The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 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 January 28/February 25, 2003 Meetings in The Senate Record 36:4/36:5

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 11, 2003 - Appendix A

Report to the University Planning Committee

Subcommittee to Review the Circleville Property RFP - Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 4, 2003

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Committees and Rules

Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports - Appendix C

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Student Life

Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities - Appendix D

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission - Appendix E
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students - Appendix F
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Committees and Rules

Nominating Report - 2003-2004 - Appendix G

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Election Commission

Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-04 - Appendix H

Faculty Affairs

Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-02 - Appendix I
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations

Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-03 - Appendix J
[7-minute presentation and 20-minute discussion]

Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03 - Appendix K
[10-minute presentation and discussion]

Senate Council

Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign - Appendix L
[10-minute presentation and 5-minute discussion]

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2003-04

Senate Officers - Appendix M

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

Undergraduate Education

Annual Grade Distribution Report - Appendix N
[10-minute discussion]

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location - Appendix O
[5-minute discussion]

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 22, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendix A

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 - phone (814) 865-5789 - fax

Date: March 11, 2003

To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate

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

The Senate Curriculum Report dated March 11, 2003, 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 April 10, 2003.

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

Appendix B

Report to the Senate University Planning Committee
from the
Subcommittee to Review the Circleville Property RFP
February 25, 2003

Four subcommittee members met with Dan Sieminski on Tuesday, February 17, to discuss various questions relating to the draft RFP on Purchase and Development of the Circleville Property. Mr. Sieminski sent the draft to members prior to the meeting, and several committee members submitted questions in advance to be addressed during the meeting. Two additional subcommittee members who could not attend the meeting received the first draft of this report and contributed suggestions for its final content.

Mr. Sieminski reviewed in detail a number of changes that have already been made to the
RFP since its distribution to the committee. These included, most notably, a modification to one of the objectives and a reorganization of the Evaluation Criteria into two major categories, each with several subcategories. The latter changes have addressed some of the subcommittee members' early concerns with the proposal.

In addition, Mr. Sieminski agreed to consider:

• inserting language to clarify that lower bids will be entertained and acceptable for proposals that intend to keep the R-A zoning unchanged, albeit with various restrictions on future development or use within that zoning designation;
• expanding the section on environmental impact, especially as it might pertain to the desirability of creative approaches to development, woodland preservation and the like;
• reducing the maximum permissible proportion of impervious surface (from 50%);
• lengthening the time for response to the RFP;
• adding a member to the evaluation team to broaden the expertise represented by the group.

It is recommended that attaching conservation easements to the deed for the land be considered to better address the long-term environmental objectives envisioned for the parcel and to insure that these contingencies would last into perpetuity. The RFP should encourage respondents to consider proposing that such easements be attached to the deed, consistent with the manner in which they intend to address environmental and conservation aspects in their development plans.

The subcommittee also urges that the University Faculty Senate, as well as the central administration, continue to encourage the development of "internal" proposals and to stress that these need not involve purchase of the land, since the land is already owned by the University. Although University officials have expressed their intention to sell the parcel, both because it will make possible the purchase of land more suitable for the College of Agricultural Sciences' purposes and because the University is not interested in developing the land itself, the RFP does communicate an interest in creative, environmentally sound and community-oriented solutions. We presume, however, that alternative proposals coming from within (outside of the RFP process) will be considered until the commitment to sell to one of the RFP respondents is finalized. The proposed timeline affords almost six months (13 weeks, from now until the proposal deadline of May 30 for external responses, plus 8 to 10 weeks beyond that before a decision is made to recommend sale and a contract is executed with the selected respondent) for internal proposals to be organized, developed and advanced for consideration.

SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CIRCLEVILLE PROPERTY RFP
John Boehmer
Dan Brinker
Peter Everett
Dan Hagen
Chris Johnstone
Rob Pangborn, subcommittee chair

Appendix C

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports

(Legislative)
Implementation: Fall 2003

Introduction

The Senate currently receives informational reports in written or oral form. Review of data from the last six Senate years (1996-97/2001-2002) indicates that the Senate received a total of 319 reports, of which 148 were non-mandated informational reports and 59 were mandated informational reports. Thus, sixty-five percent of the reports given to the Senate in this six-year period were either informational or mandated reports.

Among the current concerns with the presentation of informational reports to the Senate are the redundant oral presentation of information that is presented in written reports, the lack of adherence to time limits, and the presentation of reports that fail to further the educational interests of the University. Time spent in Senate meetings on informational reports could, in many cases, be used more profitably to discuss and debate issues of greater immediate and long-range importance to members of the Senate.

