Penn State University Home  





The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, October 26, 1999, 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 14, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of
October 12, 1999

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of October 5, 1999






Student Life

Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity (Senate Policy 49-20)


Faculty Benefits

Recommendation Regarding Surcharges in the Penn State Dental Plan


University Planning

Budget Report, Process and Outcome for the Academic Year 1999/2000 and
Budget Planning for the Academic Year 2000/2001, Rodney A. Erickson,
Executive Vice President/Provost

Senate Council

The Changing Nature of Academic Health Centers, C. McCollister Evarts,
Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean

Undergraduate Education

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

University Planning

Construction Programs Status Report




Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.


The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

Date: October 8, 1999

To: Murry R. Nelson, Chair, University Faculty Senate

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

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated October 12, 1999, 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, Birch Cottage, e-mail ID, on or before November 11, 1999.

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 were 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.


Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity

(Senate Policy 49-20)


Implementation: Fall 2000


The following report recommends a substantial revision of Penn State University's definition of academic integrity and its procedure for handling allegations of academic dishonesty. It is based on several years of internal study and consultation with university lawyers, administrators, students, and faculty.

The issue of academic integrity has concerned the university for many decades. In 1915, Penn State President Edwin Erle Sparks attempted to deal with it by installing an honor system, but this program was discontinued shortly after his retirement in 1920. While Senate Policy 44-40 continues to allow colleges and campuses to create "a formal honor system under the supervision of an honor council," for the most part student dishonesty has been handled through a Byzantine system of potential charges, hearings, and possible appeals.

Finding it confusing, internally inconsistent, and legalistic, many faculty are reluctant to invoke it even in blatant cases. The majority of honest students likewise find it ineffective, since it gives lip service to ethics but in fact fails to enforce it consistently. Meanwhile, cheating is becoming commonplace: a recent Pulse survey of Penn State students showed that 17% said they themselves had cheated on tests and 44% said they had cheated on class assignments.

For these reasons, all parties have called for an overhaul of the policy. On June 12, 1996 a report was forwarded from the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group, chaired by Vice Provost, Dr. Robert Secor, to President Graham Spanier. Several of the report's recommendations encouraged the Colleges and the Office of Judicial Affairs to take more leadership in responding to academic integrity and related issues. In particular, the report recommended that "Academic dishonesty cases should be handled through the Colleges, with perhaps some involvement by the Faculty Senate and Student Affairs administrators to insure procedural consistency across the University, regardless of where the offense occurred."

The working group therefore asked the University Faculty Senate Student Life Committee to establish a Subcommittee on Academic Integrity to study changes in policy. In Fall 1996 this group was formed, with Dr. Tom Eakin, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs as chair. Senate Council directed this group to provide the Faculty Senate with a report and recommendations regarding the following five charges:

Dr. Eakin led this group for a year until Spring 1998, when Joseph Puzycki, Director of Judicial Affairs, replaced him as chair.

In April 1999, the subcommittee presented its preliminary report to the University Faculty Senate for a forensic. Discussion showed that many faculty were confused by the legalistic language of the present policy and of ACUE Procedure G-9, the administrative language implementing it. Rather than continue to patch over the language of existing guidelines, Student Life chose instead to rewrite Senate Policy 49-20 from scratch. The revision presents, in a single document, a proposed policy change and the procedures needed to implement the changes needed.


Consultation. During the last two years, information, input and feedback was collected formally and informally from various sources. Documents such as the Working Group's report and internal review documents from Judicial Affairs were consulted. In addition, the Director of Judicial Affairs and the chair of the student life committee met with:

Through such fact-finding, the Subcommittee identified the following concerns:

  1. Lack of Consistency. When polled in the PSU Pulse survey, students felt the most appropriate sanctions for dishonesty were to get an F on the test or assignment (83%) or in the course (33%), to be put on academic probation (42%), or to have a notation of cheating put on one's transcript (33%).
  2. Some Penn State faculty have invoked the "Penn State Honor Code" in their syllabi. According to this "code," all students caught cheating automatically fail the course. In the Pulse survey, 32% of students claimed they had read such a statement. However, like the "automatic 4.0" supposedly given the roommates of suicide victims, this policy simply does not exist.

    In fact there are no consistently followed University-wide guidelines for how to manage incidents or for deciding what sanctions are appropriate. It is not uncommon for two students who exhibit similar misconduct to receive quite different penalties. One instructor may assign a failing grade for a course and another instructor may assign a failing grade for the assignment only.

    A third instructor may well do nothing. Faculty often do not believe it is worth the trouble to formally report incidents of academic misconduct, or worry that if they initiate the sanctioning process, they will open themselves to litigation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many faculty simply overlook cases of cheating or handle detected cases in a token way that does not deter students and compromises the grades they give to honest students.

  3. Record Keeping. Currently, there is no standard practice for creating student discipline records related to academic misconduct when resolved at the College or Campus level. There is no consistent reporting of incidents to the registrar or Judicial Affairs; therefore, academic dishonesty information concerning individual students is not available from a central source. If the college or campus wants a student to receive a formal disciplinary sanction, as well as an academic sanction, they may refer an incident of misconduct to Judicial Affairs, but this rarely occurs. In 1997-98, only seven cases were so referred.
  4. The lack of tracking behavior and record keeping limits the University's ability to monitor the level of academic misconduct across the University, respond to students who repeatedly commit breaches of academic misconduct, and monitor how we are responding to academic integrity issues.

