Penn State University Home  










The University Faculty Senate




Tuesday, October 24, 2000, 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 September 12, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:1


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

                                                                        of October 10, 2000                                          

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of October 3, 2000                                         












        Committees and Rules


            Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l)                                                          


        Intercollegiate Athletics


            Fan Behavior                                                                                                               






      Faculty Benefits


            Benefits 2001                                                                                                               




            Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically



      University Planning


            Budget Presentation for 2001-2002, Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice                             









Note:  The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday,

           December 5, 2000, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.



The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA  16802

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


Date:   October 6, 2000


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


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



            The Senate Curriculum Report, dated October 10, 2000, 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 November 9, 2000.


            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.



REMINDER:  All General Education courses and Diversity Focused courses (which are changing to meet the requirements of Intercultural and International Competence) must be reviewed for the new general education guidelines by the end of the Fall Semester 2003.  The general education designations and the diversity designation will be removed from courses that have not been re-ce=MsoNormal> 



Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l)




(Implementation: Upon Passage by the Senate)





The President of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) has petitioned the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules to include the President of the USG Senate as a voting member on the Senate Committee on Student Life. Currently, the committee includes one undergraduate student by virtue of his/her office and the vice president of USG's academic assembly.  USG is suggesting that the Vice President of Academic Assembly remain on the Student Life Committee and that the President of the USG Senate be added.  The number of students on the committee will be increased by one and the representation would change slightly.



(l) Committee on Student Life

      1. Membership

            (i) At least six (6) elected faculty Senators

            (ii) Two (2) graduate students, at least one a Senator

            (iii) Two (2) undergraduate students, at least one a Senator (of which one

                   shall be the Vice President of Academic Assembly)

            (iv) The Vice President for Student Affairs*

* nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies




(l) Committee on Student Life

      1. Membership

            (i) At least six (6) elected faculty Senators

            (ii) Two (2) graduate students, at least one a Senator







            (VI) The Vice President for Student Affairs*

*nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies




The USG Academic Assembly represents students on all academic matters, while the USG Senate is responsible for representing the student body on student life issues.  Just as the President and Vice President of Academic Assembly hold seats on University Faculty Senate committees to represent the voice of students on academic issues, the USG Senate President should likewise have the opportunity to represent the voice of the student body on student life issues.  Due to the nature of the USG Senate and the issues it deals with, the ideal University Faculty Senate committee in which to place the USG Senate President would be the Committee on Student Life.  The Academic Assembly Vice President should retain a seat on the Committee on Student Life as well, as the committee handles issues dealing with the intersection of academic and student life concerns.  As it is possible that neither of these students would be a member of the Faculty Senate, the committee should retain one undergraduate student Senator, to represent the voice of the student body and the Committee on Student Life on the floor of the University Faculty Senate.  Since both the USG Senate President and the Academic Assembly Vice President will be from University Park, it is proposed that the one undergraduate University Faculty Senate student Senator be from a location other than University Park.


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


Fan Behavior



At its meeting on September 12, 2000, the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics passed the following motion:


We accept the proposal (attached) of Professor Scott Kretchmar that seeks permission to use the name of the ‘University Faculty Senate’ as part of a series of announcements that might be made at selected Penn State sports functions.  


As you can conclude from the attached proposal and discussion, the occurrence of ‘negative cheering’ and ‘booing’ the opposing team seems to be growing.  Professor Kretchmar would like to discourage this in several ways, one of which is through a series of public address announcements. 


The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee seeks the approval of the Senate so that the ‘Faculty Senate’ endorsement can be used to invite what we deem to be more welcoming and appropriate behavior.


William W. Asbury

Ann J. Atkinson

Alan A. Block

Robert L. Burgess

John J. Cahir

Linda L. Caldwell

David P. Christy, Chair

Timothy M. Curley

Laurence M. Demers

James T. Elder

Diana L. Kenepp

Marcus A. Fedeli

R. Scott Kretchmar

Douglas McCullough

Ellen L. Perry

Martin T. Pietrucha

Robert A. Prosek

John J. Romano

Thomas C. Vary, V-Chair

Jerry Wright


Fan Behavior

Penn State Football


A Talking Points Proposal

Scott Kretchmar

Dept. of Kinesiology

NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative


Introduction:  Given the outstanding reputation of Penn State athletics and a long tradition of treating opposing teams and fans with respect, I find it strange to hear the loud chorus of “boos” coming from all quarters of the stadium when the visiting team first takes the field.  It is also odd during the game to hear such tasteless cheers as “bullshit” when fans do not like an official’s call.  It is even more unfortunate to see such “commentaries” being orchestrated by our head cheerleader.


 Need:  To effect at least modest improvements in these areas of fan behavior




1.      Work with the head cheerleader and cheerleading squad on agreements related to improving fan behavior, particularly cheering in the student section.


--reduce or eliminate negative cheering

--reduce or eliminate tasteless cheers

--increase positive cheering

--increase sense of responsibility for opponents (e.g., cheering when injured

player leaves field; acknowledging outstanding plays by both teams)


2.      Work with football coaches and players to support the four points listed above.


3.      Work with the Student Government, Faculty Senate, and Department of Intercollegiate Athletics to get an endorsement for this sportsmanship effort. 


--read a statement (endorsed by all three groups) shortly before the opposing team steps on the field at each home game.  (see samples of such statements attached)


1.      Relatively noninvasive   (short statements, modest changes by cheerleaders)

2.      Morally appropriate  (all three organizations should be able to endorse)

3.      Consistent with PSU goals as an institution 

4.      Pro-active, could have ripple affect across Big-10

5.      Timely (ethics in big-time sport now under scrutiny)

6.      Appeals to persons’ positive instincts, not “preachy” or moralistic

7.      Easier to do at start of season before patterns develop


1.      Could backfire.  Some fans, for example, could react by booing more loudly. 

2.      Puts head cheerleader in a difficult position

3.      May be “too much” ethics on top of the NCAA statement that is read before each game

4.      May have no effect; will be wasted effort

5.      May not address a serious problem (Compared to other Big-10 schools, our behavior already could be exemplary.)

6.      (corollary to #5) Perhaps effort should be directed to more serious problems.