Rationale

Information regarding the origin, formatting and delivering informational reports is presented in the March 26, 1985 legislation on the Format of Senate Reports, a 1992 document on Guidelines for Oral Informational Reports (unknown origin), and an undated checklist for the preparation of reports (unknown origin). In addition, a February 13, 2002 correspondence written by Dennis S. Gouran to the Senate Self-Study Committee at the request of Senate Chair John S. Nichols makes several suggestions concerning informational reports. The goal of this report is to consolidate the available guidelines and suggestions for informational reports and make recommendations in order to streamline Senate meetings and to provide more time for substantive debate and discussion.

Recommendations

a) Oral Informational Reports. The practice of permitting Senate committees to sponsor oral informational reports will be discontinued. Committees will be permitted to sponsor written reports, as described in recommendations (b) and (c) below. By considering only written reports, Senate Council can better evaluate the readiness and appropriateness of reports prior to placing them on the Senate Agenda.

The Senate Council may sponsor reports from University administrators.

b) Mandated Reports. Written copies of mandated reports will be placed in the Senate Agenda, but neither presented nor summarized orally at Senate meetings. These reports are routine, and if prepared well, are self-explanatory. Senate Council will allot time at the Senate meetings for reactions to the mandated reports and for sponsors to respond to such reactions. Presenters must adhere to time limits.

c) Non-Mandated Informational Reports. Sponsors of the non-mandated informational reports must clearly articulate a specific purpose for taking Senate meeting time. Printed copies of the non-mandated reports will be placed in the Senate Agenda, but presenters will neither present nor review the contents of such reports at Senate meetings, unless Senate Council determines that an oral presentation is warranted. Senate Council will allot time at the Senate meetings for reactions to the non-mandated reports and for sponsors to respond to such reactions. Presenters must adhere to time limits.

d) Adopt the following Checklist for the Preparation of Reports.

CHECK LIST FOR THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS

The purpose of the checklist is to aid Senate Office staff and Committee Chairs in preparing written reports in a format that can be reviewed and acted upon expeditiously.

Format of Reports

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

1. Introduction: Define the issues that require the legislative action and provide the historical context, if appropriate.
2. Discussion and Rationale: Identify the issues over which the Senate has authority, discuss the reasons for the proposal, and identify its consequences. Where applicable, costs of implementation should be included.
3. Recommendations: Move the specific action that the Senate can implement. This section should be brief and specific, so that it is very clear what the Senate is voting on.
4. Effective Date: Recommend the date of implementation.
5. Ending: List the committee members proposing legislation.

ADVISORY AND CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

1. Introduction: Define the issues germane to the faculty's interest.
2. Discussion: Discuss why the proposed action needs to be taken. Where applicable, costs of implementation should be included.
3. Advisory Proposal: Specify the actions the Senate would like to implement. This section should be brief and specific, so that it is very clear what the Senate is voting on.
4. Ending: List the committee members preparing the report.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (MANDATED AND NON-MANDATED)

1. Introduction: Define the issues germane to the faculty's interest, and state the reason why the report is necessary.
2. Information: Present the data or other information as needed.
3. Discussion and Conclusion: State the implications for the faculty.
5. Ending: List the committee members preparing the report.

Delegation of Duties

Senate Office

The Executive Secretary of the Senate will ensure that each report conforms to the checklist. Reports found not to conform will be brought to the attention of the Senate Chair who will discuss the issue with the Committee Chair.

Senate Chair

The Chair shall review reports prior to meetings of the Senate Council to ensure that they are properly organized. At meetings of the Council, the Chair's task is to guide the conversation and to seek consensus.

Executive Secretary

During Senate Council's discussion of a report, suggestions for changes in a report are often made. If Senate Council votes to approve a report for a Senate meeting with changes, it is the responsibility of the Executive Secretary to verify that the changes are included in the final report.

Timetable

The timetable for report deadlines will be added to this checklist on a yearly basis.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
Peter Deines
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
Pamela P. Hufnagel
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Andrew B. Romberger
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair

Appendix D

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities

(Advisory/Consultative)

Introduction

At an institution as complex as Penn State, faculty often do not know what rights and responsibilities they have with regard to maintaining civility in the classroom. Likewise, they do not know what rights and responsibilities their students have, and students, too, are often not well informed about what the limits of their behavior are.