  5. Due Process. In any other violation of the University Code of Conduct, such as cases of assault, theft, and alcohol abuse, the University Hearing Board will provide students with due process. In academic dishonesty cases, students ought to be afforded similar safeguards. With the present process this does not always happen. The lack of consistent sanctions also affects student's due process rights. Inconsistency in procedure and in assigning sanctions may also expose individual faculty to the possibility of litigation.
  6. Lack of Stated Expectations. Students voice concerns that the University has not clearly articulated what it really means to embody academic integrity at Penn State. Students perceive that the definition of cheating varies greatly from faculty member to faculty member. In general, faculty and students are confused as to what the correct procedure is when a student has been accused of cheating.

The Pulse survey indicated that 59% of those polled felt that dishonesty would be deterred simply by giving students clearer information about the consequences of cheating. Many students also expressed a need to have instructors define academic integrity expectations on each syllabus (40%) or to receive clearer information about what constitutes cheating (39%).

Goals. Through discussions, the following goals were identified to provide solutions to the problems identified:

  1. A Less Complicated Process: the process for managing incidents of academic dishonesty needs to be simplified.
  2. Fairness and Due Process: the process should incorporate a standard practice that affords students due process while allowing cases to be settled informally when this is in all parties' best interests.
  3. Education: faculty and staff should clarify the meaning of academic integrity and the consequences of dishonesty.
  4. Record Keeping: cases of dishonesty should be recorded centrally and, in serious cases, signaled on a student's transcript so that those who commit repeated acts can be appropriately sanctioned.
  5. Just Sanctions: colleges should help faculty in making decisions about how to respond to dishonesty and in imposing fair, consistent sanctions.

Clearly, it will take efforts on several fronts to achieve these goals. The Provost’s Special Committee on Academic Integrity is working on a more equitable means of moving toward consistency in deciding how to sanction acts of dishonesty across colleges and campuses. Together with the Student Life Committee, this body will also suggest initiatives in helping faculty and students engage in positive dialogue about the need for ethical behavior. These plans will come to the senate in the near future.

Meanwhile, it is essential to correct the deficiencies in the current policy and procedures dealing with how integrity infractions are handled. Otherwise, no new initiative will help, since there will be no feasible means of implementing it.

In proposing the following revision, the Student Life Committee has tried to follow up on the 1996 Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group's recommendations. Among these was to allow colleges and campuses to resolve most dishonesty cases in their own ways, while creating enough guidelines so that procedures were consistent across the University. The proposed revision therefore clarifies the guidelines that all cases should follow, but leaves enough flexibility so locations can implement them with the resources available to them.

The proposed revision does not attempt to micromanage the process at all locations. It does not, for instance, specify the size of committees, but only that membership should be drawn from students, faculty, and staff. It also does not attempt to set specific sanctions for specific infractions, but states that committees should act in a way consistent with other colleges and locations. Decisions reached in individual cases will be, and ought to be, decided individually, based on the facts of the case.

Adopting the proposed revision will not solve all the problems of academic dishonesty. That will take a common effort among students, faculty, and staff, to instill and recognize the worth of ethical behavior in the Penn State community. It is, however, a first step toward a system that will present a positive message to students about the value of academic integrity.


To implement the conclusions above, the Senate Committee on Student Life makes the following recommendation:

That the present Senate Policy 49-20 be replaced with the following statement, defining academic integrity and describing the procedures to be used to handle alleged cases of dishonesty:


49-20 Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from fraud and deception and is an educational objective of this institution. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students. At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide a statement clarifying the application of academic integrity criteria to that course. A student charged with academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the charge by the instructor. If students believe they have been falsely accused, they should seek redress through informal discussions with the instructor, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. If the instructor believes that the infraction is sufficiently serious to warrant referral of the case to Judicial Affairs, or if the instructor will award a final grade of F in the course because of the infraction, the student and instructor will be afforded formal due process.

ACUE Procedure G-9 [not Senate Policy; given here for reference]:

1. Committee on Academic Integrity. Each college dean/campus executive officer, and provost and dean of Penn State-Behrend and Penn State Harrisburg, shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions. The committee has no authority to impose sanctions. Its duties include (a) the communication of scholarly expectations to all members of the college or campus; (b) the promotion of attitudes and practices to fulfill these expectations; (c) the review of cases of academic dishonesty referred to it by faculty or students for consultation and recommendations to resolve the disputed case; and (d) the referral of cases that are sufficiently severe to warrant disciplinary actions beyond academic sanction to Judicial Affairs for further review.

2. Distinction between Minor and Major Infractions. The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor and major infractions of academic integrity. Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Section 49-20 and are to be treated informally. Major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions.

3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions. Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board. They include warnings, probation, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or loss of privilege, and may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other misconduct.

4. For Minor Infractions. For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor and student should informally seek resolutions. Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.

5. For Major Infractions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions of academic integrity. The student accused of academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor.

If the allegations of academic dishonesty are not denied by the student, the instructor may impose academic sanctions or refer the allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs. The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.

a. A student charged with academic dishonesty will not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89, nor will the symbol W be reported for the course if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. By memo, the instructor informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: Assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review.

c. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation and any other supporting evidence.

If the student denies the allegations of academic dishonesty, the student is to be provided an explanation of the evidence in support of the allegations. If the student continues to deny the allegations, the instructor or the student may seek the services of other offices to help reach a resolution. The department head, the campus director of academic affairs, or the college or campus committee on academic integrity may be asked to review the evidence and positions and to recommend possible resolutions. Ultimately, either the instructor or the student may refer allegations to Judicial Affairs to bring formal academic dishonesty adjudication procedures into operation.