1.      Possible implementation on a trial basis for the current football season (fall, 2000)

2.      Feasibility:  Can endorsements from Faculty Senate, Student Government, and Intercollegiate Athletics be gained by that time? 

3.      Feasibility:  Can collaboration/discussion with football and the cheerleaders be accomplished on such a short timeline? 

4.      Feasibility:  Procedure for getting approvals for text of statements. 



Index (Sample statements to be read over the public address system moments before opposing team steps on field.  Only one statement would be read at each game.  The content is varied to provide a slightly different message each time.)


Intent of statements:  be short, positive, not moralistic in tone, offer a clear message, request specific behavior.


1.      The Penn State Faculty Senate, Student Government, and Department of Athletics remind all Penn State fans that a good contest requires a worthy opponent.  Please welcome _______________ when they step onto the field today.  Acknowledge excellent plays for both teams, and then root Penn State on to victory. 


2.      The Penn State Faculty Senate, Student Government, and Department of Athletics remind all fans that Penn State enjoys the home field advantage today.  But this should not involve any show of disrespect for our opponents.  When ____________ step onto the field, give them a supportive welcome.  Then provide a positive home field advantage by rooting loudly for Penn State on its way to victory.


3.      The Penn State Faculty Senate, Student Government, and Department of Athletics remind fans that being Penn State proud involves being courteous hosts.  When ______________ steps onto the field in a moment, please welcome them to Happy Valley.  Then root Penn State on to victory.



Benefits 2001





The following informational report is based on input from various sources including faculty, staff, insurance carriers, the Office of Human Resources and the Task Force on the Future of Benefits Report.  It is intended to briefly discuss the current and future issues impacting health care coverage, speak to the 2001 plans and highlight the on-line enrollment opportunity for 2001.




·        The health care provider community (physicians/hospitals/clinics, et. al.) is in a state of flux;


·        Employers, generally, are eliminating coverages, modifying plan designs by decreasing coverages, and shifting more costs to employees and retirees;


·        Insurance companies are fluctuating in pricing, as well as actual plan design and geographical coverage;


·        The single largest component of premium rate increases is Rx followed by technology and litigation;


2001 PLANS:


·        No significant plan design changes;


·        Indemnity Plan (Plan A) will continue with no new membership other than by exception (e.g., Sabbatical Leave);


·        Addition of counties for Health America’s POS;


·        Rates will increase for 2001 due to:


-         rising cost of healthcare

-         phase into single 80/20% and family 70/30% (blended 74/26%) cost share between the University and the benefits member


·        On-line enrollment available for 2001:


-         post card to all eligible faculty and staff

-         Intercom articles, including step-by-step process

-         Benefit Fairs

-         Letter to all faculty and staff




·        Benefit rate increases and phase-in will continue beyond 2001;


·        Plan redesign for the purpose of improving coverage may occur (e.g., more wellness in PPO);


·        Minor plan redesign may occur for cost moderation (e.g., co-pays for office visits);


·        Insurance industry changes such as “defined contribution plans” are not good fits in every culture.




Leonard J. Berkkowitz, Chair

Edward W. Bittner

Keith K. Burkhart

Jacob DeRooy, V-Chair

Richard C. Pees

Paula J. Romano

Patience Simmonds

Gerhard F. Strasser

Jose A. Ventura

Billie S. Willits




Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed




The following informational report is based upon presentations made to the Senate Library Committee by the associate deans of the Libraries. Its intent is to discuss the operations of the University Libraries, as opposed to the report to the Senate by the Dean of University Libraries on September 12, which dealt with budget issues and resources, and provided comparisons of the Libraries with the other libraries in the CIC.


The mission of the University Libraries is to “optimize organized access to information in all formats and to advance instructional, research and public service goals of the University faculty, staff, and students at all University locations.” The University Libraries consist of the new Pattee Library and Paterno Library complex and six branch libraries at University Park, the twelve libraries of the Commonwealth College, eight libraries among the other six Campus Colleges, Dickinson School of Law, and Hershey Medical Center, and the collegially affiliated Pennsylvania College of Technology. All of Penn State’s libraries function as one library system through the use of LIAS (Library Information Access System), resource sharing initiatives such intercampus/interlibrary loan, and the application of a variety of electronic and telecommunications technologies. This means that faculty and students can have the rich research collections of the Libraries at their disposal regardless of their geographical location.


Collections and Access to Libraries Resources


The Libraries have nearly 300 databases and over 6,000 electronic journals available through the University Network for all faculty and students.  These electronic resources are licensed for all locations except Hershey and Dickinson at special rates negotiated through consortial memberships and special education discounts.  Access for Penn State as a whole is usually significantly less costly than if each location negotiated and acquired resources as independent institutions.  A host of consortial partnerships expands faculty and student access to research materials held by other institutions and organizations.  A new position of Electronic Resources and Scholarly Communications Librarian has been created to help manage University-wide access to electronic resources and to monitor developments in copyright, intellectual property, and scholarly communication.


New “digital library” initiatives by the Libraries are creating full text electronic collections that are available on the Web to all locations. A strategic vision for digital library collections is being created to support the entire system.


Materials are acquired, cataloged and processed by the Technical Services Department at University Park for all locations except Harrisburg, Hershey, and Dickinson, which catalog and process their own materials. In 99/00, 88,855 titles (in all formats) were added to the University Park location, and 33,134 were added for Campus Colleges. Intra-campus interlibrary loan and document delivery services ensure rapid delivery of materials among all Penn State campuses, to distance education and World Campus students, and to extension faculty.


Faculty and students can initiate many services on their own through the Libraries Web, including:


An intra-campus delivery system ensures rapid delivery of materials among all Penn State locations.  In 99/00, nearly 30,000 journal articles from the University Park collection and almost 8,000 from non-Penn State libraries were delivered to Campus College libraries, distance education students, and extension faculty. The average turnaround time for interlibrary loans (measured as the time elapsed between receipt of request to delivery of material) has been reduced from 23 days (1993) to eight days (2000) through process and technological improvements.