The issue of what to do with classroom disruptions has been referred repeatedly to the Student Life Committee over the past ten years. In April 2000, Student Life presented an informational report to the Senate on "Incivility in the Classroom," which laid out some of the difficulties in defining the problem and suggested an agenda for further exploring the prevalence of classroom incidents at Penn State. In Spring 2002, the Student Life communicated with college deans at all locations, asking for their perceptions of the situation and asking if they had formulated a policy statement. In general, few specific incidents had been brought to the attention of administrators, but many indicated that faculty perceived the situation as problematic. Some departments and campuses had formulated clear statements of expectations; most had not.

After communicating with the Office of Judicial Affairs, the Student Life Committee concluded that policies were already in place sufficient to deal with the most severe cases of classroom disruption, in which students actively prevented faculty from conducting the class or harassed them. For the less severe cases, we agreed that definitions of incivility could reasonably differ from class to class and teacher to teacher, and so no new policy could satisfy all situations. This, the Committee felt, was a matter of classroom management, in which faculty could set reasonable standards for behavior and expect them to be enforced by their department or campus. However, students have a right to know these standards and to be treated with respect when a difference occurs between themselves and a faculty member.

Therefore, the Student Life Committee agreed not to propose new policies and procedures in this area but rather to publicize in this document the existing rules governing classroom behavior and suggest means of clarifying them to students. We also felt that the existing rules, as adapted appropriately to fit the needs and structures of departments and campuses, should be made available to all newly-hired and part-time faculty by their department head, Director of Academic Affairs, or equivalent, as part of the orientation and mentoring process.

What is Classroom Disruption?

One standard source on the topic characterizes classroom disruption as "behaviors that any reasonable person would view as substantially or repeatedly interfering with class conduct."^[1] Another defines the term in a broad, generic sense as "behavior that persistently or grossly interferes with academic and administrative activities on campus."^[2] A model statement on the topic, published in the Spring 2000 issue of Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, stresses that "The primary responsibility for managing the classroom environment rests with the faculty." Examples of behavior that a teacher might reasonably prohibit, this statement said, might include smoking in the classroom, persistently speaking without being called upon, refusing to be seated, and disrupting the class by repeatedly leaving and entering the room without authorization.

The Penn State Office of Judicial Affairs, based on its handling of such situations in the past, has listed the following as "obvious examples of disruptive behavior":

Threatening the instructor and others with physical violence
Disorientated or erratic behavior
Constant sleeping or talking
Consistently entering class late
Shouting at classmates
Providing distractions to others
Reading a newspaper
Using cell phones

In another example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of Salehpour v. University of Tennessee, et al. (1998), held that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason-whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior-materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." To be sure, the court held, students do have a right to engage in the vigorous expression of ideas, some of which may be offensive but are nevertheless protected. However, the court concluded, "where the expression appears to have no intellectual content or even discernible purpose, and amounts to nothing more than expression of a personal proclivity designed to disrupt the educational process, such expression is not protected." Rather, it is outweighed by a compelling interest of faculty "to educate in an environment that is free of purposeless distractions and is conducive to teaching."^[3]

The consensus, then, is that classroom disruption involves activities that are personal in nature, are not associated with the free exchange of ideas encouraged in the classroom, have no clear educational purpose, and would be considered by most faculty and students as distracting or annoying.

What is Penn State's Policy on Classroom Disruption?

Penn State's "Code of Conduct" defines forbidden actions that are "inconsistent with the essential values of the University community." Section 9 refers in part to

Obstruction or disruption of classes . . . . Disruption is defined as an action or combination of actions by one or more individuals that unreasonably interferes with, hinders, obstructs, or prevents the operation of the University or infringes on the rights of others to freely participate in its programs and services.^[4]

The "Penn State Principles," formulated to communicate the intent of the Code of Conduct, asks all members of the University community to endorse the following statement: "I will exercise personal responsibility for my actions and I will make sure that my actions do not interfere with the academic and social environment of the University." ^[5]

The model statement published in Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, based on procedures in place at many universities, states:

Students who engage in any prohibited or unlawful acts that result in disruption of a class may be directed by the faculty member to leave the class for the remainder of the class period. Longer suspensions from a class, or dismissal on disciplinary grounds, must be preceded by a disciplinary conference or hearing . . . ^[6]