  1. The instructor, by memo, should inform the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs that the student should be assigned a DF symbol for the course and that the student should not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89 nor be assigned a W symbol if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. The department head or campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken.

c. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Office of the University Registrar will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Office of the University Registrar to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the University registrar will again request a grade.

d. For all cases of academic dishonesty referred to it, Judicial Affairs is to determine the nature of the charges, evidence, and any recommended sanctions up to that point, and is to contact the instructor and student involved to confirm their positions. When appropriate, the office refers cases to the University Hearing Board.

e. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of major infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be used by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used only as a basis for deciding whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are removed when the student graduates.

f. The University Hearing Board is to adjudicate only those cases of academic dishonesty that cannot be resolved at the College/Campus level or for which a disciplinary sanction is recommended or required. The hearing board may recommend academic or disciplinary sanctions for acts of academic dishonesty.

g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcome of the formal adjudication procedures and what actions are recommended.

h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the University registrar: an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. If the instructor chooses some action other than that recommended by the hearing board, the student may appeal to the dean of the college in which the violation occurred. If not resolved at that level, the executive vice president and University provost shall make the final decision.


49-20 Academic Integrity

Definition: Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest, and responsible manner. It embodies the values stated in the University's Code of Conduct, which expects all students to support the values of personal integrity, of respect for other students' dignity, rights, and property, and of concern for creating an environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of their own work.

In addition, academic integrity includes a commitment not to tolerate acts of fraud and deception. Such acts of dishonesty include (but are not limited to) cheating or copying, plagiarizing, submitting other persons' work as one's own, using Internet sources without citation, breaking confidentiality on a test or research project, falsifying or padding a bibliography, unauthorized collaborating on an assignment, fabricating information (making up false data for a lab report, term paper, thesis, or other assignment), "ghosting" (having one student take an exam for another), stealing examinations, tampering with the academic work of another student, or facilitating other students' acts of academic dishonesty. These and other such actions violate the ethical principles on which this university is founded and compromise the worth of work completed by conscientious students.

At the beginning of each course, the instructor will provide students with statements explaining the University and College policy on academic dishonesty and criteria for applying it in that course. The Committees on Academic Integrity will assist in generating such statements.

Committee on Academic Integrity: Each College Dean (or Executive Officer or Provost at other locations) shall appoint a Committee on Academic Integrity made up of students, faculty, and staff. This committee (which may overlap an existing committee with related functions) has authority for duties including (but not limited to) the following:

1. Record and review all cases of academic dishonesty within a college or campus.

2. Impose academic sanctions consistent with other colleges and locations.

3. Report all cases to Judicial Affairs.

4. Refer cases to Judicial Affairs for further action when appropriate.

5. Publish and promote expectations of academic integrity specific to courses in its discipline or location.

Procedure: When an instructor suspects an act of dishonesty, the instructor and student should meet informally to discuss the situation. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, the instructor should ask the student to meet with him more formally. The student should be told what the allegation is and what the College/Campus procedure is for handling such cases. These formal discussions between the course instructor and the student may involve others, such as the student's advisor, the department head or campus Director of Academic Affairs, or members of the Committee on Academic Integrity.

If at this point the student accepts responsibility and the proposed academic sanction, the instructor may then consider the incident closed. Or the instructor may forward the case to the Committee on Academic Integrity so that it may impose an academic sanction. In either case, the student will be asked to sign a disposition form accepting the charge and the academic sanction. The Committee on Academic Integrity will handle this form and forward it to Judicial Affairs for record keeping.

If the matter cannot be resolved at this level, a "DF" grade will be assigned. If the sanction is less than failure in the course, it will be referred to the Committee on Academic Integrity. All other cases will be referred to Judicial Affairs. All cases in which a student declines to sign the disposition form will be referred to the Committee on Academic Integrity or to Judicial Affairs, as appropriate.

If the sanction is failure in the course: The instructor will inform both the Registrars' Office and the department head (or campus Director of Academic Affairs). Students involved will not be permitted to drop the course or be allowed to have a "W" symbol assigned to their transcripts if they withdraw from the university.

If the student accepts responsibility or is found responsible, an "XF" grade will be placed on the student's transcript to signal that the failure was due to academic dishonesty. The department head (or responsible officer such as a Director of Academic Affairs) will inform the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing.

Each College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity may develop conditions that, if met to the Committee's satisfaction, may allow a student to change an "XF" mark to an "F."

If an allegation is contested: If the sanction is less than failure in the course, the student may appeal to the Committee on Academic Integrity, whose decision is final. The Committee will inform all parties of the outcome.

If the sanction is failure in the course, and the student contests the charges and/or the sanction, the student may appeal the case to the Committee on Academic Integrity, who will communicate with both the instructor and the student and attempt to resolve the matter locally. If this cannot be done, the case will be forwarded to Judicial Affairs, which will likewise try to resolve the matter informally. If the student accepts the allegation and sanction at this point, Judicial Affairs in consultation with the instructor and the College/Campus Committee will assign a sanction and close the case.

If the student continues to contest the charges, Judicial Affairs will refer the case to the University Hearing Board, whose decision is final for academic and if appropriate, disciplinary sanctions. Before assigning an academic sanction, the University Hearing Board will consult with Judicial Affairs, the College/Campus Committee, and the instructor. Judicial Affairs will then inform all parties of the outcome, including any sanctions imposed.

Pending resolution of such cases, the instructor will inform the Registrar's office and department Head or campus Director of Academic Affairs that a "DF" grade is to be assigned until the case has been resolved. If the student is found responsible, this grade will be changed to an "XF"; if found not responsible, the student will receive the grade earned in the course.