The Preservation Department, located at University Park, ensures that all collections are appropriately managed and preserved, and that every library has a disaster plan.


Reference and Instructional Services


Hiring of librarians with subject, language, and specialized expertise at University Park is intended to benefit all locations. New fixed-term librarian positions have been created for eight Campus Colleges through improved work processes and staff reallocations at University Park and in partnership with the Commonwealth College. This ensures that every Campus College has a minimum of two professional librarians.


Librarians with specific subject and language expertise at University Park provide reference and bibliographic services to all locations by answering reference queries in subject disciplines from all University faculty and students, monitoring electronic reference mailboxes, purchasing access to electronic databases for all campuses, and conducting instructional workshops. For example, librarians from the Schreyer Business Library at University Park recently arranged access licenses to new, sophisticated business databases that are accessible to all locations, and conducted regional workshops on using these electronic resources.


Adapting the resources of the University Libraries research collections and electronic databases to the programs of study and research at their home campuses, and providing reference and instruction is the primary responsibility of the Campus College Libraries faculty. These librarians collaborate closely with Campus College teaching faculty and administrators in developing and sustaining core collections of materials, reference services, outreach, and instructional programs, and in ensuring awareness of resources available thoughout the Libraries.


The Libraries instructional program is directed by the Head of Instructional Programs at University Park who has system-wide responsibility for coordinating instructional initiatives. Web-based tutorials on information literacy have been developed by librarians at University Park and the Campus College Libraries and are available through the network to all campuses.


Technological Infrastructure and Facilities


The Libraries’ Department of Information Technology and C & IS’ Library Computing Services have upgraded the technological infrastructure at all Libraries’ locations. All of the libraries are on the University network, currently being upgraded by OTC at the Campus Colleges, and the University Libraries supports a standard technology platform in all libraries. A life-cycle replacement schedule has been adopted for hardware and software. 


The Libraries is implementing the SIRSI/Unicorn online system, which will enhance the ability of LIAS to provide integrated processes for database searching and retrieval, circulation, electronic course reserves, interlibrary loan, acquisitions, cataloging, and serials check-in. LIAS has evolved from a local system with a focus on library operations and the online catalog to an umbrella for a growing suite of hardware, software, and web capabilities.


Media Technology and Support Services (MediaTech), a division of the Libraries, supports the technology classrooms at University Park and provides consultative services on classroom design to the Campus Colleges. MediaTech technicians also repair the audio-visual equipment owned by the Campus Colleges.  


Facilities Services manages the facilities at University Park and provides expertise to the libraries at other Campus Colleges. The Libraries manage over 40 facilities. The Associate Dean for Campus College Libraries collaborates closely with Campus College library faculty and administrators in developing and maintaining library facilities. In the past three years, nine Campus Colleges and University Park were involved in planning, building or renovating library space.



James B. Anderson

Richard N. Barshinger

Aida M. Beaupied

Christopher J. Bise, Chair

Charles L. Burchard

Lee D. Coraor, Vice-Chair

Alan V. Derickson

Nancy Eaton

Dale A. Holen

Melissa K. Landis

Bonnie J. MacEwan

Alissa J. Shirk

Stephen M. Smith

Dagmar Sternad

Adrian J. Wanner




Budget Presentation for 2001-2002




This presentation will include material from the Provost’s July 13, 2000 report on the budget planning process to the Board of Trustees, specifically focusing on the main factors that affect Penn State’s budget.  It will also summarize Penn State’s budget for 2000-2001 and the University’s appropriation request for fiscal year 2001-2002. 



P. Richard Althouse

William J. Anderson, Jr.

Anthony J. Baratta, V-Chair

Michael J. Cardamone

David Chao

Peter Deines, Chair

Peter B. Everett

William M. Frank

Daniel R. Hagen

Ali R. Hurson

Ernest W. Johnson

Daniel G. Kiefer

Rodney Kirsch

Robert N. Pangborn

Louise E. Sandmeyer

Michael C. Saunders

Gary C. Schultz

Marley W. Watkins

Beno Weiss

Daniel E. Willis


Rodney Erickson/Gary Schultz Remarks

to the Committee on Educational Policy


The Pennsylvania State University

Board of Trustees


Penn State University Park

Thursday, July 13, 2000



Slide #1 – Title Slide


Gary Schultz will be joining me in presenting this strategic planning and budget update.  We developed this information for the Commission on Postsecondary Education for the 21st Century and presented it to Representative Krebs, Chair of the Commission, and his staff in March.  We also shared it with Secretary Paese when he was on campus for Trustee Orientation in April. This will be helpful background information for Graham’s budget report later this afternoon.


Slide #2 – Strategic Planning and Budgeting


Through the strategic planning and budgeting process, Penn State has taken aggressive steps for many years to reduce costs and create more effective and efficient ways of operating, while at the same time preserving and enhancing academic quality.  Specifically, the University has eliminated duplication in programs and services, moved resources to the most promising and effective programs, and shifted resources from administrative functions to support teaching, research, and service.  Since 1992-93, 58 programs have been eliminated or merged.


Slide #3 – Penn State’s Strategic Planning Process


The first five-year strategic plans for all academic and administrative units at Penn State were developed in 1983.  Beginning in 1992, a deliberate process of budget recycling and reallocation was incorporated into the strategic planning process. 


The University’s current strategic planning process integrates planning, budgeting, and continuous quality improvement.  This helps to ensure that the budget allocations will be based on sound and well-thought-out plans. 


Slide #4 – ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Bottom-Up’ Process


Strategic planning at Penn State is both a ‘top-down’ and a ‘bottom-up’ process.  As part of the ‘top-down’ process, a University-wide strategic plan was completed in 1997 for the years 1997 to 2002.  We are entering the fourth year of this five-year planning cycle. 


The University Planning Council, comprised of deans, faculty members, administrators and students, reviews the strategic plans of each academic and support unit, considers requests for resources, and recommends enhanced funding levels. 