Penn State's current rules and procedures are consistent with this model statement. In the "Preamble" to the Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules 2002-2003, published annually by the Office of Student Affairs and made available to all Penn State students, one of the rights of the institution is to "set reasonable standards of conduct in order to safeguard the educational process."^[7] Judicial Affairs' "Policy Statement on Free Expression and Disruption" holds that the University protects and promotes the free exchange of ideas and peaceful, non-obstructive expressions of dissent, so long as they do not interfere with its functions, including regularly scheduled course meetings in classrooms. However, University officials have the responsibility to "restrain or prohibit behavior that threatens the purposes . . . of the University," this statement concludes.^[8]

The Senate's advisory/consultative report "Toward a More Vibrant Learning Culture at Penn State" (approved in April 2000) called for faculty to reinforce a set of common expectations for student behavior, the first of which was to "Maintain an atmosphere of academic integrity, respect and civility." The report added, "Respect for teachers and fellow students and civility in voice and word is necessary."

However, faculty do not have the right to bar students from the classroom permanently. Such an act is akin to a disciplinary act of "Interim Expulsion," and while students do not have the right to disrupt classes, similarly faculty do not have the right to deprive them of their educational opportunity without following set institutional procedures. Cases of threatened violence or harassment, however, are infractions of the Code of Conduct and should be dealt with through the Judicial Affairs officer at the location where the infraction occurred. In such cases, students may be barred from the classroom pending an expedited institutional review.

A Model Statement on How to Handle Classroom Disruption

The following statement is based on current recommendations of the Office of Judicial Affairs, as well as the Student Life Committee's survey of existing policy statements, such as the Behrend College statement "Faculty Rights Regarding Classroom Behavior"^[9] and the English Department's "Procedures for Addressing Plagiarism, Academic Dishonesty, and Problematic Behavior." It is designed as a guide to understanding existing Penn State policies and procedures for dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior.

To safeguard the educational process and maintain an atmosphere of civility in the classroom, faculty are encouraged to abide by the following guidelines:

1. Set Clear Standards of Behavior

Setting clear standards of behavior at the beginning of a course is a powerful deterrent to inappropriate behavior. In their syllabi, faculty members should state their expectations for classroom behavior and define inappropriate actions. Obvious examples of such actions include sleeping or talking in class, shouting at classmates, or reading a newspaper. If a faculty member feels that eating in class, using cell phones, spitting smokeless tobacco, or any other such behavior is inappropriate, this should be explained in the syllabus. In addition, if an academic penalty is to be imposed as a result of prohibited actions (e.g., being late or not participating fully in group projects), this should be clearly indicated on the syllabus.

2. Confront Inappropriate Behavior

When students behave inappropriately, the behavior should be pointed out as quickly as possible while treating the student with respect and courtesy. Ideally, the correction should be done in private. However, some problems require immediate attention, i.e. students talking among themselves and disrupting class. When confronting the student in public, the faculty member should identify the inappropriate behavior, request that it should not be repeated, and explain that it is disruptive to the rest of the class. In doing so, the faculty member must treat the student with respect to help keep the situation from escalating and avoiding further disruption.

3. If the Behavior Continues, Remove the Student from Class

Faculty have the right to request that students leave a class provided that their actions are obviously distracting and not conducive to an educational environment. After doing so, meet with the student privately to explain the inappropriateness of his or her behavior, and ask that it cease immediately. Explain that if the behavior continues, you may file a complaint with the Office of Judicial Affairs. This may be followed up with a written statement repeating this message.

In the case of simple inappropriate behavior, faculty do not have the right to bar the student from additional class meetings without institutional reviews being afforded to the student. In no case can a student be permanently expelled from a class without appropriate institutional reviews. Faculty should also not tell students to drop a course against their will.

In the case of a serious disruption of the learning environment (i.e. fighting, unbalanced behavior, threats of violence, harassment), however, Campus Safety officials should be contacted for immediate dispatch to the class. Students engaged in such behavior will not be permitted to return to class until institutional procedures are completed. Campus Safety officials will notify the department chair and Judicial Affairs officer (or local equivalents) in such a case.

4. If the Behavior Still Is Not Stopped, File a Complaint with the Judicial Affairs Officer

The department head (or equivalent at campus locations) as well as the Judicial Affairs officer should be notified when this occurs. Disruptions of this nature are a violation of the University Code of Conduct and should be handled through Judicial Affairs proceedings coordinated by the local representative of the Student Affairs Office who, if the student is found responsible, will determine an appropriate sanction. Sanctions may include moving the student to another section of the course or administrative removal from the course.

