Penn State University Home  






The University Faculty Senate




Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 1:30 PM in

112 Kern Graduate Building


[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled.  This may be done after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.  You may also leave a message at that time.]



      Minutes of the February 27, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:5


B.     COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)

      of March 13, 2001                                      

      Senate Calendar for 2001-2002                   

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 13, 2001                                         



      Senate Council

            Resolutions on Free Speech                                                                                          









Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid


      Revision of Appendix C:  Policies and Rules for Students

      Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement                                                               


Faculty Benefits


      Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate

      on Faculty Salaries                                                                                                       




Faculty Affairs


      Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance

      and Royalty Payments                                                                                                  


            Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and

            Tenure Procedures and Regulations                                                                               


      Faculty Benefits


            Adoption Benefits                                                                                                         


        Student Life


            Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures                                                                




        Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002


            Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

            Standing Joint Committee on Tenure                                                                              

            University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee                                                                                         

        Curricular Affairs


            Status of Re-certification Process for General Education                                                


        Elections Commission


            Roster of Senators for 2001-2002                                                                                  


        Faculty Affairs


            Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000                                                              


        Faculty Benefits


            Penn State Travel Program                                                                                           


        Intercollegiate Athletics


            Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships

            for 2000-2001                                                                                                                           


        Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits


            Annual Report – 1999-2000                                                                                          




            Graduate School Update – Annual Report, Eva Pell, Vice President of

            Research/Dean of the Graduate School                                                                         


        Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002


            Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary 

                                    - Faculty Advisory Committee to the President                                       


        Senate Council

            Commission for Women - 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State                             




L.  COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY - April 24, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.



The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA

(814) 863-1202 – phone -- (814) 865-5789 – fax


Date: March 16, 2001

To: Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated March 13, 2001, has been circulated throughout the University.  Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID, on or before April 12, 2001.  

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web.  It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL  Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies are not distributed to the University community.  An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication.  Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.


The University Faculty Senate Calendar


Reports Due Senate Council Senate
August 7, 2001 August 21, 2001 September 11, 2001
September 18, 2001 October 2, 2001 October 23, 2001
October 30, 2001 November 13, 2001 December 4, 2001
December 11, 2001 January 15, 2002 January 29, 2002
February 1, 2002 February 12, 2002 February 26, 2002
March 1, 2002 March 12, 2002 March 26, 2002
March 29, 2002 April 9, 2002 April 23, 2002








Resolutions on Free Speech


Resolved, The University Faculty Senate affirms the action taken by Senate Council in accordance with the Senate Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(h) in unanimously approving the two resolutions given below.


Whereas, The essential purpose of a university is the pursuit of knowledge, and knowledge can only be discovered through the intellectual process of critically examining the merits of the full range of alternatives competing in a free marketplace of ideas; and

Whereas, The fundamental principle of free speech carries with it the responsibility to use good judgment in its exercise; and

Whereas, To undermine this core principle of freedom of speech not only threatens the very being of a university but also that of a free and open society;

Resolved, That Senate Council, on behalf of the Faculty of The Pennsylvania State University, reaffirms its commitment to freedom of speech, the foundation upon which academic inquiry rests; and

Resolved, That the University must continue to stand squarely against repression of constitutionally-protected speech; and

Resolved, That education is an important antidote for speech that some might consider offensive, intolerant or uncivil; therefore, all members of the University community should learn to responsibly exercise their constitutional right to free speech.


Resolved, That President Graham Spanier be commended for his recent articulate and reasoned defense of free speech.


John W. Bagby

Connie D. Baggett

Alison Carr-Chellman

Wayne R. Curtis

W. Travis DeCastro

Peter Deines

Gordon F. De Jong

Caroline D. Eckhardt

Rodney A. Erickson

Dennis S. Gouran

Peter C. Jurs

W. Larry Kenney

Alphonse E. Leure-duPree

Salvatore A. Marsico

Ronald L. McCarty

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

P. Peter Rebane

Irwin Richman

Andrew B. Romberger

Alan W. Scaroni

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair

Loanne L. Snavely

Brian B. Tormey

Tramble T. Turner


(Revision of Appendix C:Policies and Rules for Students.

Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement)


Implementation Date:Upon Passage


In 1996, effective for students graduating from secondary school, May, 2001 forward, the Senate passed legislation requiring the completion of two “Carnegie units” of foreign language instruction or the equivalent in mastery by non credit course completion or experience as an admission requirement to any baccalaureate program in the University. 

Students who did not meet this requirement at admission are permitted by the legislation to correct this deficiency during the first two years of their tenure at PSU.  One way to meet this requirement is through successful completion of a “001” level language course.

The legislation stipulated that where the “001” level course is taken to meet this deficiency, the course would not count toward the completion of program, degree or graduation requirements.

We propose that the “001” course be counted toward degree completion and graduation as baccalaureate credits.


An important goal of the requirement was to send a “strong signal to high schools and prospective Penn State students about the importance of foreign/second language study.   Based on data from the admissions office this signal has been sent and received.  The number of students offered admission to the University that have met the (not yet instituted) foreign/second language requirement has increased dramatically.  Only 1.6% of students offered admission for Fall, 2001 have not fulfilled the requirement. 

Unlike courses which are remedial and do not count toward the degree program, the “001” foreign language courses are college courses, populated by students who are taking the course for credit, to complete degree requirements or starting a second or third foreign language.  We believe it is unfair to count the course for some and not others.

The second rationale of the policy was “that students who have studied a foreign language are likely to have a greater appreciation for language itself, their own as well as other languages.”  It also was to bolster the general education goal of promoting greater understanding of other cultures.

It is the position of the committee that this change in the way in which the requirement is met does not undermine the original goal of the policy.


We propose to change Appendix C to read: (Note that the only change is in #4.)

The applicant must have had at least two units (secondary school Carnegie units) of a single foreign/second language at the high school level.  If a student does not meet this requirement, but otherwise would have been offered admission to the University, the student shall be admitted to degree status with a deficiency in foreign/second language, but must remove this deficiency as indicated below.

  1. This requirement shall apply only to students whose date of graduation from high school is May 2001 or later.

  2. If the requirement is not met, but the applicant is otherwise admissible, then the applicant may be admitted as a degree student but the foreign/second language entrance deficiency must be removed within two years of the student’s matriculation into a Penn State baccalaureate program or the date of the student’s graduation, whichever comes first. 
  3. The admission requirement may be met by a combination of secondary and pre secondary foreign language study, provided that the student has completed the level of the second year of a secondary school foreign language study; i.e., the goal is not two years of foreign language study in high school, but that the student have reached that level of study.  The requirement shall not apply to students who can demonstrate a fluency in a foreign/second language.
  4. Meeting the foreign/second language requirement:

The requirement may be met by taking one three or four-credit course in a foreign/second language at the college level either at Penn State or another accredited institution.  Credits taken to meet the foreign/second language admission requirement cannot shall be counted as baccalaureate credits, although they shall be counted as part of a student’s academic course load.

Strikethrough represents text to be eliminated.Italics, added.


Kevin R. Cheesebrough

JoAnn Chirico, Chair

Lynn E. Drafall

Peter D. Georgopulos, V-Chair

Anna Griswold

Geoffrey J. Harford

Terry P. Harrison

Amanda Hudnall

Victor Nistor

P. Peter Rebane

John J. Romano

J. James Wager

Roger P. Ware


Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries



The Senate has been receiving reports on faculty salaries for nearly twenty years.  These reports varied in format, detail, sophistication, and in focus.  Because of this diversity and because of the investment made by the Senate in formulating them (and the investment of Senate members in reading them), it was timely to assess these reports.  Accordingly, a Faculty Benefits/University Planning Joint Subcommittee examined reports of faculty salaries that have been presented to the Senate and to note the special salary-related concerns that have been addressed in some of these reports.  As stated in Senate legislation passed at the session of September 10, 1996, its charge, in part, was to,

After the joint subcommittee [1] wrote a preliminary set of recommendations, its charge was assumed by the Faculty Benefits Committee and its Salary Subcommittee in Fall, 2000. 


This report recommends formats for annual presentations to the University Faculty Senate on faculty salaries. We recommend continuation of biennial reports that focus on internal (within Penn State) salary levels and we recommend alternating these reports with biennial reports that focus on external comparisons (salaries at Penn State relative to salaries at peer institutions).  

Our rationale for recommending continuation of both types of reports is that throughout their careers faculty members are engaged in two distinct “labor markets” for their professional services.  In the external market salary is used as a vehicle that influences movement of faculty among employers, e.g., for recruitment and retention.  Penn State competes in this market with its peer institutions. The internal market uses salaries to motivate and reward faculty productivity within the University.  In the internal market salary levels and salary adjustments play an important role in providing incentives (or disincentives) to influence innovation and productivity within one’s college and within the University. 

It seems that relatively more attention has been given by our faculty and by administrators to the role of salary in the external market as means for recruitment and retention. The fact is, however, that relatively few faculty members are actively engaged in the external market.  We hope that the recommendations in this report will encourage us to examine both markets with equal interest.

Our objective is to encourage and facilitate analysis of external and internal faculty markets.  To advance this objective we make recommendations for continuing the use of some time-honored and helpful tools for analyzing faculty salaries and we recommend some new analytical tools.  

Salary is only one component of a compensation package.