Slide #5 – ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Bottom-Up’ Process


The ‘bottom-up’ process includes five-year strategic plans developed by each of the 33 major academic and administrative support units.  Academic departments and colleges review their program offerings, taking into account student interest, societal and Commonwealth needs, developments in the field of study, and faculty expertise.  Strong programs and those central to the mission of the University are recommended for enhancement.  Low enrollment programs are identified to determine if they should be continued, merged with other units, or eliminated. 


Each unit’s strategic plan complements and supports the goals of the University-wide strategic plan.  Annual updates are prepared to measure progress and refine goals. 


Slide #6 – Strategic Indicators


Last year, we developed the first University-level strategic performance indicators.  The indicators are tied to the six overarching institutional goals in the strategic plan and attempt to answer the question, “How well are we doing?”  Strategic indicators will be tracked regularly to chart our progress in meeting Penn State’s goals. 


Each college and administrative unit prepared its own list of strategic performance indicators that relate both to University goals and to unit goals and performance.  I’ll give you some examples in the next two slides.


Slide #7 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – University Level (Graduation Rates)


These are a few examples of the data that are tracked to measure progress in achieving University goals.  The graduation rate is an important indicator.  At University Park, for example, 45 percent of undergraduate students graduate within 4 years, 75 percent graduate within 5 years, and 80 percent graduate within 6 years. 


Slide #8 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – University Level (Student Employment)


When surveyed 6 months after graduation, 88 percent of baccalaureate degree graduates are employed and 10 percent are pursuing further education.


Slide #9 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – University Level (Research)


We also track expenditures for organized research.  Last year, research expenditures totaled $393.5 million dollars.  This is a 24 percent increase in the past 5 years.


Slide #10 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – Engineering (Faculty Quality)


I will mention three strategic indicators from the College of Engineering.  The overall goal of the College of Engineering is to be one of the ten most outstanding engineering colleges in the nation.  To reach this goal, Engineering needs to attract and develop an outstanding faculty, student body, and staff.  One measure of faculty quality is the number of faculty selected as fellows in professional organizations.  In the fall of 1999, 89 faculty had been elected as fellows in professional organizations and 2 faculty were members of the National Academy of Engineering.


Slide #11 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – Engineering (Program Quality)


A measure of the quality of the undergraduate and graduate degree programs in the College of Engineering is the national ranking in U.S. News and World Report’s annual listing.  Currently, Penn State’s undergraduate programs rank 14th out of 228 programs and the graduate programs rank 15th out of 221.


Slide #12 – Examples of Strategic Indicators – Engineering (Student Quality)


One measure of student quality is the average combined SAT score of first-year students in the College of Engineering.  The average for the fall of 1999 was 1240. 


Other budget units have developed their own performance indicators.  Many are similar, some are unique, but all are tied to quality and efficiency in the use of resources.


Slide #13 – Budget Reductions and Reallocations


Given scarce resources, Penn State has turned to internal budget reductions and reallocations to fund strategic priorities and critical operating needs.  Guided by the strategic planning process, colleges and support units have reallocated slightly more than 1 percent of their budgets per year since 1992-93, totaling $79 million dollars.  This represents more than 12 percent of departmental operating budgets.  The budget plan for 2000-2001 includes further budget reductions of $4.8 million to help cover projected operating cost increases and for modest reinvestment in new faculty positions and other selected areas of critical need.


Slide #14 – Examples of Administrative Streamlining


Here are some examples of how administrative streamlining is reducing costs.  Computer imaging has streamlined record keeping in employee applications, graduate admissions, student aid, and in our financial systems.  Using the new Purchasing Card has consolidated payments and substantially reduced paperwork.  We have about 6,500 purchasing cards issued and active.  Since the program began in October 1996, Penn State has processed over 500,000 purchasing card transactions.


23 percent of undergraduate applicants and 13 percent of graduate applicants to Penn State this year used the Web-based admissions application.  This is up significantly from last year.  Continued dramatic increases in the use of the Web for student applications are anticipated in the next several years. 


eLion is an on-line system which assists students in making informed academic decisions. Students use eLion to check course availability, calculate their expected semester and cumulative grade point averages, and look up Penn State policies and procedures.


We can now bring up-to-date information about research grants to the principal investigators in an on-line format.


And, we estimate that more than 380 continuous quality improvement teams have increased customer satisfaction and saved millions of dollars over the past few years.


In contrast to many of our peer institutions, strategic planning and budgeting are closely linked at Penn State.  Budgetary information is factored into the planning process to provide a realistic context for proposed changes and initiatives, and strategic plans are taken into account directly in budget allocation decisions.


Gary Schultz will now provide a brief overview of how Penn State is funded, focusing on sources of revenues and expenditures including major cost drivers affecting higher education in general and Penn State in particular. 


Slide #15 – Budget Considerations


Thank you, Rod.  In the next series of slides, we will look at the factors that have had major effects on Penn State’s budget planning over the years.  In particular, we will look at what has happened to tuition and appropriations per student relative to inflation.


We will look first at peer comparisons in the Big 10 and Pennsylvania institutions.  We will then show you how tuition and appropriations per student have changed over the last 30 years.  Finally, we will describe some of the factors beyond inflationary cost increases that affect Penn State’s budget.


Slide #16 – Big Ten Comparisons


We’ve compared Penn State’s budget to two sets of peer institutions.  This slide summarizes the comparison with Big Ten public universities.  Penn State has the lowest Education & General appropriation per full-time equivalent student and the lowest total expenditures per FTE student.  Regrettably, we also have the highest undergraduate tuition rate in the Big Ten. 


Slide #17 – 1998-99 Appropriation Per FTE Student, E&G Appropriation Only


We also compared Penn State’s appropriation per FTE student with public universities in Pennsylvania.  You have all seen this slide before.  It comes from Joint State Government Commission data, collected annually.  The question is, how did Penn State get into this position of having roughly half the E & G appropriation per student that Temple has or $1,400 less per student than the state system?


Slide #18 – Percent Change in E&G Appropriation 1997-78 to 1998-99


When you take a look at the percent change in Education and General appropriations over the last 21 years, the increases for Pitt, Temple, and Penn State have been relatively equal.  There are minor variations, but these mostly deal with specific program issues and not the base budget.