If disciplinary sanctions are recommended: Whether a student contests an allegation or not, in severe cases the Committee on Academic Integrity may (in consultation with the faculty member) recommend disciplinary sanctions over and above any academic sanction. All such cases must be referred to Judicial Affairs.

The Committee on Academic Integrity will supply Judicial Affairs with the allegation and any other information supporting the complaint. Judicial Affairs will first try to resolve the matter informally in conference with the student. If this is not possible, the case will be referred to the University Hearing Board, whose decision is final unless the disciplinary sanction is deferred suspension or greater. In these cases, the student may appeal to the Vice-President for Student Affairs (or chief administrative officer at non-University-Park colleges) whose decision is final.

Record Keeping: After a case is closed at the local level, all related case information should be sent to Judicial Affairs through the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity. Judicial Affairs alone will be responsible for central record keeping of all academic dishonesty cases in which sanctions have been imposed. These records will be confidential and kept in accordance with University guidelines concerning Discipline Records.

A Committee on Academic Integrity, dean, or faculty member may request information from Judicial Affairs on whether students found responsible of academic dishonesty have previously been sanctioned for other acts of dishonesty. This information may not be used as a basis for judging a student's guilt; it may only be used as a basis for imposing sanctions or deciding whether the case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for disciplinary action. Such information may also be utilized by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in a series of infractions.


The revision incorporates seven significant policy changes:

  1. Define academic integrity in a positive way. The University statement should explain what the goal of integrity is and link it to the University's essential values as stated in the University Student Code of Conduct. Such a statement makes it clear that academic integrity is more than avoiding a list of detectable infractions but is a part of becoming an ethical, and conscientious individual.
  2. Expand the responsibilities of College and Campus Committees of Academic Integrity. These groups would ensure ongoing consultation with faculty and students on this topic, and facilitate communication with Judicial Affairs. These groups can communicate more specific guidelines on how to define academic integrity within specific disciplines and on what sanctions are appropriate for specific kinds of dishonesty elsewhere in the University. However, faculty will retain the right to be consulted before any sanction is imposed by the Committee, the office of Judicial Affairs, or any University Hearing Board.

Such committees would now manage most uncontested cases at the lowest level, with consistency and accountability. This will provide consistency to the process within each College/Campus, and also empower College/Campus students and faculty members in responding to this shared University concern. In contested incidents minimum due process will be provided, and such cases will still be managed swiftly. Consistency in sanctions will also reduce the possibility of faculty liability.

  1. Institute a simple but fair procedure for informing students of the allegation. Students should be informed of the allegations and given a chance to respond; they should also know what recourse they have for contesting the allegation, if they wish to do so.
  2. Refer more serious cases directly to Judicial Affairs. This will allow the Office of Judicial Affairs to manage the administrative work while consulting with the Colleges to provide appropriate resolutions. Judicial Affairs presently resolves 97% of its cases informally, typically within one week of referral. Following a standard practice minimizes the chance of any further litigation.
  3. Apply the current University discipline appeal process to academic dishonesty cases. The current appeal process has proved itself swift and effective, while meeting the required test for due process.
  4. Create an XF notation on the student transcript to signal failure due to academic dishonesty. Such a notation would hold students accountable for serious misconduct and deliver the message that Penn State values academic integrity.
  5. The College/Campus Committees on Academic have the option of creating learning opportunities that would allow students to change the "XF" to an "F." Examples might include retaking an exam, attending an educational class on ethical decision-making or producing an additional project or research paper on the topic of ethics.

    Guidelines and suggestions for such learning opportunities will be given in a future advisory/consultative report. However, this will remain a local decision, and Committees may opt not to offer such opportunities in individual cases. But this policy does allow room to allow some students to take responsibility for correcting a bad decision. It also allows Committees to give students the chance (when such a chance is merited) to repair their records before their employment possibilities are damaged by such a notation.

  6. Establish centralized record keeping in Judicial Affairs. This record keeping would help the University accurately track the level and types of academic misconduct, appropriately respond to students who exhibit on-going behaviors, and monitor how we are responding to the misconduct issue.

The form of the record will be devised by Committees on Academic Integrity and would simply record the outcome of the matter. Though simple, it would inform students of their options, allow them to take responsibility for their decisions, and deter them from practicing the same form of dishonesty in other classes.


Changes in the proposed policy will not add significant costs to the Judicial Affairs program. The intent of the policy is to continue to handle most allegations informally at the College/Campus level. Therefore no major expenses are foreseen.

Establishing the "XF" grade may incur a one-time expense in the Registrar's Office. Transcripts are printed on paper that includes various security features imbedded, and thus is rather expensive. This paper contains a printed explanation of special grades on the reverse side. When this policy is implemented, this office would need to order a new stock of this paper, adding a new legend to explain the meaning of "XF." This could cost several thousand dollars, but, depending on the timing of implementation, this expense could be absorbed in the regular cost of reordering the stock of transcript paper.