Other components are non-salary (“fringe”) benefits, research resources, collegial environment, teaching load, location, and other factors.  We recognize that faculty members make both internal and external comparisons with their peers and that salary information may shape decisions of both "buyers" (deans, department heads) and "sellers" (faculty members) of faculty services in both markets.  Therefore, we believe that reports of salary data constitute a valuable service of the Senate for Penn State’s faculty and administration.


The first significant report to use statistical analysis was given in the mid-1980s and this report examined salary differentials by gender.  In 1988, the Salary Issues Subcommittee of the Senate’s Faculty Affairs Committee issued an extensive report of salaries by college and rank and used statistical analysis to relate salary to college, rank, length of service, time in rank, gender, degrees held, tenure status, campus, and graduate faculty membership. [2]   It was the first study to focus on salary differences among locations.  A modified version of this type of report was given in 1990. 

The By-laws and Standing Rules of the Senate were extensively revised in 1993.  The first compared Penn State salaries to peer universities and also displayed differences between Penn State salaries and salaries of other institutions in the Commonwealth.  The second report concerned salary adjustments (or “raises”) given that year. The Faculty Benefits Committee established the pattern of delivering to the Senate alternate biennial internal and external salary reports.



Salary averages (mean and median), by college and by rank, and differences among Penn State colleges [4] [5]

  • Convergence or compression of salaries, focusing on differentials between new PSU faculty and faculty with several years of PSU service (or “job tenure”)
  • Salary differences by gender
  • Salary differences by campus location
  • Impact of other specific individual characteristics on salary such as time in rank, academic discipline, tenure status, years of professional experience, etc.



  • Average salaries (mean and median) of full-time appointments of faculty in peer institutions, by rank (from AAUDE membership), excluding faculty with administrative appointments
  • Rankings of peer institutions by salary, including branch campuses
  • Salary increments over time at PSU relative to salary growth at peer institutions Salaries among higher education institutions in Pennsylvania

After an assessment of past salary analyses the Subcommittee on Faculty Salaries of the Senate Faculty Benefits Committee presents these recommendations for future salary reports to the Senate.


RECOMMENDATION 1: External comparisons of faculty salaries among peer institutions should be made and presented to the University Faculty Senate biennially.Internal salary data for each Penn State College should be presented to the Senate in alternate years.

External salary reports should be presented to the Senate that show salary statistics by peer institutions and these reports might include rankings of Penn State or of Penn State academic units and of others in its respective cohort.  Nationwide, academic salary structure changes slowly over time.  Past Senate reports demonstrate that the relative position of Penn State in rankings of peer institutions has been relatively constant.But we need to be aware of Penn State’s relative position and to look for changes in this position.

Internal faculty salary reports should be presented to the Senate that show statistics by academic unit by rank disaggregation by location should be made where there is a sufficient number of faculty to permit release of data under disclosure guidelines. [6] Among Penn State’s academic units relative salaries do not change significantly from one year to the other.  Annual monitoring is not warranted, both with respect to the cost of data collection and the time of the Senate.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Internal faculty salary reports should include data for University Libraries and for each degree-granting unit within the Pennsylvania State University, including Dickinson School of Law, the College of Medicine, and the School of Information Sciences and Technology, but excluding Penn College of Technology.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Internal (intra-University) faculty salary reports should show numerical data that includes arithmetic mean salaries and some measure of variation within each group.  

should be measured by the standard deviation about the mean; however, the presentation might provide a simple statistic called the coefficient of variation, which is the average salary divided by the standard deviation and expressed as a percentage.  The coefficient of variation is a percentage, so it is easily understood.   If salaries in academic unit A that have a coefficient of variation that is two times as large as the coefficient of variation in unit B, it would clearly show that salaries in unit A are twice as variable (are less equal) than are salaries in unit B.

RECOMMENDATION 4: External and internal faculty salary reports should include mean growth rates of salaries over the same five year period for each academic unit or institution in a cohort.

The previous recommendation calls for a comparative static analysis of salaries at one point in time.  Another indicator of faculty reward is progression in compensation.  An external cohort member may have a lower current mean salary than does its corresponding PSU unit, but that differential may be temporary if its salaries are growing at a higher rate; if the growth rate is somewhat higher than that at PSU, mean salaries could catch up quickly.  The same is true of differences among Penn State’s academic units.

These data could be the compounded rate of growth over five years expressed as the average annual rate of increase.  For example, a college whose average salary has grown 16% over the past five years has had an average annual rate of growth of 3%; the salary report would show this 3% as the average annual increase over 5 years. [7]    We recommend a five-year time horizon because temporary budgetary factors make one-year growth measures misleading.  For example, a university may implement a high percentage increase in faculty salaries in one year only because it needs to compensate for several prior years of inadequate raises.  Similarly, a university may have a low growth rate for a period of one year due to temporary budget problems, but its long-term record may be enviable. 

Growth rates reveal the dynamics of faculty rewards.  An institution that displays a record of rapidly improving the rewards it pays to its faculty may be more attractive in the marketplace than a school with lethargic salary growth, even if its current salary level is high.  For most faculty members, switching employers is a long-term investment.  For these academics long-term earnings potential is most important.

In recent years, salary differentials by rank seems to have gotten smaller, which is sometimes an indicator of “salary compression” by rank, i.e., the average salaries of senior-ranking faculty is only moderately higher than, or equal to, the average salary of junior faculty.  There may be a salary inversion in which average salaries of senior faculty are slightly lower than those of junior faculty.  Differences in the growth of salaries of junior and senior faculty will affect salary compression over time.  If the growth of salaries of senior faculty is higher than that of the growth of salaries of junior faculty, this inversion may be getting smaller, reducing salary compression.

At Penn State the Office of the President provides equal percentage increases in the salary budget for each college for continuing faculty.  But growth rates vary slightly among colleges of the University in any given year due to additions to permanent funds made by deans or due to changes in the number of faculty lines [8] .  The compound effect of these differences can be substantial over time, producing wider gaps in relative salaries among academic units. [9]  

Growth rates reveal the dynamics of faculty rewards for service and achievement. We recommend a five-year time horizon because temporary budgetary factors make one-year growth measures misleading.  For example, a university may implement a high percentage increase in faculty salaries in one year only because it needs to compensate for several prior years of inadequate raises.  Similarly, a university may have a low growth rate for a period of one year due to temporary budget problems, but its long-term record may be enviable.

Each year the University’s Board of Trustees provides for a specific percentage increase in the faculty salary pool (which was as low as 0% for at least one past year).  This percentage is applied equally to each college.  But some deans have the opportunity to augment this from other funding sources so that the percentage adjustments may not be the same for all colleges.  The President may also provide additional funding for salary increases.  For example, the Trustees and President may provide a salary adjustment budget of 4.0% and this is passed on to colleges.  But some deans may be able to increase this to 4.25% or 4.5% using permanent college monies; other deans will only use the 4.0% adjustment mandated by the University.  All of these funds must be used for salary adjustments.

Once the college has received its funding for the coming academic year the dean has discretion for making allocations to schools, divisions, and departments.  All of the funding may be passed on to departments directly so that each department head has the same percentage increment to allocate to individual faculty members.  Alternatively, a dean may hold back funds for special individual salary adjustments across departments.  If the dean’s fund is 4.25% (4% University funding plus ¼ percent college-level funding), using the figures from above, he/she might pass 4.0% on to all departments.  The remaining 0.25% could be used to adjust individual salaries on a case-by-case basis.  The result is that some departments, whose faculty benefited from the dean’s fund, will receive an over-all salary increase in excess of 4%. 

The dean could give unequal percentage allocations to departments.  For example, the 4% increment given to the dean by the University could be used to give 3.4% to one department, with the remaining funds used to give 5.1% to another.  (Departments are likely to have different numbers of faculty members, which would account for the fact that taking 0.6% from department A and giving this sum to department B results in an added increment of 1.1% for department B, which has fewer faculty.)

Over time small differences in salary increments among Penn State colleges could create wider or narrower salary differentials.  (See the discussion of growth rates in the previous section.)

Below is the suggested format for presenting internal salary data called for in Recommendations 3 and 4.

RECOMMENDATION 5:  Whenever possible, comparisons of salaries for external faculty salary reports should be discipline-related and be made among members of meaningful cohorts. 

We recommend supplementing university-wide rankings among a fixed cohort of CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which includes the eleven “Big Ten” schools), or rankings among the larger list of AAUDE (American Academic University Data Exchange) schools, with descriptive salary statistics that are discipline-based.  (The AAUDE includes about 40 schools, but our salary reports are made from a smaller number due to data availability [10] ). 

Past salary reports to the Senate have shown that rank and discipline account for a large amount of the differences among individual salaries.  Our principal reason for not relying exclusively on institution-wide mean salaries for external salary comparisons is that all faculty members do not participate in the same academic market.  The historian, for example, does not generally take academic positions in biology, language studies, engineering, etc. in the course of a career.  Skills are discipline-specific so that faculty members participate in individual faculty job markets with little drift among them.  This is one reason why university-wide average salary data, and rankings among universities, may not be useful for faculty in individual departments or colleges within Penn State.  Institution-wide peer group salaries are only useful for broad comparisons among universities.  Comparisons of individual Penn State salaries with average salaries in peer institutions may not be meaningful by themselves.  For example, knowing that Penn State’s university-wide mean salary exceeds that of University X does not mean that Penn State ranks above University X in salaries of life sciences faculty.