Remember that the appropriation per student is an equation with both a numerator and a denominator.  The numerator is the appropriation which you see here, and the denominator is the number of students. Enrollment at these institutions over the same 21-year period has changed much more dramatically.


Slide #19 – Percent Change in Enrollment 1977-78 to 1998-99


As you can see, with a 27 percent increase, Penn State is well ahead of the other institutions in FTE enrollment growth.  Temple, in fact, has fewer FTE students than it did in 1977, which explains why its appropriation per student is much higher today.


Slide #20 – Percent Change in E&G Appropriation Per Student 1977-78 to 1998-99


Because of the relatively equal percentage increase in E&G appropriation for these institutions and the significant growth in enrollment at Penn State, Penn State has experienced the smallest growth in E&G appropriation per student over this 21-year period.  We are well below the percentage change for Temple and Pitt and lag slightly behind the state system.


Slide #21 – Appropriation vs. Tuition and Fees as a Percent of the General Funds Budget


The next few slides will show the relationship between Penn State’s appropriation and the level of tuition and fees over time.


Penn State’s appropriation as a percent of the General Funds Budget has declined since 1976-77.  At that time, the state appropriation was 54 percent of the General Funds Budget.  Today, it is 33 percent.


Slide #22 – Appropriation vs. Tuition and Fees as a Percent of the General Funds Budget


During the same time period, tuition and fees have increased as a percent of the General Funds Budget.  Today, tuition and fees comprise 60 percent of Penn State’s General Funds Budget, compared to 38 percent in 1976.  The composition has more than reversed and is almost a two-thirds – one-third proportion. 


This graph clearly demonstrates the fundamental change in the composition of the University’s General Funds Budget that has occurred over the last 23 years. 


Slide #23 – Comparison of CPI and HEPI Components


Two indices for measuring inflation are the Consumer Price Index or CPI and the Higher Education Price Index or HEPI.


The Consumer Price Index is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services. It includes major categories such as food and beverages, housing, transportation, medical care, recreation, education, and energy.


The Higher Education Price Index measures the prices of goods and services purchased by colleges and universities.  Price change data are organized in eight divisions professional salaries, nonprofessional salaries, fringe benefits, services, supplies and materials, equipment, library acquisitions, and utilities.


We have used the Higher Education Price Index in the next series of slides as being more indicative of the inflation rate experienced by Penn State.


Slide #24 – Percent Change Since 1970 CPI vs. HEPI


Because of varying economic pressures on the different market baskets, sometimes the HEPI is higher and sometimes the CPI is higher.  In recent years, the HEPI has exceeded the CPI by one to two percentage points per year.


Over a 30-year period, the cost of the CPI market basket of consumer goods and services has increased by 314 percent, while the cost of goods and services purchased by colleges and universities has increased by 355 percent.


Slide #25 – Resident Lower Division Tuition Rates at University Park in Current and Constant Dollars


We can compare resident lower-division tuition rates at University Park over the last 30 years in current dollars and in constant dollars.  Constant dollars have been adjusted to a base year of 1970 using the HEPI. 


Although tuition rates have increased significantly in current dollars, tuition rates adjusted for inflation have shown a much more modest increase.


Slide #26 – Educational and General Appropriation/FTE Student in Current and Constant Dollars


Here is the same kind of comparison showing the E&G appropriation per FTE student in current and in constant dollars over the last 30 years.  In this case, the appropriation per student has increased steadily in current dollars, but has decreased significantly when adjusted for inflation. 


This simple chart shows why legislators and taxpayers point to their increasing support for higher education while universities worry about their declining financial resources.   


Slide #27 – Tuition and E&G Appropriation Per FTE Student in Constant Dollars


This is probably the most important slide in the presentation.  It represents a combination of the two previous slides in constant dollars. You can see again that the proportion of funds provided by tuition has risen and the proportion provided by the E&G appropriation has decreased. 


Overall, the funds available to the University per FTE student from these two sources –when adjusted for inflation–are only slightly higher now than in 1970.  In other words, the University’s purchasing power per student is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago.  Given the increased demands that have occurred over the past 30 years, such as environmental compliance, ADA, major maintenance, technology, and the much higher expectations of students and their parents for services, this is a pretty remarkable fact.


Slide #28 – 1998-99 Actual Expenditures by Object - General Funds Only


Higher education is a very labor intensive business.  72 percent of Penn State’s General Funds Budget goes to salaries and benefits and 28 percent goes to department allotments, for such things as telecommunications, office supplies, travel expenses, maintenance and equipment.


Slide #29 – 1998-99 Actual Expenditures by Object - General Funds Only


We can break this down further and show you that actual salaries make up 56 percent of the general funds budget and benefits make up 16 percent.


Slide #30 – Salaries and Wages as Percent of Total Operating Costs by Sector


One of the reasons for breaking this out is that we have some national comparisons from data in the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States.  This data is for salaries only and does not include benefits.  Penn State’s figure of 56 percent for salaries and wages as a percent of general funds operating costs is shown on the top line.  This is significantly higher than the other sectors.  For the average of the 50 state governments, salaries and wages make up 33 percent of the total operating budgets.  For transportation, the figure is 30 percent and for manufacturing it is only 25 percent.


Salaries and benefits are a much higher proportion of Penn State’s general funds budget than for most of the other sectors of the economy.  When we experience an increase in either salaries or benefits, it is affecting a larger proportion of our budget.


Slide #31 – Percent Change in Employee Benefits Costs and Appropriation, 1987-88 to



Now let’s look at benefits.  Over the past 12 years, the cost of employee benefits has increased by 97 percent while our appropriation has increased by 52 percent. 


If we look at this in terms of actual dollars, the benefits portion of our budget has increased by $73 million dollars over the last 12 years.  While it is often difficult to compare programs, benchmarking with other institutions indicates that Penn State’s benefits are competitive, but not out-of-line with peer institutions or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 


I have summarized the major cost drivers that affect Penn State’s budget.  Rod will take over at this point and discuss the importance of faculty salaries and some of the other factors that  impact budget planning at Penn State.


