 p.m.
PENN STATE ROOM
NITTANY LION INN

Guest: Robert Secor, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Topic of Discussion: Background Checks and University Policies

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004 – 11:15 a.m.
BOARD ROOM 1
NITTANY LION INN

A buffet luncheon will be served in the Alumni Lobby at 12:15 p.m.

The Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

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

III. Reports from Committee Chairs

IV. Other Items of Concern/New Business

Introduction of and discussion with the nominees
for Senate Chair-Elect and Senate Secretary

V. Adjournment and Lunch