|
THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 28, 2003,
1:30 p.m.
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting
has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message
can be heard
concerning the status of any meeting.]
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Minutes of the September 16, 2003 Meeting
in The Senate Record 37:1
[www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE
Senate
Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of October 14,
2003 Appendix A
C.
REPORT
OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of October 14, 2003
D.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
BY THE CHAIR
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF
THE UNIVERSITY
Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.
| University Faculty Senate The Pennsylvania State University 101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802-4613 |
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 Fax: (814) 863-6012 URL: www.psu.edu/ufs/ |
Date: October 15, 2003
To: Christopher J. Bise, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report dated October 14, 2003, has been circulated
throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report
must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate
Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before
November 13, 2003.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html.
(Advisory/Consultative)
The Senate Self-Study Committee was charged by Senate Chair John Nichols in October to make recommendations to improve Senate organization and procedures and to suggest "ways the Senate can do a better job and seeks ways to give faculty at large a greater sense of ownership in what the Senate does." The Committee has reviewed various governance documents of other universities, consulted broadly across the university, given two interim reports to the Senate, conducted one forensic session last April and now submits a report with a set of 11 recommendations to carry out its mandate.
Unlike
most Senate Committee reports, this one asks for agreement to a series of
recommendations that will then be implemented by the Committee on Committees
and Rules returning to the Senate with a series of legislative reports for
Senate approval of specific changes. Thus,
the report lays out a two-step process. If the Senate agrees to the recommendations
set forth in this report and approves them, the Senate Committee on Committees
and Rules will then be charged to submit various pieces of legislation for
Senate approval to revise the Senate Constitution, By-laws and Standing
Rules to bring them into conformity with the wishes of the Senate.
Fundamental to the thinking of the Self Study Committee were several principles and goals:
§ The Senate is more than a legislative body; it is what allows Penn State to function as one University, geographically dispersed.
§ Senate structures should reflect the current administrative structures of the university and the collective wisdom of Senators needs to be brought to bear on reports more effectively than currently is the practice.
§ Procedures need to be reformed to allow the Senate to focus on what is important and central to the needs of the faculty.
§ We should attempt to bring greater integration of the faculty governance structures throughout the University.
§ We need to use technology more effectively in carrying out our mission.
Recommendations. The Self Study Committee proposes three recommendations (1, 1a, 2, 3) that stand-alone and will be addressed and voted on separately (numbers refer to the recommendations in the body of the report):
Recommendation 1. Create a smaller, more efficient Senate by changing the representation ratio to one Senator for each thirty (30) members of the electorate. The current ratio is one senator for each twenty (20) members of the electorate. This will reduce the size of the Senate by 1/3. Recommendation 1a. changes the student representation to ten percent of the elected faculty Senators to bring it into conformity with administrative representation.. Currently, student representation is 9%.
Recommendation 2. Reduce the
term of elected faculty Senators from 4 years to 3 years and,
Recommendation 3. Phase in the new representation ratio and term lengths
over a three-year period.
The Self Study Committee makes five recommendations that are inter-related and will be discussed individually, but voted on as a group:
Recommendation 4. Strengthen the role of Senate Council in providing leadership on significant University issues. Council’s current membership will be maintained but it will have expanded and strengthened duties and responsibilities. Under this new structure, Senate Council would represent the geographic and academic diversity of the University and would be charged with addressing the issues and needs of a geographically distributed University. To accomplish this, Senate Council would be strengthened and its authority expanded by having it retain all of its current responsibilities, except that the agenda-setting and most nominating responsibilities would be given to other Senate groups. Council would also be given the added responsibility of staffing committees and interpreting Senate legislation, currently under the Committee on Committees and Rules, which is eliminated in this proposal. These added duties support the central role of the Council in setting the direction of Senate work.
Recommendation 5. To provide a more effective mechanism to bring reports of substance to the Senate, establish two Steering Committees -- Undergraduate Education and Academic Resources. These two Steering Committees would replace the current ad hoc Officers and Chairs with formal groups that would have the authority to recommend policy and agenda items, address issues and concerns that cut across committee boundaries, provide better coordination of committee activities under their purview, and provide better "vetting" of committee reports by determining the appropriateness and readiness of committee reports for the Senate agenda.