Another reason that university-wide averages may not be useful for individual department or college comparisons is that faculty compositions differ among institutions.  If University X, compared to Penn State, has a high proportion of its faculty in relatively high wage disciplines, such as business and engineering, it would be misleading to compare its university-wide mean salary with that of Penn State, which may have a small percentage of its faculty in these same disciplines. 


In addition to consideration of discipline, good judgment should be used in selecting specific discipline-related cohort members.  The cohort should correspond to the nature of the PSU college, or to the cohort that the Penn State college can realistically aspire to join within the near future.  One guideline might be to form a cohort consisting of schools among which recruiting occurs and among which there is an exchange of faculty in both directions. [18]    

Another consideration for identifying cohorts might be media ranking, such as the U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT rankings based on surveys of deans across the nation.  This list of institutions would be particularly relevant if the Penn State college is included in the ranking.

We recognize two specific problems in identifying the cohort.  First, some PSU colleges have a unique composition that makes it difficult to find a similar external institution.  For example, the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences includes disciplines in the physical and social sciences and this may be a unique structure.  In these cases selection of cohort members will be difficult.  That College might be innovative in composing hybrid peer schools by calculating weighted mean salaries from a collection of external colleges.

Second, PSU has five multi-discipline colleges that are classified as Class IIA, IIB, or III schools.  For example, Capital College (Penn State Harrisburg and Penn State Schuylkill) has schools of business administration, education and behavioral science, humanities, public affairs, and engineering technology (the latter includes mathematics, computer science, and basic physical sciences) and offers baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral degrees.  It should be possible to find a set of small universities or multi-discipline campuses (e.g., University of Houston-Clear Lake) to construct the cohort for that Penn State college.

We recognize that faculty members are part of internal and external markets that are related to their discipline.  Salary reports should focus on the Penn State academic unit’s faculty compensation relative to the salary of non-Penn State faculty in the same cohort.  This cohort should be discipline-specific and mission-specific.  The cohort consists of the specific Penn State unit and the external academic institution or institutions that are its peers. 

For purpose of salary comparisons, each college or other academic unit within Penn State should identify its own cohort of colleges or departments.  For example, the salaries in the Smeal College of Business Administration should be compared only with mean salaries of other schools of business with undergraduate and doctoral programs.  It may be more meaningful to compare Smeal salaries with those of other business administration units within Penn State (e.g., the Schools of Business Administration at Penn State Erie and Penn State Harrisburg), and with business administration units outside Penn State (e.g., Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University) than with non-business units within the University.

If possible, the external discipline-specific salary data from peer institutions should cover the same academic year as does the Penn State data. 

RECOMMENDATION 6:  Internal reports should provide comparisons of salaries by academic unit, by rank.  However, internal reports should also include comparable broad discipline-specific external salary data.

Internal reports will reveal any differences in average salaries among colleges in the University.  It follows from the rationale for RECOMMENDATION 4 that, if discipline helps to explain part of the differences among individual faculty salaries, some of the inter-college differences at Penn State may be discipline related.  A knowledge of typical market differences among disciplines might help us to understand salary differentials among Penn State colleges. 

We recommend that the internal report contain at least one table showing nation-wide average salaries by discipline among Penn State peer institutions.  This table would serve as a reference.  While many factors contribute to differences among institutions nationwide, this table would provide an approximate guide to market-related factors.  Readers could use it to examine salary differences among Penn State units.  For example, we could determine if the difference between average salaries in the College of Engineering and the Smeal College of Business Administration is similar to the average difference between engineering and business faculty salaries in the nation.

For multi-discipline (“campus”) colleges, the external data table should permit comparisons to be made with similar multi-disciplinary institutions outside Penn State.  

The placement of the external data table, in an appendix or addendum to the internal report, should underscore our intent that it serve as an approximate reference rather than as a focal point for examining those salary differences within the University that are shown by the tables for individual Penn State academic units. [19]        

Salary data for a specific academic unit should appear on its own page.  Furthermore, the placement of tables should not suggest groupings of academic units for purpose of comparison.  Units should be arranged alphabetically or by location.   

The external reference table in the internal salary reports should be based on discipline, whereas the tables in the external salary reports should be based on institutions.  

RECOMMENDATION 7: For internal faculty salary reports, statistics on faculty salaries should be individually reported by academic unit, disaggregated by academic rank.  For multi-location academic units, comparable statistics should be shown by rank and by location, subject to disclosure guidelines.  For the purpose of calculating statistics, salaries of individual faculty members’ ranks and/or locations can be combined to avoid excessive data suppressions in accordance with disclosure guidelines.  The priority order for aggregating faculty is [1] degree-granting academic unit (generally a college) or University Libraries, [2] rank, and [3] campus location.

An academic unit should avoid combining ranks for the purpose of reporting salary statistics if disclosure guidelines would require suppression of data for 2 or more ranks. [20]  

For each degree-granting academic, unit individual statistics on salaries should be disaggregated by rank and, if there are a sufficient number of observations, also by location.   Faculty members should be included in a unit on the basis of their principal location rather than tenure home.  For example, the salary of an associate professor of English at Abington College should be included in statistics of associate professors at Abington even if her/his tenure home is The College of The Liberal Arts. 

A multi-campus unit such as the Commonwealth College might report salary statistics for faculty members by combining locations if there are an insufficient number of faculty at some ranks at individual locations.  An academic unit may have more than one location combination.  For example, University Libraries might report individual statistics for each of four combinations: University Park, Central campuses, Eastern campuses, and Western campuses.  The campuses that are included in each grouping should be identified.   If there are a sufficient number of observations, a multi-discipline academic unit might report salary statistics by division or school.     

RECOMMENDATION 8: Numerical values should be accompanied by simple visual displays, such as the type of box plots used in the AY98/99 report to the Senate [21] .   Box plots are recommended, especially for internal salary reports.

See Figure 2.  The box plot quickly shows the mean of one unit relative to the mean of another (comparable) unit.  The box plot also graphically displays the salary range between the first and third quartiles, i.e., the salary range encompassing the middle 50% of all faculty members in the academic unit.  It may also include an indicator of “outliers”, which are extremely low or extremely high salaries in the unit.  The box plots provide quick information that is easily understood. 

Since grouping of academic units on a box plot is arbitrary, and placement of all academic units on one plot would result in crowding, we suggest that each unit have its own plot.  Below is a hypothetical box plot for an academic unit.


mean salary of $68,300

median salary of $68,900       

range covered by “middle” 50% of salaries: 25% of salaries in this unit are below $59,900 and 25% of salaries in this unit are above $74,000

For example, a report of salaries in the Smeal College should include, on the same page, information about salaries of Type I doctoral level business schools at other CIC “Big Ten” institutions.   The format of the report should be such as to encourage salary comparisons by discipline rather than among Penn State academic units.

            As with the external salary report, the identification of members of each discipline/mission specific cohort must be made carefully and with reason.  It is important that each unit identify the colleges or universities with which it is competitive for faculty.  For example, a particular PSU college may place itself in a small cohort that includes Harvard and Stanford Universities; this would be valid if there is a regular pattern of faculty transfers, in both directions, among these schools and the Penn State unit. (See the rationale for Recommendation 5.)

       Media rankings by discipline, such as those provided by U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT (which regularly survey deans across the nation), might be used by some academic units to identify cohort members.

            Units with unconventional faculty compositions will be more challenged to identify their cohorts.  For example, it may be difficult to identify benchmark colleges for the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, which has a unique composo-spacerun: yes">  In such cases it may be possible to construct a synthetic using department-level data.  Penn State has several multi-discipline colleges outside of University Park that might be compared with external independent colleges (e.g., Albright, Swarthmore) or with small regional universities.  Here care must be taken to avoid dissimilar compositions.  For example, if 80% of the faculty in a Penn State multi-disciplinary unit are in the liberal arts it would be inappropriate to compare their salaries with those of an external college wherein only 30% of the faculty are in the liberal arts.

            The statistical data should be reported by a Penn State college or other academic unit (school, campus, etc.) by academic rank within that unit.  If possible, external salary data should be disaggregated by rank. [22]

RECOMMENDATION 9: Each biennial internal report should have two parts.  The first part is the mandated report containing the unit-specific data described in the recommendations listed above.  The second part is a supplemental analysis of a particular type of salary comparison that has interest for the faculty.   However, a specific type of comparison should not be revisited more than once every six years, except under special circumstances where substantial changes can be expected over a short period.

             The focal point of a supplemental internal salary report might be salary differentials within Penn State due to gender, location, length of Penn State tenure, ethnic group, etc.

            Therefore, to implement this recommendation all biennial reports should have two sections: a regular (mandated) analysis andade, e.g., males and females.  In addition, the supplemental report might contain an appendix that provides the results of a simple statistical test of differences between (or among) means. [23]   The results of this comparison could have important policy implications.  (Significant unexplained differences among classes protected by civil rights law could have legal implications, as well, such as unexplained differences between mean salaries of males and females.)  Any statistical analyses should be accompanied by a carefully prepared verbal explanation.

            This recommendation states that a specific focal point not be visited more than once every 6 years.  That means that comparisons by gender, for example, not be made more than once every six years. Our rationale is that it may require that much time to correct undesirable differentials so that earlier follow-up analysis may not be warranted.