Joanna Floros
Catherine Harmonosky
Anita Helton
Ronald L. McCarthy
Annie McGregor
Joseph Puzycki, Chair
Thomas Seybert

William W. Asbury
Scott S. Brenneman
Linda L. Caldwell
Josie Duckett
Bill Ellis, Chair
Joanna Floros
Arthur E. Goldschmidt, Jr.
Elizabeth Kinland
Catherine Harmonosky
Margaret M. Lyday, Vice-Chair
Ronald L. McCarthy
Annie McGregor
Joseph Puzycki
Stephane A. Roy
Thomas Seybert


Recommendation Regarding Surcharges in the Penn State Dental Plan

(Advisory and Consultative)


In 1998 the Task Force on the Future of Benefits recommended establishment of a dental preferred provider organization (PPO) plan and this was subsequently supported by the University Faculty Senate later that year. A dental PPO will provide the freedom to choose any dental care provider but would include financial incentives for faculty and staff seeking care from a dentist who participates in the plan's network. United Concordia Companies, Inc. (UCCI) was selected as the Penn State dental plan administrator in 1999 and agreed to make its extensive dental PPO network available to Penn State employees. Under the plan currently in place, prior provisions of the Penn State dental plan were not changed except that those individuals who utilized the services of UCCI-participating providers would have their annual deductibles waived. Also, participating network providers agreed to provide services for specified amounts, eliminating the practice of billing for amounts above "reasonable and customary" charges. In addition, UCCI agreed to an "assignment of benefits" practice for non-participating as well as for participating providers, meaning the employee could authorize the dental plan administrator to pay the dentist directly that amount of benefit appropriate for the procedure, although the dentist is not required to accept the assignment.

The current PPO plan's introduction has been reasonably well received and utilized by Penn State employees at many locations throughout the state, but least so in the Centre County region surrounding the University Park campus. As of July 1999, approximately 58% of employees at locations away from University Park received dental PPO benefits through the UCCI network, whereas only about 26% of University Park employees who utilized the dental program did so through a UCCI-participating provider. This reduced usage at University Park is attributed to the limited availability of network providers in the State College area. It appears that there has been considerable resistance by many dentists in this region to joining the UCCI network and thus the number of dentists affiliated with the network, particularly in specialties other than general dentistry, is quite likely inadequate to serve the needs of all who might be interested in utilizing a network provider. Resolution of this situation may require considerable time, with one possible solution being the recruitment of additional participating dentists of all specialties to this region.


In view of the slow progress being made by UCCI towards establishing an adequate size PPO network in the University Park area, the Faculty Senate encourages the Employees Benefits Division to continue the dental plan in its current form, i.e. providing PPO benefits where applicable without the imposition of a surcharge for non-network services, until such time as the number of dentists affiliated with the PPO network in Centre County more closely approximates the statewide average for Penn State dental PPO-affiliated dentists, or until the percentage of University Park employees using network providers is comparable to that for faculty and staff outside of this location. Similar goals are recommended for employees at other locations which may currently be under-served by dental PPO network providers.

Keith Burkhart
Charles Gunderman
Timothy Ovaert
Laura Pauley, Vice-Chair
Allen Phillips, Chair
Jeffery Sharp
Lawrence Sinoway
Gerhard Strasser
Jose Ventura
Anita Vickers
Billie Willits
J. Randall Woolridge


The Changing Nature of Academic Health Centers


C. McCollister Evarts, Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean

This is one of the most challenging times in modern history for health care organizations in the United States. Over a period of a few years, health care reform has occurred; driven by the corporate world, the threat of government intervention and public dissatisfaction. Subsequently, radical changes have occurred in health care delivery systems with the growth of managed care replacing fee-for-service and the loss of unrestricted physician autonomy. The impact of health care reform upon academic health centers, including The Pennsylvania State University’s College of Medicine, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is significant and dramatic. The very survival of academic health centers/colleges of medicine is at risk in part because of the loss of clinical income used to subsidize the educational and research missions. In addition, there has been a negative impact of managed care upon research and, in certain instances, there is an inverse relationship between growth of managed care and NIH awards.

The core mission of academic medicine is patient care, teaching and research. The environment destabilized the core business and drastic changes have occurred in the economic and organizational aspects of clinical medicine. This is a time of remarkable change for academic medicine and time of challenge for the academic health centers forcing the academic health centers to build upon their unique strengths and cultures. There has to be the resolution of the inevitable tensions that occur between academic pursuits and business realities maintaining the balance between patient care, education and research. Within the academic health center there must be an environment that is interdisciplinary, collaborative and trusting with the faculty being empowered and accountable, leading to innovation. Within the academic health center, there needs to be the preservation of the clinician/scientist and the recognition of the clinician educator. Mission management plays a critical role with mission-based budgeting, accountability and fiscal transparency. Recent headlines have called forth the challenges facing academic health centers-- "Americas Best Hospitals Heading Towards Financial Distress," "Hospitals in Crisis," "Teaching Hospitals Say Medicare Cuts Have Them Bleeding Red Ink." Furthermore, there has been a hemorrhage in regards to operating losses with Georgetown reporting 62.5 million dollars of operating losses, the University of Pennsylvania over 90 million, Harvard’s teaching hospital 150 million. Other very prominent academic health centers (Hopkins, Columbia Presbyterian, the Mayo Clinic and Stanford) have indicated a growing financial vulnerability. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had an extremely negative effect upon teaching hospitals. Reimbursements related to Medicare were affected and profit margins in university hospitals have fallen rapidly. Certain federal legislation to provide some relief has been introduced; however, no bills have passed.

To survive, the academic health center of the future must change. As we enter the next millennium, we must ensure the transformation of biomedical research discoveries and advance-ments in medical education into the art and science of patient care.