Recommendations 6. Restructure Senate committees so that they reflect the current administrative structure of the University, reflect the current direction of University initiatives and are clustered under the two new Steering Committees.
Recommendation 7. Establish a free standing, elected Nominating Committee so that the current ad hoc approach to nominating slates of candidates for various offices and University committees can have more continuity and be more proactive in recruiting quality candidates.
Recommendation 8. Establish an Executive Committee to provide better coordination among committees and other instrumentalities of the Senate and the administration. This Committee would determine the order of business for Senate meetings.
The Self Study Committee is also making three more recommendations that are procedural in nature and will be addressed and voted on separately:
Recommendation 9 proposes to continue to work with the Graduate Council to promote a more integrated and mutually beneficial working relationship between Graduate Council and the Senate.
Recommendation 10 is a series of suggestions to reduce the number of Senate meetings and for changes in the way mandated and informational reports are handled.
Recommendation 11 makes a number of suggestions to the Senate Officers and Executive Secretary on ways to more effectively use technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness of communication within the Senate and within the larger university.
(Advisory/Consultative)
October 2001 marked the 80th anniversary
of the first Senate meeting at Penn State.
Taking note of that anniversary, then Senate Chair John Nichols,
observed that it had been a decade since the Senate last undertook a self-examination,
appointed a Senate Self-Study Committee to "examine how the body can
be strengthened and updated". He
gave the Committee two charges:
§
First, and most important, I would like you to do some ‘blue
sky’ thinking about how the Senate can do a better job and seek ways to
give the faculty at large a greater sense of ownership in what the Senate
does....
§
Second, I would like you to make some specific recommendations
about how to improve Senate organization and procedures. This should include (but not be limited to)
consideration of revamping the standing committees of the Senate....
Chair Nichols asked the committee to report to the Senate
before the end of the 2002- 2003 academic year. Unfortunately, the "blue skying" took much longer than
expected, so we now appear before the Senate with our final recommendations
Since being appointed, the Committee has, on two occasions,
solicited recommendations from a wide range of Faculty Senate constituencies.
A roster of the individuals and groups with whom the Self Study Committee
has met appears in Appendix C.
Through the Chair of the Senate, we requested a self-examination
report from every Senate committee. The
Committee reviewed the last two self-study reports and met with several
members of the 1992 Senate Review Committee.
Representatives of the Committee have met with the Provost and the
Dean of the Graduate School to discuss the relationship between Graduate
Council and the Senate, and Committee members have also met with the Graduate
Council to continue those discussions.
Finally, in an attempt to determine Senators’ view on proposals under
review, the Senate held a Forensic Session on April 22, 2003.
Based on comments made at that meeting and subsequent communications
to the Committee, the committee has substantially revised the earlier recommendations
for this final report.
In addition, several members of the committee reviewed the
literature on faculty governance and the Committee reviewed governance structures
and documents from a number of other institutions, focusing especially within
the CIC. Committee members found
the Ohio State Report from the Presidential
Commission on University Governance (2001) especially useful.
During committee deliberations, two overarching principles
and several goals evolved that then allowed the committee to make recommendations
regarding the structure and operation of the Senate.
Ø
The Senate is more than a legislative body.
It is the embodiment of the organizing principle of the University
that we are one University, geographically dispersed.
The University Faculty Senate is the one place within Penn State
where that principle functions effectively and is personified by the Senators
when they attend our meetings. This
symbolic and "informal" function of the Senate needs to be retained
and strengthened. In fact, we believe it is, in many respects,
the University Faculty Senate that allows Penn State to be one University,
geographically dispersed.
Ø
In proposing changes to various Senate instrumentalities,
the Committee’s goal was to make them more efficient and more congruent
with the current administrative structure of the University.
Where new initiatives have caused new administrative structures to
be created, a Senate oversight function was provided.