            Here are some focal studies of salary differentials that might be considered:

·                    Gender

·                    Campus location

·                    Ethnic affiliation

·                    Years in rank (salary compression over time)


RECOMMENDATION 10: In internal salary reports, statistics describing salaries of administrators with academic ranks should be reported separately for University Libraries and for each degree-granting academic unit.  For the purpose of reporting these salaries, administrators with faculty appointments should include department heads, school directors, assistant and associate deans/provosts, deans/provosts, and equivalent positions within these degree-granting units.  This category should not include administrators with University-wide offices who have responsibilities covering multiple colleges or similar units.

            High quality administration enhances faculty performance.  We recognize the need to attract, retain, motivate, and reward good academic leadership.  It is important to monitor compensation of administrators in the same manner that we monitor salaries of faculty who do not hold administrative appointments.  For the purpose of monitoring administrators’ salaries, salary statistics should be reported as a separate category.  These salaries should be reported on the same basis that is used for reporting faculty salaries for each rank.  See the categories in Figure 1, above.


            For twenty years the Faculty Senate has received salary reports in a variety of formats. The Faculty Benefits Committee identified a specific set of issues that such reports should address.  We recommend separate biennial salary reports: one comparing salaries of peer institutions (external) and the other comparing salaries, by academic unit and rank, for faculty in broad discipline groups (internal).  Past studies have shown that salary is closely related to both rank and discipline.   Therefore, we recommend consideration of rank, where possible, and we recommend inclusion of external discipline-based salary comparisons in both internal and external salary reports.  

            Our recommendations recognize that faculty offer their professional services in two markets, internal and external.  Past studies at Penn State seem to have overemphasized external market comparisons for the interests of recruitment and retention.  But most faculty members are only infrequently engaged in that external market during their careers.  Over the long run salary equity is important in both the external and internal markets.  Faculty members are continually involved in the internal market. In this internal market annual adjustments in salary serve to motivate and to direct faculty services on a short term, as well as on a long term, basis.   The Faculty Benefits Committee believes that an expanded, detailed internal report especially serves the interests of loyal faculty members with years of service to Penn State.  Reports to the Senate should cover both internal and external markets regularly.

FACULTY BENEFITS COMMITTEE                                        

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair                                                             

Edward W. Bittner                                                                            

Keith K. Burkhart                                                                             

Jacob De Rooy, Vice Chair                                                              

Richard C. Pees

Frank Provenzano                                                                             

Paula J. Romano                                                                               

Patience Simmonds                                                                           

Gerhard F. Strasser

Jose Ventura                                                                                     

Billie S. Willits                                                                                   



Edward W. Bittner

Jacob De Rooy, Chair

Patience Simmons




Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments


[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]



The following proposed policy acknowledges that faculty members are entitled to receive royalties on certain kinds of course materials regardless of where they are produced, and   recommends a revision to Administrative Policy AD-46, Policy Governing Copyright Clearance, to provide guidelines under which such royalties would be appropriate.

AD-46 was originally approved in August 1995, and has as its primary purpose a statement of the rights and responsibilities of faculty and staff under copyright law-- their obligation to obtain permissions from copyright holders, and the assistance provided by the Copyright Clearance Office (CCO) for obtaining permissions. Only one paragraph in AD-46 refers to payments to faculty, staff and departments for coursepack material. This paragraph provides that payments are not “allowable” regardless of whether CCO or a third party produces the coursepack.

In December 1999, the Provost’s Office was considering revisions to AD-46 that would permit royalty payments under certain conditions, and asked the University Faculty Senate for its review and advice regarding the proposed changes. Murry Nelson, then Senate Chair assigned authority in the matter to the Faculty Affairs Committee. Initial work on the revision was done by Kim Steiner and Denise Potosky, and has been continued by Clay Calvert with input from John Nichols, Kim Steiner, Mel Blumberg, and many others. The recommendations of the Faculty Affairs Committee follow below:


To implement the overarching goal of the proposed policy, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs makes the following two recommendations:  

Recommendation # 1

That the present Administrative Policy AD-46, Policy Governing Copyright Clearance, be revised with the changes shown below to allow faculty to receive royalty payments for course materials under guidelines proposed in ADxx.

Payments to faculty and staff or departments will not be allowable as part of the student’s cost for coursepack production, regardless of whether the coursepoack is produced by the CCO or a third party. ROYALTY PAYMENTS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED. SEE ADXX FOR GUIDELINES UNDER WHICH SUCH ROYALTIES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 

Recommendation # 2

That the proposed Administrative Policy, ADxx, Royalty Payments for Course Materials, be adopted.

Proposed Policy ADxx -- Royalty Payments for COURSE Materials


  • Purpose
  • Policy
  • Cross references




To establish that faculty may properly and appropriately receive reasonable royalty payments for certain original instructional materials used in Penn State courses, and to establish advisory guidelines to facilitate the proper and appropriate receipt of those royalty payments.




The overarching goal of this policy is to offer incentives for faculty to produce more, improved, and better quality instructional materials as intellectual products for the use and benefit of Penn State students and students elsewhere by allowing faculty to recover some of the costs of their work, and at the same time, to protect Penn State students from potential financial exploitation. This policy covers original instructional materials developed by faculty as intellectual products and printed and sold by Document Services, as well as by other publishing companies and copying services, and regardless of the tangible medium of expression on which they are fixed, printed, posted, displayed or distributed.


Faculty members may receive reasonable royalty payments on certain kinds of original instructional materials used in Penn State courses including, but not limited to, noncommissioned courseware modules. Faculty members seeking royalty payments on materials sold to Penn State students must obtain approval prior to receiving payment of such royalties in order to ensure that the payment of royalties is reasonable and justified in accordance with the guidelines set forth below, and that students are not financially exploited.


 A written request for royalty payments describing the original instructional materials in question, the course(s) in which the materials are to be used, and the estimated overall cost to students must be submitted either to the department/division head or a peer committee in accordance with unit practice. A written decision must be rendered within one month of the initial request. If the requested royalty payments have been denied, or a reduction from the initial request by the faculty member has been recommended, the written decision must include an explanation of the reasons why such royalty payments have been denied or a reduction recommended, together with a recommendation of what a reasonable royalty payment would be.


 Faculty members who dispute the department/division head or peer committee decision regarding reasonable royalties may seek a review by the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the University Faculty Senate in cooperation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.


In accordance with the general standards of professional ethics embodied in AD-47, faculty members also have an ethical obligation when they collect any royalty payments for any instructional materials to reveal those payments to all those affected, including but not limited to, the Penn State students in those courses.


Advisory Guidelines Regarding Peer Affirmation and Royalty Payments:


1. In applying and interpreting the advisory guidelines established here, the academic administrator or peer committee should apply them in light of the overarching goal of this policy set forth above.


2. In every course there is some essential core of information that the instructor has been paid to organize and deliver and that students have paid to receive.  Normally this essential core goes beyond course material prepared by others to include the faculty member’s own intellectual contributions, which may include printed or posted materials.  Therefore, a royalty payment is not automatically reasonable and justified for printed or posted material of the faculty member’s own creation.


3.  In light of Guideline No. 2, a royalty payment is not reasonable or justified for printed or posted materials that are customary to a faculty member's core contribution to the conduct of a course, including but not limited to a course syllabus, reading schedules, versions of lecture notes, packets of what would otherwise be “handouts” of illustrative material used in class, and collections of copied readings or other printed material authored or prepared by others that are merely assembled and organized by the faculty member for the convenience of students.


4. A reasonable royalty payment to the faculty member may be justified for printed or posted course materials if they represent a substantial intellectual product contribution by the faculty member and if they bring added value to a course as a supplement to the faculty member's core contribution. For instance, if the course could be taught using a commercially available text or manual in lieu of the printed materials prepared by the faculty member, or if those materials could plausibly be used as supporting material in a similar course at another institution, then those materials may reasonably be considered supplemental.


5. Faculty members are ethically obligated not to financially exploit students (see AD-47, Part II, "General Standards of Professional Ethics").  Procedures currently exist under HR-76 ("Faculty Rights and Responsibilities") and RA-10 ("Handling Inquiries/Investigations into Questions of Ethics in Research and in Other Scholarly Activities") to deal with alleged violations of this ethical standard. Faculty members should avoid conflicts of interest in making academic and/or financial decisions regarding students (see HR-91, "Conflict of Interest").


6. Royalty payments for textbooks and other books authored, co-authored, or edited by a faculty member are presumptively reasonable, and are excluded from this policy provided that: (a) their use is reasonably related to the purpose of the course for which they are assigned; (b) they have been published by an academic or commercial press in which the faculty member does not hold an ownership or vested interest; (c) they have been subject to a peer review process in their publication, and; (d) they have been produced for use beyond Penn State courses. Nevertheless, faculty members who author, co-author, or edit such publications and assign them to the courses they teach are encouraged to use the peer affirmation process described above to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.    


7. The appropriate academic administrator or peer committee, according to unit practice, is responsible for determining the reasonableness of the royalty amount.   In making this determination, the administrator or committee may, among other things, take into account factors such as standard royalty payments in academic publishing, royalties typically paid for reproduction permissions, and the percentage of the royalty payment in relation to the price for which the work is sold to students.  These factors are merely suggestions and are not intended to be exhaustive of other considerations determined to be relevant by the appropriate academic administrator or peer committee.