John W. Bagby
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Christopher J. Bise
Michael E. Broyles
Lynn A. Carpenter
Alison Carr-Chellman
Peter Deines
Gordon F. De Jong
Rodney A. Erickson
Dennis S. Gouran
Peter C. Jurs
Larry Kenney
Philip A. Klein
William C. Lasher
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Felix L. Lukezic
Linda P. Miller
Murry R. Nelson,Chair
P. Peter Rebane
Robert D. Richards
Irwin Richman
Andrew B. Romberger
Alan W. Scaroni
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Sandra R. Smith
Graham B. Spanier
Brian B. Tormey


Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location


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

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

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

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Cheryl Achterberg
John J. Cahir
William J. Campbell
Joseph Cecere
James P. Crawford
Gregory K. Farber
Erika R. Fullerton
M. Margaret Galligan
Catherine Harmonosky
Lynn Hendrickson
Gary L. Hile
William C. Lasher
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Jamie M. Myers, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith
Jane S. Sutton
Eric R. White
Charles E. Yesalis


Summary of Student Petitions by Types

For The Period 08/01/97 – 07/31/98

Submitted Granted Denied
Drop/Add 682 544 138
Withdrawal 595 531 64
Corrected Grades 36 36 0
Other 24 22 2
TOTALS 1337 1133 204

For The Period 08/01/98 – 07/31/99

Submitted Granted Denied
Drop/Add 754 608 146
Withdrawal 572 508 64
Corrected Grades 31 31 0
Other 20 18 2
TOTALS1377 1165212

Please call the Senate Office for a copy of this table.


The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

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

E-mail address:

Date: October 5, 1999

To: Murry R. Nelson, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Re: Construction Programs Status Report

The attached report by W. J. Anderson, Assistant Vice President of the Physical Plant, summarizes the status of the Department of General Services and Penn State University's major construction programs.

Senators interested in reviewing any particular item should contact the Senate Office for more detailed information.

P. Richard Althouse
William Anderson, Jr.
Anthony Baratta, V-Chair
Elizabeth Billingsley
Peter Deines, Chair
William Frank
Timothy J. Hampp
John T. Harwood
Brandon B. Hunt
Ali R. Hurson
Rodney Kirsch
Philip A. Klein
Larry J. Kuhns
B. Tracy Nixon
Winston A. Richards
Lola Rodriguez
Louise Sandmeyer
Michael Saunders
Dennis C. Scanlon
Derek R. Schuelein
Gary Schultz
Beno Weiss
Please call the Senate Office if you wish to get a copy of this report.


The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, October 5, 1999 1:30 PM 101 Kern Graduate Building

L. J. Berkowitz
C. J. Bise
M. E. Broyles
L. A. Carpenter
A. Chellman
P. Deines
G. F. De Jong
R. A. Erickson
D. S. Gouran
P. C. Jurs
L. Kenney
P. A. Klein
W. Lasher
F. Lukezic
M. R. Nelson
I. Richman
P. P. Rebane
R. D. Richards
A. B. Romberger
T. Engelder (for A. Scaroni)
C. L. Schengrund
S. R. Smith
G. J. Bugyi
G. W. Franz
B. S. Hockenberry
V. R. Price
J. W. Bagby
E. Leure-duPree
L. P. Miller
G. B. Spanier
B. Tormey
J. Cahir
W. Ellis
J. Floros
J. Myers
L. Pauley
A. Phillips
J. Romano
Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM on Tuesday, October 5, 1999, in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. The minutes of the meeting August 24, 1999 were approved as distributed on a Jurs/Gouran motion.


Dr. Nelson announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, September 14 and that he had announced those agenda items at the last Senate meeting. FAC will be meeting again on October 7 and will be discussing the following agenda items: Update on Searches; Enrollment Tax vs. Four-year Programs; Campus Specialty Positions; and Alignment of Upper-division Programs. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 23. If anyone has any items to be added to that agenda, they are to contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers visited Penn State Fayette on September 20 and Penn State McKeesport and Penn State New Kensington on the 21st. They also visited Berks-Lehigh Valley on September 27 and Berks Campus on September 28. The next visits are scheduled for October 19 to Penn State Harrisburg and October 20 to Schuylkill Campus.

Professor Nelson also announced that the Committee on Committees and Rules met on September 14 and short listed the candidates to replace John Coyle as the NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative. The list was sent to the President for his appointment.

Provost Erickson next thanked the Senate for changing their usual order of procedure in addressing the issue of student computer ownership. He indicated that he was at the AAU Chief Academic Officers meeting on September 14 so he was not at the Senate meeting. He understands that there was a good discussion at the Senate meeting regarding this issue. He has appointed an implementation committee to be chaired by John Harwood. Terry Peavler has given the Provost a report on the Senate forensic session as well as his committee's discussions. The Provost stated that he has also received substantial input from the campuses and there are three representatives on the implementation committee from campus colleges including the Commonwealth College. There will be substantial representation on the committee from the Senate also.

The Provost also noted that he is in the midst of his own campus visits and has just visited Berks and Lehigh Valley. These visits are proving to be extremely valuable and are a wonderful opportunity for him to talk with small groups of students, faculty, staff, administrators and advisory board members. He is looking forward to the normal debriefing session with the Senate Officers to share their collective thoughts concerning the locations other than University Park.

Dr. Erickson next indicated that he was looking forward to his report to the Senate on the 1999-00 University budget as well as the proposals that are in place for the 2000-01 budget process. One of the things that he has gleaned from his visits to the campuses is that there is not a great understanding of the overall budget and the kinds of constraints that we are under. There is an impression that we are under a very good budget year in terms of the State appropriation, but unfortunately few of the major needs of the University are covered there. The 3% across-the-board increase that we received from the State is enough to cover about 1/2 of our salary increase without even accounting for the additional benefits that go along with that increase or for the 4.2 million dollars to bring new buildings on line.

Professor Erickson announced that he is pleased to see the Senate is taking up the Academic Integrity issue. This is an issue that we are hearing a lot about from various quarters of the institution. He is looking forward to the Senate's debate and policy changes on this issue. Hopefully, we can use this to provide a framework to address this issue.