Slide #32 – Average Faculty Salaries, 22 AAUDE Institutions


The competitiveness of Penn State’s faculty salaries at all of our campuses is of special concern.  This slide shows Penn State’s rank for faculty salaries compared to average faculty salaries from the 22 Association of American Universities Data Exchange public institutions.  All institutions report main campus salaries and, therefore, Penn State’s salaries are for the University Park Campus.  Since 1995-96, we have dropped at every professorial rank, and at the assistant professor level have fallen farther down in the bottom half of these institutions.


Slide #33 – Average Faculty Salaries, Big 10 Public Institutions


 This slide makes the same comparison for the Big Ten public universities for this past year and for 1995-96.  As you can see, our faculty salaries have dropped from second to fifth at the professor level, from second to sixth for associate professors, and from eighth to ninth for assistant professors.


Slide #34 – Faculty Salary Increase Percentages


Here we are looking at the actual percentage salary increases that have been given by the 22 AAUDE universities over the last 5 years.  Penn State lags behind the five-year compounded increase of 20.9 percent.  We rank 17th in this comparison.


Slide #35 – Faculty Salary Increase Percentages


We can make the same comparison with the Big 10 public Universities.  The five-year compounded increase for the Big Ten publics is 23.5 percent, ours is 18.7 percent.  We rank last among the Big Ten public institutions and we are almost a full 5 percentage points behind the average.


These trends represent a serious challenge in hiring and retaining top quality faculty.  Graham will provide further information on the salary increase plans of other Big Ten public universities for the current academic year in his budget presentation later this afternoon.


Slide #36 – One Percent Increase Modules


To explain the budgetary implications of salary increases, one set of figures that we use in preparing our budget is the cost of a one-percent increase for appropriation and tuition on the income side and for salaries and related benefits on the expense side.  As you can see here, a one percent increase in the appropriation, excluding Hershey and Penn College, will yield $2.8 million dollars.  A one percent increase in tuition will bring in approximately $4 million.  At the same time, a one percent increase in salaries and related benefits will cost $5.7 million.


Slide #37 – Salary Increase Costs vs. Appropriation and Tuition


This slide shows the cost of three different levels of salary increase, 3 percent, 4 percent, and 5 percent.  The cost of a 5 percent increase would be over $28 million dollars.  Hypothetically, if we were to pay the $28 million out of our appropriation, it would require a ten percent appropriation increase.  Or, if we were paying for the increase totally from tuition, it would require a 7.2 percent tuition increase.  These are, of course, hypothetical calculations and not recommendations.   These figures are meant to give you a sense of salary increase costs and what the revenue requirements would be.


Note that our 2000-2001 E&G appropriation increase is 3 percent or $7 million dollars.  Therefore, for any appropriate level of salary increase, a fairly substantial level of tuition income is required.


Slide #38 – Factors Beyond Inflationary Cost Increases Affecting the General Funds Budget–New Academic Initiatives


There are several other factors that impact the General Funds Budget–beyond inflationary cost increases.  Some examples include new academic initiatives such as our School of Information Sciences and Technology; and new consortial initiatives in the Life Sciences; Children, Youth, and Families; Materials Science; and Environmental Studies.  We have invested $4.7 million in these initiatives since 1996-97.  An additional investment of several million dollars is planned over the next several years.


Each of these initiatives addresses critical needs of the Commonwealth and the nation with respect to workforce education and societal concerns. 


Slide #39 – Factors Beyond Inflationary Cost Increases Affecting the General Funds Budget–Academic Quality


We have invested in several other initiatives to enhance academic quality.  We have added approximately 300 faculty positions over the past three years, and additional funding has been provided for improvements in general education requirements, for first-year seminars for incoming students, and for incorporating active and collaborative learning in more of our courses.


Slide #40 – Factors Beyond Inflationary Cost Increases Affecting the General Funds Budget–Improvements in Technology


Dynamic growth in the use of technology stimulates the need for improvements and changes in technology.  In 1990, Penn State had created 16,000 access accounts for students, faculty and staff.  This year, we have 101,000 access accounts.  In 1990, Penn State handled an average of 49,000 e-mail messages per day.  How many e-mail messages do we handle per day this year?  More than 2 million. 


The number of personal Web accounts has increased from 300 in 1995 to 37,000 today.

And, consider that the first general use computer lab was installed at University Park in 1984 and it had 22 computers.  Today, there are 44 general use computer labs at University Park containing 2,000 computers.  And every Penn State campus now has substantial investments in computer labs and other learning technologies. 


Penn State University Libraries are also increasing access to electronic information.  In 1995, the Libraries subscribed to 3 electronic databases.  By 2000, subscriptions increased to more than 300 databases, providing electronic access to thousands of journals.  The number of public LIAS workstations likewise increased from 110 when they were first installed in 1983 to almost 700 today.  And recently, more than 800 dataports were activated in the Libraries to allow laptop access to the Libraries’ collections and resources.  


We are also building the communications infrastructure for the future by increasing intercampus bandwidth to meet growing demands for services and replacing outdated cabling between buildings. 


Slide #41 – Factors Beyond Inflationary Cost Increases Affecting the General Funds Budget


Slide #42 – Factors Beyond Inflationary Cost Increases Affecting the General Funds Budget


The increasing maintenance needed by Penn State’s aging physical plant is becoming a critical problem.  We have a backlog of deferred maintenance of over $192 million dollars.  We have 1,274 buildings University-wide and the average age of these buildings is 28 years.   There is an industry benchmark which finds that buildings require major renovation and renewal after about 35 years of service. 


Slide #43 – Building Space Reaching 35 Year Renewal Benchmark


We can look at Penn State’s distribution of building space by gross square feet and the decade in which buildings reach 35 years of age.  In the 1970s, about one million gross square feet of space reached the 35 year benchmark.  By the 1980s, an additional 2 million gross square feet of space reached 35 years of use.  During the 1990s, this doubled to 4 million, and in the next 10 year period we will see an additional 5 million gross square feet reach the point where it will require major renovation and renewal projects. 


We have had a program over the last several years to provide additional funding for major maintenance.  We have invested $3 million since 1996 to bring the total permanent budget for major maintenance to $9.5 million.  We must continue to provide funds in this area to support our campus infrastructure needs.