Related policies include:

  Governing Copyright Clearance

AD-47, General Standards of Professional Ethics

HR-76, Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

HR-90, Extra Compensation for Exempt Staff Employees

HR-91, Conflict of Interest

RA-10, Handling Inquiries/Investigations into Questions of Ethics in Research and in Other Scholarly Activities

RA-11, Patents and Copyrights (Intellectual Property)

FN-14, Use of University Tangible Assets, Equipment, Supplies and Services



Because AD-46 has as its primary focus copyright clearance, and because the issue of royalty payments is distinctively different from the obligation to obtain copyright clearance, the Faculty Affairs Committee agreed to recommend a separate policy governing royalty payments for course materials. The overarching goal of this new policy is to offer incentives to faculty to produce more and better quality instructional materials for use by students at Penn State and elsewhere by allowing faculty to recover some of the costs of their work, and at the same time to protect Penn State students from potential financial exploitation.


The proposed policy will not add significant costs. The intent of the policy is to conduct most activities at the Department/ College/Campus level. Therefore, no major additional expenses are foreseen. Appeals will be conducted in accordance with established procedures under HR-76.





Shelton S. Alexander                        

Syed Saad Andaleeb                         

Kultegin Aydin                                  

Ingrid Blood                                      

Clay Calvert                                      

Lynn A Carpenter                             

Renee D. Diehl                                 

James M. Donovan                                      

Jackie R Esposito                                         

Dorothy H. Evensen                                     

Veronique M. Foti                                        

Margaret B. Goldman                      

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Katherine C. Pearson

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffrey M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim C. Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V. Chair



Shelton S. Alexander

Kultegin Aydin

Melvin Blumberg, Chair

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

James M. Donovan

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky

Katherine C. Pearson




Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23:  Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations




[Implementation:  July 1, 2002 following approval by the President]




The Faculty Affairs Committee makes the following recommendation to include quality indicators in the assessment of faculty publications and creative activity.



The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends that a new section “D” be added under “II. Criteria Statements” of the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23, as shown below.  (The complete guidelines may be found at





A.  Role of the Academic Unit in Elaborating General Criteria

B.  Role of the Academic Unit in Specifying Evaluative Methods for the Three Criteria

C.  Special Guidelines for the Criterion of Teaching Ability and Effectiveness

D.  Special Guidelines for the Criterion of Research or Creative Accomplishment and Scholarship

DE.  Role of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University

EF.  Dissemination of Criteria Statements



The new section “II. D.” would read as follows:


D.  Special Guidelines for the Criterion of Research or Creative Accomplishment and Scholarship


Evaluation of research or creative accomplishment and scholarship is based in part on the candidate’s record of publication, exhibition, performance, and similar achievements.  The evaluation of accomplishments in this category shall emphasize their quality, although it is expected that this body of work will reflect sustained effort and productivity as may be indicated by quantity.  Indicators of quality may include journal acceptance rates or other evidence of journal quality; quality of press and reviews of book publications; frequency of citation of the candidate’s works or other evidence of impact; awards related to the accomplishment; or other indicators deemed appropriate by the candidate’s unit. 


In addition to a chronological presentation of the candidate’s record of research or creative accomplishment and scholarship, the department head or other appropriate administrator (as defined in these guidelines) shall identify a reasonable number of the candidate’s most significant works and obtain for the dossier documentation of their quality using indicators such as those listed above.  Review committees and administrative officers shall explicitly address the quality of the candidate’s scholarship in their written evaluations.  In doing so, they shall also consider evidence of quality contained in the assessments by external evaluators. 



To indicate the place for this new information, a new bullet will be placed on the rainbow divider for RESEARCH, CREATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND SCHOLARSHIP.  The bullet will be placed after those requiring listings for research and/or scholarly publications and for creative accomplishments.  It will translate the above recommendation as follows:  


Quality indicators for shortlist of candidate’s most significant achievements

in research and/or scholarly publications and creative accomplishments

(as appropriate)



The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs believes that the University's tenure and promotion process should emphasize quality in assessing faculty research and creative activity.  This is in keeping with the document issued in May 2000 by the Association of American Universities, in conjunction with the Association of Research Libraries, entitled “Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing.”  The AAU commended the document to AAU presidents and chancellors for discussion with faculties. Of the nine principles presented in the document, one (Principle 8) addressed the promotion and tenure process as a possible causal factor in the proliferation of publications:  “To assure quality and reduce proliferation of publications, the evaluation of faculty should place a greater emphasis on quality of publications and a reduced emphasis on quantity.” 


This proposal to emphasize quality in the Administrative Guidelines is eminently sensible and entirely consistent with the criterion for Research or Creative Accomplishment and Scholarship in HR-23, which explicitly and implicitly emphasizes quality of performance: 


competence, usually demonstrated through publication, exhibition, performance, or presentation of scholarly papers, to carry out research or creative work of high quality and scholarly significance and the ability to train students in research methods and practice; evidence of thorough understanding of the field; maintenance of high levels of academic performance; recognized reputation in the subject matter field; evidence of continued professional growth and active contribution to professional organizations. [HR-23, Section II]


Emphasis on quality of performance in research or creative accomplishment and scholarship in the preparation and evaluation of dossier is already widespread within the University.  Nevertheless, there still exists a common belief that promotion or tenure is (and perhaps should be) contingent upon a vague threshold number of nominally significant achievements such as publication in refereed journals.  Promotion and tenure evaluations of research or creative accomplishment and scholarship should, of course, be based upon a fuller understanding of the quality of a candidate’s performance than can be indicated by such superficial criteria.  This change to the Guidelines articulates that imperative. 




Shelton S. Alexander

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jacqueline R. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim C. Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair




Renee D. Diehl

Dorothy H. Evensen

Ravinder Koul

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim C. Steiner, Chair






This section contains: (Do not include material contained in other sections of the dossier.)


·                     Research and/or scholarly publications


Listed in standard bibliographic form with the earliest date first; citations should include beginning and ending page numbers or total number of pages, where appropriate; for multiple-authored works, the contribution of the candidate should be clearly indicated (e.g., principal author, supervised person who authored the work, etc.).  These publications should be listed as follows:


  1.       Articles published in refereed journals (include only articles in refereed journals in this section)

  2.       Books

  3.       Parts of books

  4.       Book reviews

  5.       Articles published in nonrefereed journals

  6.       Articles in in-house organs

  7.       Research reports to sponsor

  8.       Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance)

  9.       Manuscripts submitted for publication, with an indication of where submitted and when

10.       Manuscripts in progress

11.       Cooperative extension service bulletins and circulars


·                     Creative accomplishments


Exhibition, installation, production, or publication of original works of architecture, dance, design, electronic media, film, journalism, landscape architecture, literature, music, theatre, and visual art


Performance of original dance, literary, musical, visual arts, or theatrical works or works from traditional and contemporary repertories of the performing arts


Quality indicators for shortlist of candidate’s most significant achievements in research and/or scholarly publications and creative accomplishments (as appropriate)


·         Papers presented at technical and professional meetings (meeting and paper titles, listed chronologically in standard bibliographic form); indication about whether the candidate was the presenter<>


·         Description of outreach or other activities in which there was significant use of candidate’s expertise (consulting, speaking engagements, services to government agencies, professional and industrial association, educational institutions, etc.)


·        Funded projects, grants, commissions, and contracts (date, title, where submitted, amount):


  1.       Completed

  2.       In progress

  3.       Proposed

·   Other evidence of research or creative accomplishments as appropriate (patents, new product development, new art forms, citation index analysis, etc.)


·     Record of pursuit of advanced degrees and/or further academic studies


·     Record of membership in professional and learned societies


·    Description of new courses and/or programs developed


·    Description of new computer software programs developed


·    Description of new methods of teaching established courses and/or programs


·    List of honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity


·    List of grants and contracts for improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing and administering the grants and contracts




Adoption Benefits




[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]




The University provides coverage toward the costs incurred in childbirth, but does not offer financial assistance for adoption.  Adoption offers one way for faculty members and staff to develop families.  The costs associated with adoptions can be substantial and create financial hardship.  Paid parental leave is another important benefit for faculty and staff who adopt children.  Therefore, our Committee asked Human Resources to gather information on the possibility of an adoption benefit policy and review HRG18, Paid Parental Leave for Faculty.  Universities and other employers were surveyed about the existence and structure of an adoption benefit policy.




Physician and hospital fees reimbursed for childbirth, including parental care and delivery, are approximately $3,770 to $4,000 per child.  This financial benefit is substantial, but not available to faculty and staff members who adopt.


A survey of universities and hospitals found that some institutions provide adoptive leave.  Johns Hopkins and Notre Dame, in addition, provide monetary assistance for the employee.


Data does not exist as to exactly how many faculty or staff adopt children.  By using the experience at Johns Hopkins University, we estimate that approximately 22 employees per year would utilize an adoption benefit.  Therefore, if the University provides reimbursement, for incurred costs directly related to adoption, up to $4,000 per adopted child, the estimated costs to Penn State University for this benefit would be around $88,000.  (Since $4,000 is approximately the benefit provided for physician and hospital fees for childbirth, equity suggests up to this amount for adoption, which often costs more.)