One of the biggest challenges we will have this year will be the intellectual property issue. The Task Force on Intellectual Property should be reporting out within the next couple of weeks and that should be the source of major discussion by the Senate. There are several Senate representatives on that task force which should help to connect the issues associated with this topic.

The Provost also shared that, at the September meeting of the Board of Trustees, he was asked to provide remarks to the Board about what he saw was his role as the Chief Academic Officer. He addressed the challenges and opportunities that will face Penn State in the next few years. If anyone is interested in reading those remarks, they will soon be available on the Provost's web page. Some of the issues that he highlighted are the issues of academic excellence and technology.

The last subject that the Provost addressed concerned the newspaper articles that have been released around the Commonwealth that were critical of Penn State. None of this is new news; everything that the reporters have chosen to write about happened two or three years ago. Virtually all of this is based on misinformation. He assured Council that the President is responding to other university presidents, the Board of Trustees, members of the Legislature, and to the media in the form of editorial type pieces. These matters are being followed very closely and we are taking every appropriate action.


Phil Klein reported on the September 15, 1999 meeting of the Graduate Council. Dr. Klein's summary of that meeting is attached to these minutes.


Legislative Reports

Student Life -- "Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity (Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9)." Joanna Floros, this year's Chair, and Bill Ellis, last year's Chair, commented on the report. Dr. Ellis gave a summary of what has been done with this report and stated that there was a forensic session last spring. The committee took those comments and integrated the ideas into the present report. Dr. Floros noted that the report also integrates the concepts of the Provost's Special Committee on Academic Integrity. Council had several questions concerning the fact that the ACUE procedures were incorporated into the report and also about record keeping associated with cases. There were also questions regarding the statements on rehabilitation. The report was passed for the Senate Agenda on a Richman/Jurs motion.

Advisory/Consultative Reports

Faculty Benefits -- "Recommendation Regarding Surcharges in the Penn State Dental Plan." Laura Pauley and Allen Phillips presented the report and commented that the dental plan was modified at the start of this year with the institution taking on a form of a preferred provider. Some dentists were asked to join this PPO group with the objective being that if they joined this group, the people who visit these dentists would get the benefit of reduced charges. In addition, there is no annual minimum at these preferred providers; it was also envisioned that there would be surcharges placed on visits to non-PPO providers. These surcharges have not been put in place because there are not enough providers in the PPO. The report recommends that this surcharge not be put in place until such time that the number of PPO providers reaches a reasonable limit. Part of the purpose of the report is to put pressure on UCCI to recruit more dentists. A Richman/Jurs motion was passed to place this report on the Agenda.

Informational Reports

Senate Council -- "Academic Health Centers." Senate Chair Nelson presented this report and stated that, at the Board of Trustees meeting this summer, C. McCollister Evarts, Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the Medical School, made a report to that body on the challenges of academic health centers. Dr. Evarts spoke about why academic health centers are such a financial drain, what might be done, what the future seems to be. The Senate Officers thought that it would be an excellent presentation to the Senate. Chair Nelson expressed his thoughts about why the Council should support this report. First, clearly we have had some issues regarding the Hershey Medical Center and the College of Medicine recently that make a report such as this very timely. Second, the issue of academic health centers is not just limited to Penn State, but in fact, nationally this is a concern. Professor Nelson also indicated that the Senate should have a better understanding of the whole concept of academic health centers rather than seeing the sort of thing that is going on at the medical school as being unusual. In the 12 years that Dr. Evarts has been the Dean, he has never addressed the Senate and despite the fact that he is retiring next June, it seemed fitting that he speak at the Senate meeting. In the past, there has been some misunderstanding between what goes on at the medical school and the rest of the institution. Thus, it seemed useful to have Dean Evarts speak and respond to questions on this subject and others. Having the Dean speak will set a good precedence to establish better lines of communication between the administration of the College of Medicine and the Faculty Senate.

The question Chair Nelson then asked Council was this -- since there is really no appropriate standing committee to sponsor this report, this report seems most appropriate to come from Council. Council asked what the essential message of Dean Evarts' report is. Professor Nelson stated that the problems with the health center are a national trend. Also the problem lies in the fact that the changes in reimbursement to hospitals has had a great impact on tertiary care facilities. They accrued great expenses because they have students that they are training as well as patients that they are caring for. Now these facilities are not getting reimbursed at full value for patients. They also have to accept patients of all economic status and ability to pay. Council asked that a one-page summary of the presentation be included with the Agenda. The report was accepted for the Agenda on a Jurs/Romberger motion.

Undergraduate Education -- "Summary of Petitions by College, Unit or Location." Jamie Myers was at Council to address this report. He asked if there were any questions and there were none. The Council passed a Jurs/Romberger motion regarding this report.

University Planning -- "Construction Programs Status Report." Peter Deines indicated that this is a mandated report and asked if there were any questions. Council had no questions and accepted this report on a Richman/Rebane motion.

University Planning -- "Budget Report, Process and Outcome for the Academic Year 1999/2000 and Budget Planning for the Academic Year 2000/2001." Peter Deines addressed this report and stated that the Provost will be making this report. This report was passed for the Agenda on a Richman/Richards motion. A Chellman/Kenney motion was made and passed to move the budget report to the first of the informational reports.