Should a faculty member wish to discuss how best to respond to a student's behavior in class, he/she is encouraged to contact the location's judicial officer, as well as the campus or departmental person who is responsible for mediating faculty/student disagreements.

Recommendation

In order to help faculty and students better understand Penn State policies on classroom disruptions, the Senate Committee on Student Life recommends that all Penn State faculty and students receive copies of the following two documents: 1) the Office of Judicial Affairs' "Policy Statement on Free Expression and Disruption" http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/free.html and 2) the procedures for dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior outlined in this report under the following headings:

1. Set clear standards of behavior
2. Confront inappropriate behavior
3. If the behavior continues, remove the student from the class
4. If the behavior still continues, file a complaint with the Judicial Affairs Officer

These documents should be made available to all current faculty and students and subsequently given to all matriculating students and all newly hired faculty during the orientation and mentoring process.

____________
¹ Gary Pavela, "Responding to disruptive students: A case study," College Administration Publications September 11, 2000. Available: http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000911.shtml.

² Gerald Amada. Coping with the Disruptive Student: A Practical Model. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications, 1994.

³ 1998 FED App. 0318P (6th Cir.) Available: http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug98/98a0318p.06.html.

⁴ Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/policyexerpts.html#conduct.

⁵ Available: http://www.psu.edu/ur/principles.pdf.

⁶ Quoted in Pavela 2000.

⁷ Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/PoliciesRules.pdf.

⁸ Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/free.html

⁹ As given in that college’s Part-Time Faculty Handbook (revised August 22, 2002). Available: http://www.pserie.psu.edu/faculty/academics/PTFacultyHandbook.pdf.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
William W. Asbury
Arthur W. Carter
James M. Donovan
Bill Ellis, Chair
Charles R. Enis
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Timothy N. Gray
Wallace H. Greene
Andrew K. Masters
Dale A. Holen
Gwenn E. McCollum
Irwin Richman, Vice-Chair
Kristin Seabright
Kristin Sommese
Jennifer Tingo
Bridget Van Osten
Alexandros N. Vgontzas

Appendix E

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission

(Informational)

Background

Over the past several years, a convergence of two technologies has led to an effort to reengineer the University's process of collecting and recording end-of-semester grades. First, the printing, distribution, completion, collection, and scanning of more than 13,000 printed grade rosters from 24 campuses and 160 academic departments have yielded increasing levels of unreliability. This unreliability resulted in a crisis situation at the end of Spring Semester 2002.

Second, the emergence of the Web, along with its many inherent advantages, is something that Penn State needs to capitalize on. Penn State is well-positioned to deliver reliable, secure applications through the Web. In particular, this reengineering project has led to the further development of eLion faculty applications.

The eLion Faculty Grade Entry application was first used during Summer Session 2001. This initial usage was limited to an invited group of 18 faculty from several campuses and colleges, teaching both small and large sections. At the end of Fall Semester 2001, more than 100 faculty used this service. Based on feedback from the faculty, the system was modified to further improve functionality. During Spring Semester 2002, 433 instructors from 16 campuses graded 1,313 sections (8% of total grades) using this eLion service.

Starting with Fall Semester 2002, the use of scanning technology to record all undergraduate and graduate grades was eliminated. Grades were recorded using online technologies, with specific emphasis on fully utilizing the Web. Grade collection also continued to be available for faculty utilizing the grading services of University Testing Services.

Overview

The Penn State grade collection system for all undergraduate and graduate courses provides for three options:

1. eLion. Starting with Fall 2002, faculty were encouraged to record their end-of-semester grades using the eLion Grade Entry application. To use this service, faculty had to (1) be identified as the instructor of record for the course (this is the same identification necessary for a faculty member to obtain a class list through eLion or ANGEL); (2) possess an active Penn State Access Account (userID and password); and (3) possess a SecurID token. There were no special hardware or software requirements when connecting to the Web. Faculty using eLion realized the following advantages:

a. Grades could be recorded immediately following the end date of the course. The instructor received an e-mail reminder when the course-grading period was open.
b. After entering grades, the instructor could return to enter additional grades, make revisions, or review previously entered grades.
c. Grades were immediately available to the student, eliminating the need for faculty to mail postcards or to post grades at their office or to handle e-mail and telephone inquiries from students regarding their grades.
d. No paper rosters were required, and no documents needed to be returned to the Registrar's office. The grade audit trail was captured electronically.
e. Grades could be submitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to midnight from any computer connected to the Internet. (eLion was scheduled to be unavailable December 24 and 25.)
f. Faculty received an e-mail confirmation of submitted grades.
g. After grade entry, faculty could view recorded grades and print a Grade Review Report for their files.