HRG18, Paid Parental Leave for Faculty, defines the amount of paid time off for the birth of a child and the adoption of a child.  Following birth, six weeks is permitted for the faculty member.  Following adoption, the leave currently is based upon the age of the child.  If the child is school age, the leave is only two weeks, while if the child is less than school age the leave is six weeks.  Adopting school age children has different challenges for faculty members that require time to overcome.  Therefore, equity suggests six weeks paid parental leave be provided for childbirth and all adoptions regardless of the child’s age.  The societal benefits of adoption are potentially significant for our communities.




The Faculty Senate hereby recommends the addition by the University of an adoption assistance benefit for its faculty and staff members.  The adoption assistance benefit should provide reimbursement for incurred costs directly related to the adoption, up to $4,000 per adoption.  Paid parental leave for faculty who adopt children should uniformly be six weeks without regard to the child’s age.



Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair

Edward W. Bittner

Keith K. Burkhart

Jacob De Rooy, V-Chair

Frank J. Provenzano

Patience Simmonds

Jose A. Ventura

Billie S. Willits



K. Burkhart, Chair

B. Willits


Office of Human Resources





·  Purpose

·  Definition

·  Amount of Time Paid Off

·  Procedure

·  Cross References


To provide a guideline for paid parental leaves for full-time regular faculty following the birth of a child or the placement of a child for adoption with the faculty member. It is the intent of this guideline to provide consistency throughout the University community in granting paid parental leaves, without limiting any flexibility held by faculty and administrative heads.


Paid parental leave for faculty is defined as the period of time a faculty member is relieved of all responsibilities while receiving full salary.

A leave with salary does not mean that the faculty member will be required to carry more than a normal load before or after the leave. A faculty member must not be required to "make up" for a paid leave.



The total amount of time off (with and without salary) available to faculty is dependent upon a variety of factors and is outlined in the policies referenced below.

The intent of this guideline is to state the minimum amount of paid time off available to the faculty following the birth or adoption of a child in order to support the family needs of the faculty member. To retain as much flexibility as possible:

  • No maximum time limits are provided herein.
  • It is understood that a faculty member may wish to request a paid parental leave which is not as long as the minimum to which she or he is eligible.

For those faculty who accrue vacation time, personal holidays, or compensatory time off, such accrued paid time off is to be used as applicable rather than this guaranteed paid parental leave.

Leave Following The Birth of a Child: Upon request, a leave shall be granted following the birth of a child. During such leave, full salary shall be continued:

  • For at least two weeks within three months of the birth of the child by the faculty member's partner.
  • For at least six weeks immediately following the birth of the child by the faculty member. This guideline is to be used in arranging for a paid parental leave barring any unforeseen medical circumstances. This guideline does not address situations for which medical leave is required before the birth of a child if the woman faculty member cannot, for any medical reason, carry out her responsibilities, or situations that necessitate extended paid medical leave due to complications that may arise during or following the birth of a faculty member's child. Situations that require extended leave due to illness or disability are to be handled in the current collegial manner, by discussion and arrangement with the faculty member's administrative head.

Leave Following The Adoption of a Child: Upon request, a leave shall be granted following the placement of a child with the faculty member for adoption. During such leave, full salary shall be continued:

  • For a child of less-than-school age: for at least six weeks immediately following the placement of the child with the faculty member.
  • For a child who is school age: for at least two weeks immediately following the placement of the child with the faculty member.
  • If the adopting parents are both members of the faculty, they are eligible for a total combined paid parental leave of at least eight weeks for a less-than-school age child or at least two weeks for a school age child.


In order to make any needed administrative accommodations for a parental leave, a faculty member should make her or his request for parental leave as soon as the date of the anticipated birth or adoption is known. If a faculty member has any ideas about administrative accommodations for their parental leave, they should share them with their administrative head as soon as possible. In the event of an unknown adoption date, a faculty member should inform her or his administrative head of the possibility of needing to request a parental leave at short notice. Contingency plans can then be discussed.

Arrangements for parental leave are to be made between a faculty member and her or his administrative head and reported simultaneously to the Provost and to the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources. If the faculty member and the administrative head cannot reach a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the paid leave, the advice and guidance of the Provost should be sought to resolve any disagreements on the issue.

In the interest of departmental harmony and avoidance of hard feelings toward the faculty member on parental leave, care should be taken in the distribution of the workload among the remaining members of the unit. The administrative head of the unit involved should consult, as soon as possible, with members of the unit about coverage of duties during the period of leave. While parental leave for faculty is not identical to sabbatical leave, the manner in which coverage of duties is distributed can be drawn from sabbatical leave examples. Creative solutions may be called for in small departments or when a very specialized course needs to be taught.

A faculty member in the tenure provisional period may apply for a staying of the tenure provisional period as described in HR23, Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations. Such an application is not in any way connected to these paid parental leave guidelines.



Other policies should also be referenced, especially:

HR16 - Leave of Absence Without Salary

HR23 - Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations

HRG07 - Absence From Work Resulting From Pregnancy or Childbirth HRG11 - Family and Medical Leave

[Effective Date: Upon Approval by the President]


On July 10, five students were arrested for trespassing on university property while hanging a protebsp;

Publicity over the two events during the Fall Semester produced vocal criticism of Penn State's disciplinary procedures from some students.  Many of these criticisms were aired in an Associated Press news release that appeared in newspapers around the state on 18 September 2000.1  In the wake of this criticism, Student Life reviewed the Judicial Affairs process and, together with the USG Senate, collected comments on where it was perceived as faulty.  After consultation with the Office of Judicial Affairs and the USG Legal Affairs Office, the committee feels that the present system is sound in essence and saw no reason to criticize the process followed in the specific cases mentioned above.

Nevertheless, Student Life's investigation of the issues suggests that there is room for improvement in the way in which students at large are informed about their rights and responsibilities as members of the Penn State community.  In 1996, the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group (or "Secor Committee") thoroughly investigated Penn State's disciplinary process and made a number of recommendations.2  However, the recent controversy showed that, in spite of the Secor Committee's recommendations, students remain poorly informed in a number of important ways about their rights and responsibilities under the Penn State Code of Conduct. 


The Student Life Committee recommends the following steps to clarify disciplinary procedures at Penn State and to avoid future controversies:

1. The Penn State Code of Conduct should be more widely published in hard copy form and made easier to    locate in an electronic form. 
2. On matriculation, students should be asked to acknowledge that they have read and understand the standards of behavior stated in the Code of Conduct.
3. The jurisdiction of Judicial Affairs over actions committed off campus should be clarified and more widely published.
4. Students being charged at all locations should have access to the USG Legal Affairs Department for help in preparing their cases.
5. Students should continue to comment on the fairness of the Judicial Affairs process and the Judicial Affairs should use the results to oversee its handling of cases.  A statistical summary of these comments should be presented to the Student Life Committee annually.
6. Every five years, Student Affairs should conduct an external review of the Judicial Affairs process to guarantee that recommendations of past reviews are being implemented.


The Penn State Code of Conduct should be more widely published in hard copy form and made easier to    locate in an electronic form. 

Recommendation 5 of the Secor Report reads: "The code of conduct should be reviewed to make it simpler and more focused on expectations and standards of behavior, while clearly defining the consequences (i.e., sanctions) for code violations. . . . Briefer, more readable brochures that communicate the philosophy, value, and purposes of our codes of conduct need to be created. . . . Such material could also be made available electronically, on bulletin boards and on the Internet" (16).  Judicial Affairs moved to implement these recommendations in 1997-98, but the University's move away from hard copy publishing has complicated matters.

The Office of Judicial Affairs, in a formal statement of student rights, states, "The Pennsylvania State University has a clear standard of conduct to protect the rights of members of the University community."3 However, it is not easy for a student to locate a copy of this set of expectations.  Until last year, a copy of the Code of Conduct, together with an explanatory "Preamble," was published in hard copy by Student Affairs as part of the Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules.  More recently, however, this Code is no longer provided to incoming students in hard copy but is instead published only on the Penn State website.

It is, moreover, not easy to locate on this website. There is no direct or indirect link to the Code of Conduct from the Penn State University home page.  The University's own search engine turns up references to several unrelated codes of conduct before giving a link to the one that governs all students' behavior.  There is no mention of such a Code in the University Faculty Senate Policies for Students, nor in the Academic Administrative Policies and Procedures.

The Judicial Affairs home page does provide a link to the Code of Conduct.  However, the link leads to a .pdf file that requires the viewer to have previously obtained Adobe Acrobat Reader, a plug-in program that is free but which many students, especially freshmen, may not have.  Even with the plug-in, the document takes several minutes to download, and then the 52-page document must be searched for the relevant section.4  At best, then, the Code of Conduct is difficult for students to locate, and when servers or links are disabled it may be impossible to obtain.

As recommended by the 1996 Secor Committee, the Code of Conduct should be widely published, in both hard copy and in electronic form.  It should be presented to all incoming students at all locations, along with material intended to clarify the university's expectations of behavior and the consequences if these standards are not met. As the Code is a brief document that fits easily on two pages (see Appendix A) there may be many ways to include it in existing documents already distributed to students.5
On matriculation, students should be asked to acknowledge that they have read and understand the standards of behavior stated in the Code of Conduct.