Chair Nelson next asked Senate Secretary Christopher Bise to present the proposed change to the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Constitution. Dr. Bise indicated that the proposed change was under the duties of the Faculty Advisory Committee of that college. The change is that the Chair of this committee will serve as the College Faculty Ombudsperson. The Subcommittee on Unit Constitutions had some concern that a faculty member might have a problem with going to the Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee if there was a misunderstanding with the Dean of that college. EMS accepted a change to the proposal with the addition of the following: that the EMS Faculty Advocate would be designated as the alternate. Some concern was expressed by Council that the Ombudsperson should not be a part of the Faculty Advisory Committee at all. Council ratified this proposed change on a Jurs/Romberger motion.

Next Professor Bise turned to a proposed change to the Penn State Erie Constitution. There were two changes offered. The first was a change of date of when their Nominating Committee should be formed to produce slates of nominees. The change was from March 15 to February 15. The second change had to do with the Committee on Scholarships and Awards and was withdrawn by Penn State Erie. A Jurs/Romberger motion was passed to ratify the change of date for the Nominating Committee.

The final Action Item was a proposal from the College of Agricultural Sciences to drop the Major in Agronomy. A Jurs/Romberger motion was passed as follows without Council discussion:

In Accordance with our duties as prescribed in Bylaws, Article II,
Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that the proposal to
drop the Major in Agronomy be implemented as described in the
documents we have received.


There was no New Business for the Council to address.


Chair Nelson thanked the members of Council for their attention to their duties and adjourned the meeting at 3:13 PM

Respectfully submitted,
George J. Bugyi
Executive Secretary


The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

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

Date: September 28, 1999

To: Members, Senate Council

From: Philip A. Klein, Senate/Graduate Council Liaison

Re: Graduate Council Meeting of September 15, 1999

The Graduate Council held its initial meeting of the 1999-2000 school year on September 15, 1999 with Interim Dean Eva Pell presiding.

Dr. Pell began by reporting that the Graduate School had been asked to provide a list of goals for the 1999-2000 academic year. Among the goals of greatest interest to the general faculty were:

1. To complete the implementation of electronic application to all
programs and to be used by all applicants.

2. To develop a plan for decentralizing the process of awarding Graduate
Fellowships but with a continuing and visible link to the Graduate School.

3. To maintain proportionate enrollment for underrepresented minorities

4. To work on several other avenues through which the Graduate School
utilizes a wealth of computer applications to assist in graduate school planning.

Dr. Pell announced that there would be a faculty workshop on October 25th at the Penn Stater to be devoted to "Faculty-student Relationships: Promoting Mutual Accountability."

In her capacity as Vice President for Research, Dr. Pell reported that research expenditures for FY 1998-1999 were $400M and the research awards
were $352M as on June 30, 1999.

Among the Standing Committee reports, the following were particularly germane for the faculty:

1. The Committee on Fellowships and Awards is developing guidelines to
decentralize the fellowship program. Dr. Pell informed the Council that
up to 50 additional fellowships would be available this year because of
savings from FICA.

2. Dr. Kevin Furlong of the Graduate Research Committee reported that the
Graduate Exhibition this year would not be able to take place in the HUB
and an alternative location was being sought. An alternate date was also
suggested, to coincide with recruiting efforts.

3. Dr Raymond Lombra reported for the Graduate Student and Faculty
Affairs Committee that various plans are afoot to develop "best practices"
for dealing with thesis and thesis defense, as well as a "best practice"
brochure that might cover issues in recruitment, mentoring, teacher
preparation, etc. He also reported that there were plans to implement
the recommendations of the report last year dealing with International Teaching Assistants.

4. Dr. Howard Sachs of the Programs and Courses Committee, discussed the
new system for evaluating new and revised courses and programs. A new
Subcommittee on New and Revised Programs will review such proposals and
will work with the Committee on Programs and Courses to expedite the approval process. Once such proposals are submitted and approved by the Graduate Council, they go to the Trustees for final approval. Graduate students are involved in the consultation process.

5. Dr. Lynne Goodstein reported that the Graduate Council Executive Committee
had been asked to review the AAU Report on Graduate Education and comment on the recommendations concerning such issues as minority recruitment, and retention, library resource needs supporting graduate education, student placement after graduation, graduate program quality, etc.

6. There were a number of special reports dealing with such issues as responsibility for developing a Graduate School Alumni Society, the development of appropriate data bases through the Computer Network Operations, and several other areas.

7. Dr. Cathy Lyons reported on the operation of the Center for Minority Graduate Opportunities and its recent activities in pursuit of graduate student recruitment, retention, professional development, and related activities.



Date: October 8, 1999

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 25, 19997:00 PM

Officers' and Chairs' Meeting Board Room I, NLI

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 19998:00 PM

Commonwealth Caucus CANCELLED

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 19997:30 AM

Intercollegiate Athletics205 Shields Building

8:00 AM

Outreach Activities502 Keller Building

Student Life112 Shields Building

8:30 AM

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and
Student Aid203 Shields

Committees and Rules327 Thomas Building

Curricular Affairs101 Kern Building

Intra-University Relations301 Ag. Admin. Bldg.

Research 114 Kern Building

Undergraduate EducationNantucket Room, Findley Hall

University Planning124 Sparks Building

9:00 AM

Computing and Information Systems101-A Kern Building

Faculty Affairs404 Old Main

Libraries E510 Paterno Library

9:30 AM

Faculty BenefitsBirch Cottage

9:30 AM

1:30 PM

University Faculty Senate112 Kern Graduate Building

The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, in Penn State Room of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: October 8, 1999

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

From: Irwin Richman and Sandy Smith


TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 -- 11:00 AM --


The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at the Penn State Room, NLI. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon. Our guest will be Provost Erickson.

The tentative Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

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

III. Provost Rodney Erickson

IV. Reports of Senate Committees

V. Other Items of Concern

VI. Adjournment and Lunch