2. Grade Recording by Staff. Academic department staff members at the University Park campus were empowered to record grades on behalf of the faculty using the Integrated Student Information System (ISIS). These staff joined the staff in the Registrar's office and the campus registrars who have always been empowered to receive and record faculty grades into the ISIS system. All authorized staff members were required to have a SecurID token to record grades on behalf of the faculty. As part of this implementation, new ISIS capabilities were developed including:

a. Screen ARICR - produce grade roster
b. Screen ARUCF - grade entry
c. Screen ARICQ - grading status. This provided real-time information about the number of grades expected and recorded, with information summarized by campus, college, department, course, or section.

3. University Testing Services. Faculty using the examination scoring services of University Testing Services (UTS) could continue to have their final grades computed and transmitted electronically to the Registrar's office.

SecurID Token

Since conducting business over the Web has many inherent advantages, Penn State plans to take advantage of all of the built-in benefits and capabilities offered through Web technologies. Over time there will be many services for faculty that will be delivered over the Web. The first available service is the eLion Grade Entry application.

Conducting business over the Web does introduce a new challenge-insuring that University records are secure and that unauthorized entry is prevented. Penn State has adopted an approach to Internet security that is commonly referred to as "two-factor authentication." The first factor consists of "what you know"-the Penn State Access Account (UserID and password). The second factor is "what you have"-the SecurID token.

Provost Erickson extended financial support to each college in the acquisition of SecurID tokens for all faculty. The Provost funded 2/3 of the cost of these tokens; the college was required to pay the remaining $25 cost. These tokens have an operational life of 4.5 years. Other technologies are being developed that will be available before the SecurID tokens expire. These new technologies will be less expensive and are anticipated to provide even greater levels of security in the future.

Education and Training

From the very start of this implementation, it was recognized that to be successful, thousands of Penn State faculty and staff would need to clearly understand the upcoming change and the implications this change would have on the grade submission procedures. The following points provide a summary of the communication efforts since mid-summer 2002 to notify the University community and to provide opportunities for hands-on experience with the new technologies:

• Provost Erickson communicated with each college dean about the upcoming change and the funding plan for the SecurID tokens for faculty.
• An information Web site was placed online, including actual demonstrations of the eLion and ISIS procedures. This site has received nearly 250,000 visitors.
• Presentation of the new procedures to the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid.
• Communication to the Administrative Council on Undergraduate Education
• Multiple college-, campus-, and department-based information meetings involving staff from the Registrar's office, faculty, and department staff.
• Memo to all classroom instructors.
• Presentation at the Registrar's office fall conference, which included staff from all colleges and campuses.

The Results

At the conclusion of the grade collection cycle for Fall Semester 2002, 353,515 grades were received from faculty. The distribution of these grades by source of recording was:

Entry Source	Number of Grades	Percent of Total Grades
eLion	297,712	84%
Staff Recording	28,966	8%
UTS	26,837	8%
Total	353,515	100%

Some specific observations about the receipt of grades for Fall 2002:

• 5,356 different course instructors used the eLion grade entry application.
• During the holiday break (5:00 p.m. Friday, December 20, until 8:00 a.m. Thursday, January 2) nearly 100,000 grades were recorded.
• During the holiday break, eLion was available as scheduled to faculty for the entry of grades and to students for the viewing of grades. (Both eLion and ISIS were planned to be offline December 24 and 25)
• As of 5:00 p.m. Friday, January 3, 14,438 grades were outstanding. This compares to 49,189 missing grades on the comparable date for Fall 2001.
• The Registrar's office received 47 course-grade rosters (2,412 grades) from 20 faculty, 16 of which were from the same department.
• During the holiday break, we had staff available to receive and respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries related to grade collection. All inquiries were responded to within 24 hours.

Next Steps

As the new process was monitored in a real-time mode during the grade reporting period last semester, two particular issues became common themes. They were:

1. The system use of the NG grade symbol. One of the announced benefits of using the eLion Faculty Grade Entry application was the elimination of the requirement to grade all students at one sitting. For example, faculty were encouraged to first record grades for graduating students and then to record grades for all other students. When grades were recorded for some students, the computer system automatically assigned a NG (no grade) symbol to all remaining students. This resulted in concern from those students that the instructor had no intention of assigning a grade, which of course was not true. The Registrar's office has already changed the system to simply leave these grades blank.