With the Code difficult to access and difficult to understand, students charged with violations often feel that they are being charged under guidelines that they had never before been asked to read.  Too many students are unaware of the Penn State Code of Conduct or how it may affect their standing.  Legally, an "implicit contract" exists between students and the University because of their choice to matriculate here, so they are bound by this Code whether or not they are aware of it.  But such a contract creates a situation in which students reasonably feel entrapped by a system that they feel, as the Secor Committee noted in 1996, "is tilted against them" (19). 

Many problems could be avoided if a simple method could be devised to make this contract explicit at the time of a student's matriculation.  One suggestion is a web-based method, in which a page presenting the Code of Conduct would appear when students first log into their access accounts.  Students then would have to click a button indicating that they had seen and agreed to this code before proceeding.  Such a procedure would not be difficult to configure and has already received support from a number of UP administrators.

The policy governing jurisdiction of Judicial Affairs over actions committed off campus should be clarified and more widely published.

The Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules states: "While the University has a primary duty to supervise behavior on its premises, there may be circumstances where the off-campus behavior of students is of sufficient concern or has substantial adverse effect upon the University to warrant disciplinary action. Any act committed off-campus that constitutes a serious criminal offense or which indicates that the student presents a substantial and continuing danger to the safety or property of the University or members of the University community will likely result in the University taking action through its Judicial Affairs process."6

Nevertheless, the aftermath of the disciplinary hearings of students involved in last summer's Arts Festival riot indicates that students remain unclear about the jurisdiction of Judicial Affairs over incidents that occur off campus.  If the Student Guide is no longer to be given to students in hard copy, more care needs to be taken to put Penn State's policy on off-campus violations into students' hands as part of the freshman experience and make sure that they remain aware of this policy. This should be done through the same multiple channels of communication (FTCAP, orientation, FYS etc.) presently used by Judicial Affairs to publicize the Code.  In addition, the JA "Frequently Asked Questions" webpage, should include a statement clarifying this matter.

Students being charged at all locations should have access to the USG Legal Affairs Department for help in preparing their cases.

As part of their training, Hearing Board members are given a detailed set of guidelines on what evidence can be considered in a decision. At University Park, the USG Legal Affairs Department provides students with guidance in preparing their cases, and Judicial Affairs does ensure that students are aware of this service at the time that they are charged.  However, at locations other than University Park, such guidance may not always be provided, creating a situation in which students are not fully aware of how to prepare their cases. 

The Secor Committee cautioned that students "need to feel that they are adequately represented and measures need to be taken to assure them access to appropriate documents and information in advance of hearings, particularly when such information is made available to their accusers." (19).  Clearly, all Penn State students should have access to informed advice prior to a disciplinary hearing. Judicial Affairs has a standard procedure in place, in which two staff members help all students prepare for their hearings. In 1998, Judicial Affairs and the USG Legal Affairs Director considered a plan to train Legal Affairs staff at all locations, but this proved not to be feasible at this time.  However, as 4-year programs develop, these logistical problems may resolve, and so training should be offered to students at all locations who are interested in becoming in this program.  At minimum, students should always be provided the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of USG Legal Affairs representatives at the time that they are charged. 

Students should continue to comment on the fairness of the Judicial Affairs process and the Judicial Affairs should use the results to oversee its handling of cases.  A statistical summary of these comments should be presented to the Student Life Committee annually.

The standard training provided by Judicial Affairs provides proper ways to handle disciplinary cases impartially, and in any case the final decision is reached by an objective Hearing Board, not by Judicial Affairs itself.  Nevertheless, as the Secor Committee noted, students "need to be informed about how the judicial affairs system works and have as much access to support as the person bringing the charges" (19).  Currently, students undergoing disciplinary hearings are given an opportunity to evaluate the fairness of the process, but the results of these evaluations, including the side comments that students provide on their evaluation forms, should regularly be shared with Student Life to ensure that Judicial Affairs is continuing to review the impartiality of its procedures. 

Every five years, Student Affairs should conduct an external review of the Judicial Affairs process to guarantee that recommendations of past reviews are being implemented, and report the results to Student Life.

The Secor Committee's findings provided a number of beneficial suggestions, and the Judicial Affairs office has moved to make appropriate changes to implement them. Still, Student Life feels that many of the core issues need to be continually revisited.  In addition, changes in student atmosphere will continue to provide incentive to review and suggest constructive changes to make the disciplinary process fairer and more effective.  For this reason, Student Affairs should regularly review Judicial Affairs procedures to see what moves are being made to ensure continuous self-assessment and improvement.  Student Affairs will share the results of these reviews with the Student Life Committee.

1 E.g., "Penn State students challenge university's discipline methods," Hazleton Standard- Speaker (18 Sept. 2000): 2.

2 Report from the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group.  Penn State University.  12 June 1996.

3 Office of Judicial Affairs.  "My Rights & Responsibilities As A Student & PSU Community Member"  10 August 1998.

4 Student Affairs.  Student Guide to General Policies and Rules 2000-2001. 29 November 2000.

5 Some locations, for instance, continue to provide the Code in hard copy on an ad hoc basis.  Penn State Abington, for instance, includes the document in a planning calendar distributed free of charge to incoming freshmen.

6 Office of Judicial Affairs.  "Rights." Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules 2000-2001.  7 August 2000.

Appendix A: The Penn State University Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct describes possible behaviors which are inconsistent with the essential values of the University community. Intentionally attempting* or assisting in these behaviors may be considered as serious as engaging in the behavior. Many of the Code items are supported by more detailed University policy statements in the Student Guide to General University Policies** and Rules. Such behaviors include but are not limited to:

1. Physically harming or threatening to harm any person, intentionally or recklessly causing harm to any person, or reasonable apprehension of such harm or creating a condition that endangers the health and safety or self or others (also see Policy Statement 8).

2. Sexually assaulting or abusing a person (Policy AD 41).***

3. Harassing, stalking or hazing any person, including sexually harassing (Policy Statement 7).

4. Using, possessing or storing weapons or fireworks except as provided for in policy SY-12 (University Policy Manual).****

5. Tampering with fire or other safety equipment or setting unauthorized fires.

6. Illegally possessing, using, distributing, manufacturing, selling or being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs (Policy AD 18 & 33).*****

7. Intentionally providing false or inaccurate reports of emergencies or Code violations or knowingly providing false statements during a hearing, disciplinary conference or to University officials.

8. Stealing, vandalizing, damaging, destroying, or defacing University property or the property of others.

9. Obstruction or disruption of classes, research projects, or other activities or programs of the University; or obstructing access to University facilities, property, or programs (Policy Statement 1).

10. Failing to comply with or failing to complete a sanction, mediated agreement or educational program, jeopardizing code procedures or interfering with participants involved in the resolution process.

11. Failing to comply with reasonable directives to provide identification or to report to an administrative office or, when reasonable cause exists, failing to leave University-controlled premises when directed to do so by properly authorized persons, including police, other University staff, and security officers.

12. Making, using or possessing any falsified University document or record; altering or forging any University document or record, including identification, meal or access cards.

13. Unauthorized entry into or use of University property or facilities including residence halls, classrooms, offices, and other restricted facilities.

14. Engaging in disorderly, disruptive, lewd or indecent conduct. Inciting or participating in a riot or group disruption. Failing to leave the scene of a riot or group disruption when instructed by officials.

15. Violating written University policy or regulations contained in any official publications or administrative announcements, including University Computer policies (Policy AD-20 and Policy Statement 4).

16. Violating federal, state, or local law if such behavior has significant adverse affect on the University community.

17. Academic dishonesty, including, but not limited to, cheating and plagiarism. ( Faculty Senate Policy 49-20)

* A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific violation of the Code of Conduct, he/she performs any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that violation.

** See Policies and Rules for Student Organizations, pp. 1.

*** University Policy Manual, AD-41

**** University Policy Manual, SY-12

***** University Policy Manual, AD-18 & 33

Source: Student Affairs.  Student Guide to General Policies and Rules 2000-2001. 29 November 2000.

Appendix B: "Preamble" to the Code of Conduct

The Pennsylvania State University is dedicated to maintaining a scholarly community that promotes intellectual inquiry and encourages the expression of diverse views and opinions. When students accept admission to Penn State, they accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the academic and social environments of that community. Students are expected to support its essential values and to maintain a high standard of conduct that may exceed federal, state, or local requirements. These values include the following:

Personal and academic integrity;

· Respect for the dignity of all persons and a willingness to learn from the differences in people, ideas, and opinions;

· Concern for others and their feelings and their need for conditions that support an environment in which they can work, grow, and succeed at Penn State.

In order to foster these values, the Code of Conduct is based on the following principles:

1. The University has an obligation to exercise oversight in:

  • Matters that impinge upon academic achievement and integrity;
  • Conduct that breaches the peace, causes disorder, and substantially interferes with the rights of others;
  • Behavior that threatens the physical and mental health and safety of members of the University community;
  • Behavior that threatens its property, or the property of members of its community, through theft, damage, destruction, or misuse;
  • Behavior that is repugnant to or inconsistent with an educational climate.

2. The University has a commitment to enforce its contractual agreements.

3. The University has an obligation to support and be guided by the laws of the land. Violations of the Code of Conduct shall be responded to by appropriate University mechanisms established for, and in consultation with faculty, staff, and students. There shall be clearly defined channels and procedures for such responses. Sanctions shall be commensurate with the seriousness of the offense.