In addition, the Committee believes that there are more efficient
structures for handling broad, general areas of concern to the Senate so
that the collective wisdom of Senators can be brought to bear on reports
before they reach the Senate floor.
Ø
The Senate needs to reform its procedures so that
it can focus on what is important and central to the needs of the faculty
and to the academic endeavor. A structure and procedure that are more responsive, efficient, and
more meaningful to faculty are needed.
Ø
There should be greater integration of effort
between the Graduate Council and the Senate so that there is one faculty
voice in University governance. The
Committee knows of no other governance structure at a major research University
where graduate education and research are handled separate from the recognized
faculty governance structure. The
current arrangement, which is an historical artifact, diminishes the importance
of graduate education and research within the faculty governance structure
of the University. While there are
reasons to keep the current structure of Graduate Council, efforts should
be made for more integration of the two structures as part of an evolutionary
process.
Ø
Wherever possible, information technology should
be used to enhance the operation of the Senate
Ø
While specific structural changes will be recommended,
an evolutionary approach should be taken to changes in procedures and to
the introduction of the use of information technology.
Ø
When procedural changes were identified that could
be implemented immediately through the Senate, the Committee made recommendations
and many of them have already been implemented.
For example, it was Committee discussions that resulted in the initiation
of an electronic Senate Newsletter, the reduction in the number of Senate
meetings during the Spring semester, the modification to procedures for
Informational Reports enacted at the last Senate meeting, the greater use
of information technology for such things as Senate elections and the increased
use of the Senate website for the distribution of information.
A number of procedural changes have already been implemented
by the Senate Office or through Senate legislation in response to Self Study
Committee discussions. Where Committee
recommendations have already been implemented, these changes are so indicated
in the body of the report.
If approved, many
of the recommendations dealing with structural change will need to be phased
in over the next several years. Consequently,
rather than provide a massive document with every change in the By-laws
and Standing Rules which would result in endless debates on exact wording,
a two-step process is proposed. If
the Senate agrees to the recommendations set forth in this report and approves
them, the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will then be charged
to submit for Senate approval, over a period of time, various pieces of
legislation to revise the Senate By-laws and Standing Rules to bring them
into conformity with the wishes of the Senate.
The Self Study Committee believes that it will take three years to
fully implement some of the recommendations given in this report.
Recommendation 1.
Representation Ratio: The
Committee on Committees and Rules shall prepare and present to the Senate
for approval an amendment to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to
change the representation ratio to one Senator for each thirty (30) members
of the electorate.
Recommendation 1a. Student Representation: The Committee on Committees and Rules shall
present to the Senate for approval an amendment to the Constitution, Article
II, Section 5(c) to change student representation to ten percent of the
elected faculty Senators.
Rationale: The consensus among members of the Faculty Senate is that because of the
number of elected senators, the Faculty Senate has become too large and
unwieldy. Some voting units have
had trouble finding the required number of faculty to stand for election
to the Faculty Senate. Reluctantly
elected senators are more likely to be absent from committee meetings and
therefore have a negative impact on the ability of committees to attend
to their assignments. It was felt
that fewer Senators would also simplify the logistics of organizing and
holding Faculty Senate meetings.
The currently used ratio for elections to the Senate is a
ratio of one Senator for every twenty (20) faculty members. For 2003-2004 the total number of elected faculty
Senators is 238. This number of
faculty in the Senate is large compared to other institutions. In 2003-2004 the total number of elected, appointed,
and student senators is 282. For example, the University of Arizona has
61 in the Senate (faculty and students); UCLA has 150 faculty senators;
University of Illinois has 250 (faculty and students); University of Minnesota
has about 200 faculty senators; University of Washington has 180 and University
of Wisconsin has 220 faculty senators.
The number of students and appointees were not specified in the latter
three institutions.