2. Confusion surrounding grading of some independent study courses. Courses numbered 296, 496, and 596 are classified as independent study. These creative learning experiences are supervised on an individual basis. Students may not register for these courses without prior approval of the faculty member.

While the eLion grading application did not introduce any change to the registration process of independent study courses, the new grading practice did expose an inappropriate administrative practice that resulted in grading-related confusion from involved faculty.

In some academic units, a single independent study section was offered for instruction. As multiple faculty would approve students, the students would all be registered into this single section. In like manner, all involved faculty were assigned as instructors of record for the single section. The correct procedure is to create one independent study section for each instructor who has approved students for independent study registration.

The resulting confusion was that as each of the involved instructors examined their grade roster, they saw names of students that they had not approved. This resulted in questions about why the student was registered for this course; some instructors assigned an F grade to these "non-approved" students. Another problem was that as instructors entered grades for their own students, every other "instructor of record" received an e-mail notification of the change of grades, adding to the confusion.

The Registrar's office has contacted all involved academic units regarding the correct process of offering independent study courses. The course offerings and student registrations for the current spring semester have been corrected.

While this first large-scale implementation of these enhanced grade collection procedures was a success, the Registrar's office is continuing to examine opportunities to further improve these services. In particular:

• Improve the communication of when a course is ready to be graded. The intent is to permit grading to begin after the end date of the course to insure inclusion of any late registration activity, but not before the course has concluded, including final assessment requirements.
• Further examine the use of electronic auditing to reduce/eliminate the necessity of signed grade rosters for those recordings entered through ISIS. (Signed documents are not required for grades recorded through eLion because of electronic auditing capabilities.)
• Development of a new capability to receive a data file from the course instructor.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Luen-Chau Li
Christopher J. Lynch
Paul Neiheisel
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit
for Non-degree Conditional Students

(Informational)

Students who have been dropped for poor scholarship are commonly called non-degree conditional students. These students are limited to twelve (12) credits per semester/session while working to improve their cumulative average for reinstatement to degree candidacy. Exceptions to the twelve-credit limitation may be requested of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Exceptions might include: difficulty scheduling courses to stay in sequence for the student's program; or, the student has shown evidence of improved academic performance.

A summary of the actions of these petitions follows:

For the Period	Submitted	Granted	Denied
08/01/99 - 08/31/00	29	26	3
09/01/00 - 07/31/01	13	10	3
08/01/01 - 08/31/02	12	11	1

A detailed breakdown by college, unit or location follows this report for your information.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Steven D. Koeber
Luen-Chan Li
Christopher J. Lynch
Paul Neiheisel
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager

Appendix G

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

University Faculty Senate

Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nominating Report - 2003-2004

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
(Two [2] to be elected - one [1] member and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Richard Kopley, Associate Professor of English, Commonwealth College, DuBois Campus

Gordon DeJong, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Demography, College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Jill Findeis, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional Economics and Demography, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Keith Burkhart, Associate Professor of Medicine, College of Medicine, Hershey

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
(Four [4] to be elected) Two-year term.

David Passmore, Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

Lourdes Diaz Soto, Professor of Education and Applied Linguistics, College of Education, University Park

Jose Ventura, Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Lyle Long, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Richard Barshinger, Professor of Mathematics, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

Michael Cardamone, Professor of Physics, Penn State Harrisburg, Schuylkill Campus

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Faculty - University Park
(Three [3] to be elected - two [2] members and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Gita Talmage, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Marilyn Page, Assistant Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

Joan Thomson, Professor of Agricultural Communications, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Robert Frieden, Pioneers Chair in Cable Telecommunications and Professor of Telecommunications, College of Communications, University Park

Michael Bernhard, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Paul Cohen, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Faculty Other Than University Park
(One [1] to be elected - one alternate) Three-year term.

Patricia Hinchey, Associate Professor of Education, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

Norbert Mayr, Associate Professor of History, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

John McWilliams, Associate Professor of History, Commonwealth College, DuBois Campus

Deans
(Two [2] to be elected - one [1] member and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Douglas Anderson, Dean, College of Communications, University Park

David Wormley, Dean, College of Engineering, University Park

Raymond Coward, Dean, College of Health and Human Development, University Park

William Cale, Dean and CEO, Altoona College

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
Peter Deines
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
Pamela P. Hufnagel
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Andrew B. Romberger
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair

Appendix H

Representative on the Senate Council: James F. Smith

Representative on the Senate Council: Mila C. Su

Representative on the Senate Council: Louis Milakofsky

CAPITAL COLLEGE
Penn State Harrisburg

SENATORS (8)