Slide #44 – Conclusion


In conclusion, although tuition has indeed grown faster than inflation, the combination of tuition and appropriation per student has barely exceeded inflation since 1970. 


Slide #45 – Tuition and E&G Appropriation Per FTE Student in Constant Dollars


As we saw earlier, the funds available to the University from tuition and from the E&G appropriation per FTE student–when adjusted for inflation–decreased in the 1980s and then rose slightly to a level not much higher than in 1970. 


To compensate, Penn State has reallocated funds, improved efficiency, and kept cost increases to a minimum, with the overall goal of enhancing academic quality.


Slide #46 – Summary of Factors Beyond Inflation


Gary outlined some inflationary factors that influence Penn State’s budget.  In addition to inflation, several other factors contribute to the marginal increase of tuition over inflation.  We need to offer competitive salaries to attract and retain faculty and to cover the increasing cost of benefits.  We have begun several initiatives to enhance academic quality and improve access to technology.  And we must comply with unfunded mandates and maintain an aging physical plant.  We anticipate that these will be critical factors in Penn State’s budget planning process for the foreseeable future. 



The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, October 3, 2000     1:30 PM   102 Kern Graduate Building



C. D. Baggett

W. R. Curtis

W. T. DeCastro

P. Deines

G. F. De Jong

C. D. Eckhardt

R. A. Erickson

D. S. Gouran

E. A. Hanley

P. C. Jurs

W. L. Kenney

R. L. McCarty

J. W. Moore

M. R. Nelson

J. S. Nichols

I. Richman

A. B. Romberger

A. W. Scaroni

C. L. Schengrund

S. R. Smith

L. L. Snavely

B. B. Tormey

T. T. Turner


G. J. Bugyi

B. S. Hockenberry

V. R. Price



A. Chellman

R. P. Crum

A. E. Leure-duPree

G. B. Spanier



C. Bise

J. Cahir

D. Christy

J. Romano

R. Secor

J. Sulzer

G. Strasser

B. Willits



Chair Schengrund called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM on Tuesday, October 03, 2000, in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building.  The minutes of the meeting of August 22, 2000 were approved as distributed on a Jurs/Romberger motion.




The Faculty Advisory Committee met on October 3 and discussed the following topics: Berks and the Commonwealth College search updates; Napster; United Way; State of the University Address (aspects of); part-time faculty; intellectual property; faculty workload credit for tutorial and mentoring activity; academic calendar; discontinuance of degree audits; consultation on new courses being developed (cost should be covered by?); and the lack of consultation prior to the removal of support from Kern Building.  The next meeting of FAC will be on Thursday, November 9.  If anyone has any items for FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Betz Hanley or Gordon de Jong.


The Senate Officers visited Penn State Mont Alto on September 25 and Penn State York and the College of Medicine on September 26.  They will visit Penn State Scranton on October 5 and Penn State Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton on October 6.  


Dr. Schengrund concluded her remarks by reminding Council of the September 28, 2000 memo from Billie Willits to Council in which Dr. Willits solicited nominations for the Faculty Staff Achievement Awards. 


Provost Erickson announced that the fall enrollment figures would be coming out soon.  It looks like enrollment overall will be up about 500 students. All of that increase will be at the campuses and University Park will be relatively flat because more students are choosing to stay at the campuses. 


Provost Erickson informed Council that the search for the Berks/Lehigh Valley Dean is in its final stages with four finalists; the search should come to a conclusion soon.  The search for the new Dean of the Commonwealth College is proceeding with the pool of candidates developing well.  Interviews will likely begin in January with the hopes of having the Dean in place by July. 


Lastly, Dr. Erickson addressed the Napster issue.  There had to be some education on the legal issues involved in the use of copyright materials.  Notices were sent to 78 very high bandwidth users with characteristics that suggested that they might be Napster users.  We have heard from all the individuals involved stating that they are now in compliance with University policy on the use of copyright materials. 




Caroline Eckhardt commented on the Graduate Council meeting of September 20, 2000.  A summary of this meeting is attached to these minutes.




Legislative Reports


Committee on Committees and Rules – “Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l).”  Deidre Jago reported to Council that CC&R was presenting this legislation to place another student on the Student Life Committee.  The student is the President of the Undergraduate Student Government Senate.  The students have asked for this additional representative and CC&R thought it appropriate.  She also noted that the report calls for the one undergraduate student Senator to be from a location other than University Park.  Council had no questions of Professor Jago and a Tormey/Scaroni motion was passed to place this report on the Senate Agenda.


Intercollegiate Athletics – “Fan Behavior.”  Chair Schengrund noted to Council that there has been a request from Scott Kretchmar, the Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA, to use the name of the University Faculty Senate on an announcement for the next home football game, which is on a date before the next Senate meeting.  Thus, there were two issues of discussion. The first was the report, and the second Scott’s request. 


David Christy indicated that Dr. Kretchmar wrote this report in response to the booing and negative cheering of the visiting teams.  It is Scott’s thought that this sort of announcement is necessary in order to turn that around a bit and welcome our guests in a positive manner.  There would be a public announcement prior to the entrance of the visiting teams to welcome them in an appropriate way and then to cheer on Penn State.  It is his committee’s belief that if the Senate, the USG, and other elected bodies names were to be added to this announcement, it would have a greater impact. 


Council had positive comments about the report, but there were some questions about the value of such announcements since they might have a negative affect on the crowd.  It was decided that of the six proposed announcements, numbers 1, 2 and 6 conveyed a possible negative tone; and that 3, 4, and 5 were more positive in their expression.  Dr. Christy accepted this as a friendly amendment and indicated that only statements 3, 4, and 5 would be included in the announcements.  A Richman/Kenney motion was passed by Council to accept this report as amended.


Next, Professor Schengrund raised Dr. Kretchmar’s request to use the name of the University Faculty Senate at the next home football game in such an announcement.  A Richman/Tormey motion was made to allow the Senate name to be used before the Senate considered this report.  After discussion, it became apparent that Council felt there was no need to rush this issue and that the Senate should consider the report before any conclusion was given to Dr. Kretchmar.  The Richman/Tormey motion was defeated. 