The Code of Conduct shall be made public in an appropriate manner and may be revised by the University in consultation with the faculty, staff, and students.

Source: Student Affairs.  Student Guide to General Policies and Rules 2000-2001. 29 November 2000.







STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON TENURE - (Three-year term, two [2] to be elected; 

                         one [1] member and one [1] alternate)


Lynn A. Carpenter, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, UP


Peter Deines, Professor of Geochemistry, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP


Robert M. Frieden, Professor of Communications, UP


Margaret B. Goldman, Associate Professor of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Hershey


James “Michael” Jarrett, Professor of English, Commonwealth College, York Campus



   [4] to be elected)


Melvin Blumberg, Professor of Management, Capital College, Harrisburg


C. William Heald, Professor of Dairy and Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, UP


Rod M. Heisey, Professor of Biology, Capital College, Schuylkill Campus


John A. Johnson, Professor of Psychology, College of the Liberal Arts, DuBois Campus


Robert L. Kump, Professor of Geosciences, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP


Donald B. Thompson, Professor of Food Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, UP


Vasundara Varadan, Distinguished Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics,

College of Engineering, UP


Kon-Well Wang, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, UP





FACULTY - UNIVERSITY PARK (Two [2] to be elected; one member and

                                             one alternate) Three-year terms



Sallie M. McCorkle, Associate Professor of Art and Women’s Studies,

College of Arts and Architecture


Joseph L. Rose, Paul Morrow Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics,

College of Engineering

John L. Selzer, Professor of English, College of the Liberal Arts


James B. Stewart, Professor of Labor Studies & Industrial Relations and

African and African American Studies, College of the Liberal Arts


FACULTY - OTHER THAN UNIVERSITY PARK (One [1] to be elected; one member) 

Three-year term


Omid Ansary, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Capital College, Harrisburg


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


DEANS - (Two [2] to be elected; one member and one alternate) Three-year terms


William G. Cale, Jr., Altoona College


Raymond T. Coward, College of Health and Human Development


Richard W. Durst, College of Arts and Architecture


David H. Monk, College of Education


COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES                              

Mark A. Casteel, V-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund




Status of Re-certification Process for General Education


(Informational Report)


The Senate Officers have requested a brief informational report on the status of the

re-certification process for General Education.  This informational report will summarize the college plans as submitted in February 1999 and show how well the colleges have succeeded in meeting their goals.  It will also summarize the approval and rejection of those courses submitted to the General Education Subcommittee since the beginning of the re-certification process.


The majority of the information for this report may be found on the University Faculty Senate web page at



Phyllis Adams

Alison Altman

R. Thomas Berner

Douglas K. Brown

Barton Browning

Garry Burkle

Robert Crane

Brian Curran

Jennifer Flinchbaugh

Gary J. Fosmire

George W. Franz

Louis Geschwindner, Chair

Sally Heffentreyer

J. Daniel Marshall, Vice Chair

Kathleen Mastrian

Robert Minard

Robert Novack

Judy Ozment Payne

Sheila E. Ridley

Howard Sachs

Richard J. Simons

Shelley Stoffels

James Thomas

Rodney Troester

Diane Zabel




Term Expires 2002

Rebane, P. Peter

Term Expires 2003

Stace, Stephen W.

Turner, Tramble T.

Term Expires 2004

Smith, James F.

Term Expires 2005

Ozment, Judy P.

Representative on the Senate Council:  Tramble T. Turner




Term Expires 2002

Barbato, Guy F.

Flores, Hector

Manbeck, Harvey B.

Saunders, Michael C.

Term Expires 2003

Baggett, Connie D.

Hock, Winand K.

Rogers, Gary W.

Steiner, Kim C.

Term Expires 2004

Adams, Phyllis F.

Hagen, Daniel R.

Smith, Stephen M.

Thomson, Joan S.

Term Expires 2005

Holcomb, E. Jay

Kephart, Kenneth B.

Ziegler, Gregory R.


Representative to the Senate Council:  Connie D. Baggett




Term Expires 2002

Su, Mila C.

Tormey, Brian B.

Term Expires 2003

Borzellino, Joseph E.

Stratton, Valerie N.

Term Expires 2004

Brown, Douglas K.

Term Expires 2005

Atkinson, Ann J.


Representative on the Senate Council:  Brian B. Tormey


Term Expires 2002

Kunze, Donald E.

Lindberg, Darla

Term Expires 2003

McCorkle, Sallie M.

McGregor, Annette K.

Term Expires 2004

Curran, Brian A.

Willis, Daniel E.

Term Expires 2005

Bolin, Paul E.

DeCastro, W. Travis


McCarty, Ronald L.

Power, Barbara L.

Simmonds, Patience

Term Expires 2003

Andaleeb, Syed S.

Term Expires 2004

Barney, Paul E., Jr.

Blasko, Dawn G.

Burchard, Charles L.

Troester, Rodney L.

Term Expires 2005

McCarney, Michelle H. Strager


Representative on the Senate Council:  Ronald L. McCarty






Term Expires 2002


Term Expires 2003

Gutgold, Nichola D.

Term Expires 2004


Term Expires 2005


Representative on the Senate Council:  Andrew B. Romberger




Term Expires 2002

Patterson, Henry O.

Term Expires 2003

Romberger, Andrew B.

Term Expires 2004

Ridley, Sheila

Term Expires 2005

Milakofsky, Louis


Representative on the Senate Council:  Andrew B. Romberger




Term Expires 2002

Harrison, Terry P.

Woolridge, J. Randall

Term Expires 2003

Bagby, John W.

Everett, Peter B.

Term Expires 2004

Novack, Robert A.

Sharp, Jeffery M.

Term Expires 2005

Thomchick, Evelyn A.


Representative to the Senate Council:  John W. Bagby




Term Expires 2002

De Rooy, Jacob

Term Expires 2003

Blumberg, Melvin

Richman, Irwin

Term Expires 2004

Ammon, Richard I.

Cecere, Joseph J.

Sachs, Howard G.

Term Expires 2005

Richards, Winston A.

Representative on the Senate Council:  Irwin Richman




Term Expires 2002

Urenko, John B.

Term Expires 2003

Cardamone, Michael J.

Lippert, John R.

Term Expires 2004


Term Expires 2005



Representative on the Senate Council:  Irwin Richman





Term Expires 2002

Nichols, John S.

Term Expires 2003


Term Expires 2004

Calvert, Clay

Term Expires 2005

Berner, R. Thomas

Representative on the Senate Council:  Loanne L. Snavely 



Term Expires 2002

Crane, Robert G.

Scaroni, Alan W.

Term Expires 2003

Engelder, Terry

Frank, William M.

Term Expires 2004

Deines, Peter

Green, David J.

Term Expires 2005

Bise, Christopher J.

Macdonald, Digby D.


Representative on the Senate Council:  Alan W. Scaroni



Term Expires 2002

Evensen, Dorothy H.

Nelson, Murry R.

Term Expires 2003

Hunt, Brandon B.

Myers, Jamie M.

Term Expires 2004

Marshall, J. Daniel

Watkins, Marley W.

Term Expires 2005

Chellman, Alison Carr-


Representative on the Senate Council:  Alison Carr-Chellman





Term Expires 2002

Borhan, Ali

Hayek, Sabih I.

Mayer, Jeffrey S.

Pangborn, Robert N.

Stoffels, Shelley M.

Ventura, Jose A.

Term Expires 2003

Aydin, Kultegin

Baratta, Anthony J.

Dong, Cheng

Hurson, Ali R.

Miller, Arthur C.

Pytel, Jean Landa

Varadan, Vasundara V.

Term Expires 2004

Carpenter, Lynn A.

Geschwindner, Louis F.

Pietrucha Martin

Sathianathan, Dhushyanthan

Term Expires 2005

Boothby, Thomas E.

Coraor, Lee D.            

Curtis, Wayne R.

Frecker, Mary I.

Pauley, Laura L.          

Tikalsky, Paul J.

Werner, Douglas H.


Representative on the Senate Council:  Wayne Curtis




Term Expires 2002

Caldwell, Linda L.

Frank, Thomas A.

Preston, Deborah

Sternad, Dagmar

Term Expires 2003

Kenney, W. Larry

Prosek, Robert A.

Smith, Carol A.

Term Expires 2004

Corwin, Rebecca L.

Hanley, Elizabeth A.

Slobounov, Semyon

Term Expires 2005

Burgess, Robert L.

Fosmire, Gary J.

Morin, Karen H.

Ricketts, Robert D.


Representative on the Senate Council: Robert L. Burgess





Term Expires 2002

Bord, Richard J.

Browning, Barton W.

Derickson, Alan V.

Eckhardt, Caroline D.

Wanner, Adrian J.

Term Expires 2003

Beaupied, Aida M.

Block, Alan A.

Foti, Veronique M.

Gouran, Dennis S.

Hewitt, Julia C.

Moore, John W.

Welch, Susan

Term Expires 2004

Atwater, Deborah F.

De Jong, Gordon F.

Harvey, Irene E.

Weiss, Beno

Term Expires 2005

Bernhard, Michael H.

Brasfield, James E.

Carlson, Richard A.

Evans, Christine Clark

Johnson, Karen E.

Tachibana, Reiko

Representative on the Senate Council: Denn