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

Penn State Schuylkill

SENATORS (3)

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

SENATORS (17)

Representative on the Senate Council: Connie Baggett

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE

SENATORS (9)

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS

SENATORS (3)

COLLEGE OF EARTH & MINERAL SCIENCES

SENATORS (8)

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

SENATORS (8)

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SENATORS (25)

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

SENATORS (15)

Representative on the Senate Council: Robert L. Burgess

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

SENATORS (33)

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS

SENATORS (23)

COMMONWEALTH COLLEGE
Penn State Beaver

SENATORS (2)

Penn State Delaware County

SENATORS (4)

Penn State DuBois

SENATORS (3)

Penn State Fayette

SENATORS (3)

Penn State Hazleton

SENATORS (3)

Penn State McKeesport

SENATORS (2)

Penn State Mont Alto

SENATORS (3)

Penn State New Kensington

SENATORS (2)

Penn State Shenango

SENATORS (2)

Penn State Wilkes-Barre

SENATORS (2)

Penn State Worthington Scranton

SENATORS (3)

Penn State York

SENATORS (3)

Senate Council Representative for the Commonwealth College: No Results

EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE

SENATORS (15)

MILITARY SCIENCES

SENATORS (1)

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

PENN STATE GREAT VALLEY

SENATORS (2)

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY

SENATORS (1)

SMEAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

SENATORS (6)

Representative on the Senate Council: John C. Spychalski

THE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW

SENATORS (2)

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

SENATORS (3)

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

RETIRED FACULTY SENATORS

SENATORS (2)

ROSTER OF EX OFFICIO AND APPOINTED SENATORS: 2003-2004

Ex Officio Senators: (7)

Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University
Janis E. Jacobs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs
David H. Monk, Chair, Academic Leadership Council
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: (17)

Cheryl L. Achterberg
P. Richard Althouse
Patricia A. Book
William G. Cale, Jr.
Arthur W. Carter
Jeremy Cohen
Diane M. Disney
Madlyn L. Hanes
John T. Harwood
W. Terrell Jones
Stephen J. MacCarthy
John J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Robert Secor
Craig D. Weidemann
Billie S. Willits
Vice President of Student Affairs

ROSTER OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS: 2003-2004

SENATORS (2)

ROSTER OF GRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS: 2003-2004

3-10-03

Appendix I

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary - 2001-02

(Informational)

TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 73 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 2001-02 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended 72 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 71 cases. Twenty-two of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor for 63 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 61 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 61 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of senior scientist or librarian.

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor and senior research associate for 71 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 70 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 71 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of associate librarian.

TRACKING COHORTS ENTERING THE TENURE-TRACK THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: COHORTS ENTERING FROM 1990 THROUGH 1995

Preceding the tenure and promotion charts for 2001-2002 is a chart presenting a six-year composite for faculty entering the tenure ranks from 1990 through 1995. It shows how many of each cohort remained and were tenured by their eighth year at Penn State. The charts show that, on the average, 55% of the entering group as a whole ended up receiving tenure. That does not mean that 55% of the group being considered for tenure in their decision year received tenure; it means that for our six most recent cohorts, 55% of all faculty who began with us in provisional status remained with us and were granted tenure at the end of seven years or earlier. The average percentage for women faculty members over that period was 47% (but 57% for the most recent cohort), and for minorities, 59% (but 67% for the most recent cohort). These data describe what has happened in terms of promotion and tenure; the data do not explain why individual decisions were made or why differences exist in the promotion and tenure profiles of various demographic groups.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Judd B. Arnold
Kultegin Aydin
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Clay Calvert
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Debora Cheney
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Dwight Davis
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Amir Khalilollahi
Sallie M. McCorkle, Vice-Chair
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner, Chair
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

*** NOTE*** USE OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE IS NOT MANDATED IN PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR. IT WAS NOT USED IN 55 OF THE SECOND YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 28 OF THE FOURTH YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 1 OF THE FIFTH YEAR REVIEWS.

***NOTE *** PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN EARLY TENURE IS BEING RECOMMENDED.

*** NOTE *** USE OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE IS NOT MANDATED IN PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR. IT WAS NOT USED IN 55 OF THE SECOND YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 28 OF THE FOURTH YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 1 OF THE FIFTH YEAR REVIEWS.

*** NOTE *** PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN EARLY TENURE IS BEING RECOMMENDED.