Advisory and Consultative Reports


Faculty Affairs – “Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty Off the Tenure Track.”  Chair Schengrund announced that the Faculty Affairs Committee withdrew this report in order to do some further work on it.  They are planning to bring it back to Council for its next meeting.


Informational Reports


Faculty Benefits – “Changes in Insurance Benefits.”  Billie Willits indicated that the oral section of the report might take 30 minutes.  Several questions were asked about the rising cost of healthcare and how the institution would address them.  Dr. Willits stated that she would also have a better-defined report with more distinct changes for Senate.  She also stated that all information on changes would be well distributed to the faculty and staff.  It was decided that because of the importance of the information, and the short agenda, a longer than usual timeframe for this report was acceptable.  A Turner/Kenney motion was passed.


Libraries – “Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed.”  Jack Sulzer addressed the Council on behalf of the committee and asked if there were any questions.  He indicated that his report would take about ten minutes.  Without discussion, a Richman/Romberger motion was passed to place this report on the Agenda.


University Planning – “Budget Presentation for 2001-2002.”  Peter Deines introduced the report and the Provost indicated that this is the same report he made to the Board of Trustees in July.  The report will center on where the institution is with respect to State appropriations and tuition.  Dr. Erickson stated that it should take about 15 minutes.  The report was added to the Senate Agenda on a Jurs/Gouran motion.




The one action item before the body was a recommendation from the Subcommittee on Unit Constitutions to ratify proposed changes in the Penn State Beaver Faculty Congress Constitution.  John Moore informed Council that the subcommittee had reviewed the changes and that there were two major changes requested.  The first was to allow for the addition of part-time faculty on various committees and the second was to have the committees meet on an “as needed basis” and not the present mandated monthly meetings.  After a short period of discussion, the changes in the Beaver Constitution were ratified on a Jurs/Gouran motion.



There was no new business for the Council to address.




Senate Chair Schengrund thanked the members of Council for their attention to their duties and adjourned the meeting at 2:24 PM.


Respectfully submitted,


George J. Bugyi

Executive Secretary



The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA  16802

(814) 863-0221 – phone   (814) 863-6012 – fax

Date:   October 2, 2000


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


From:  Caroline D. Eckhardt, Graduate Council/Senate Council Liaison



The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 3:30 PM with Dr. Eva Pell chairing the meeting.  Full minutes are available from Mary Hosband ( 114 Kern Building, 865-2516.  Below are items that may be of particular interest to members of the University Faculty Senate.


1.  Announcements and Communications.  Penn State has received a $2.5 million NSF interdisciplinary training grant.  The Graduate School has appointed a new Senior Associate Dean, Dr. Regina Vasilatos-Younken, in the office formerly held by Dr. Lynne Goodstein, and a full-time development officer, Mr. Robert Booz. There is a new NIH policy for those conducting research involving human subjects, including survey research:  the policy requires training, whether researchers have previous experience or not.  The Graduate School's cycle of program reviews is underway, with information being collected about each graduate program.  The topic for this year's Graduate School's Faculty Fall Workshop (October 3) was "Re-envisioning the Ph.D."  The series of Professional Development Workshops for graduate students will continue this year.


2.  Reports of Standing Committees.  Recommendations of members for this year's committees within Graduate Council were approved.  A proposed change to the name of the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs, to reflect its role in encouraging diversity or educational equity, was discussed and tabled pending further input. The Committee on Fellowships and Awards reported on new guidelines for awarding graduate fellowships (the revisions encourage flexibility and accountability) and announced the availability of dissertation fellowships for Spring 2001.  The Committee on Graduate Research is planning this year's Graduate Exhibition for Sunday, March 25, in the HUB.  Program changes were approved for the M.S. in Information Science at Great Valley and the graduate program in Materials Science and Engineering.


3.  Special Reports.  The Ad Hoc Committee on Recruitment and Retention presented its report, including seven recommendations, including greater awareness and involvement in programs such as the CIC Summer Research Opportunities Program and the McNair Program, from which we might draw graduate students.  There was also discussion of ways to reward faculty who assist in achieving recruitment and retention goals, including diversity goals.





Date:       October 6, 2000

From:      George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary

To:          All Senators and Committee Personnel

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

    MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2000                  7:00 PM

     Officers' and Chairs' Meeting                                Faculty/Staff Club, NLI

                                                                        8:30 PM

     Commonwealth Caucus                            CANCELLED

     TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000                 7:30 AM

     Intercollegiate Athletics                                         205 Shields Building

                                                                                  8:00 AM

     Faculty Affairs                                                       106 HUB

     Outreach Activities                                                 502 Keller Building

     Student Life                                                           301 HUB

                                                                                 8:30 AM

     Admissions, Records,
Scheduling and Student Aid203 Shields Building

     Committees and Rules                                          16 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

     Curricular Affairs                                                   102 Kern Building

     Intra-University Relations                                      233 HUB

     Research                                                               114 Kern Building 

Undergraduate Education                                      221 Chambers Building

     University Planning                                                322 HUB

                                                                                 9:00 AM

     Faculty Benefits                                                     101-A Kern Building

     Libraries                                                               E510 Paterno Library

                                                                                 9:30 AM                     

     Computing and Information Systems                      201 Kern Building

                                                                                 1:30 PM

     University Faculty Senate                      112 Kern Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:00 AM on TUESDAY,  OCTOBER 24, 2000, in the ALUMNI LOBBY OF THE  NLI.  At approximately 12:00 Noon, a buffet luncheon will be served.


The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax:  (814) 863-6012

Date:  October 6, 2000

To:Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

From:Irwin Richman and Sandy Smith

  MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2000 


TUESDAY, October 24, 2000 -- 11:00 AM --


     The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Alumni Lobby of the NLI.  A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

     The tentative Agenda includes:

I.        Call to Order

II.        Announcements and Reports from co-chairs of the caucus (Richman & Smith)

III.      Reports from Committee Chairs

IV.   New Business

V.        Adjournment and Lunch