In considering an acceptable ratio of elected Senators to
the number of faculty in each academic voting unit, a number of factors
were taken into account. The main
factor was the number of Senators needed to allow the Faculty Senate to
effectively represent the geographically dispersed units of the University
and, at the same time, allow the Senate to function efficiently. Since most of the work of the Faculty Senate is done in committees,
consideration was given to the number of Senators needed by each committee
to effectively carry out their assignments and to conduct the business of
the Faculty Senate as a whole. Table
1 provides a comparison of the minimum number of elected senators that
are currently appointed to each committee and the mandated minimum number
of elected senators that would be appointed to certain committees that are
being recommended under the proposed structure.
The recommended re-organization of Senate committees will
result in fewer standing committees and therefore fewer Senators will be
needed. In addition, information
technology is providing tools by which members of committees can communicate
easily and effectively. Therefore,
there would be no need to have extra people on a committee to ensure a minimum
number for a meaningful discussion about issues. The guide used in selecting the ratio for the recommendation was
that the Senate size needed to be a little larger than the total minimum
number of Senators to be appointed to all the standing committees.
No change is being recommended in the proportion of appointed
administrators to elected faculty Senators, which is currently 10%.
For student representation, we propose returning the percentage of
students to 10% of elected faculty Senators. Currently, student representation is mandated
by unit and results in a representation of nine percent, or 22 student Senators.
Table 1.
A comparison of the minimum elected faculty Senators needed to staff
current and proposed committees.
| Current
Committee |
Minimum Number of Elected Faculty Senators (current Constitution) |
Total
# Elected Senators 03-04 |
Proposed committees |
Recommended Minimum Number of Elected Faculty Senators |
|
Senate
Council |
17 |
17 |
Senate
Council |
17 |
|
Committees
and Rules |
10 |
14 |
||
|
|
|
|
Nominating |
8 |
|
Admissions,
Records, Scheduling and Student Aid |
10 |
11 |
Admissions,
Records, Scheduling and Student Aid |
10 |
|
Computing
and Information Systems |
8 |
11 |
Libraries
and Information Systems |
10 |
|
Libraries |
6 |
12 |
||
|
Curricular
Affairs |
17 |
19 |
Curricular
Affairs |
17 |
|
Faculty
Affairs |
20 |
26 |
Faculty
Affairs |
12 |
|
Faculty
Benefits |
7 |
14 |
Academic
and Resource Planning |
12 |
|
University
Planning |
12 |
16 |
||
|
Intercollegiate
Athletics |
6 |
14 |
Intercollegiate
Athletics |
6 |
|
Intra-University
Relations |
17 |
18 |
|
|
|
Outreach
Activities |
7 |
13 |
Outreach
and International Programs |
10 |
|
Research |
10 |
20 |
Research |
10 |
|
Student
Life |
7 |
13 |
Student
Affairs |
8 |
|
Undergraduate
Education |
12 |
16 |
Undergraduate
Education |
12 |
|
|
|
|
Educational
Equity and Campus Environment |
8 |
|
Total |
166 |
234 |
Total |
140 |
Table 2 provides the number of Senators that would be elected
from the different voting units for various ratios based on the number of
faculty in the 2002-03 census.
 |
Recommendation 2. Term Length: The normal term of elected faculty Senators shall be three (3) years. The Committee on Committees and Rules shall prepare and present to the Senate for approval an amendment to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to carry out this recommendation.
Rationale: It appears that many
faculty members consider a four-year Senate term a daunting commitment.
In addition, it would be in the University’s best interest to provide
more frequent opportunities for faculty members to become involved in faculty
governance without sacrificing significant experience.
Recommendation
3.
Phase-In of New Ratio and Term Length: Beginning with the elections in Spring 2004, the number of Senators to
be elected for a new 3-year term would be one-third (1/3) of the total number
of Senators for each voting unit, based on the new representation ratio. The Committee on Committees and Rules shall
establish procedures for implementing this conversion beginning with the
Spring 2004 Senate election cycle.
Rationale: In order to allow currently elected Senators to complete
the term for which they were elected and to implement the recommendations
for a different representation ratio and term length, a 3-year phase-in
period is recommended, beginning with the elections for the 2004-2005 Senate
year.