THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
THE SENATE RECORD
Volume 40 ----- December 5, 2006 ----- Number 3
The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University, 2006-2007.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (telephone 814-863-0221). The Senate Record is distributed to all University Libraries and is posted on the Web at http:// www.senate.psu.edu under “Publications.” Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory/consultative, and forensic body for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports that have appeared in the Agenda for the meeting are not
included in The Senate Record unless they have been changed
substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major
importance. Remarks and discussions are abbreviated in most instances.
A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals
with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary,
University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final Agenda for December 5, 2006
B. Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section I (Membership) Door Handout
FINAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 5, 2006
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Minutes of the October 24, 2006, Meeting in The Senate Record 40:2
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Senate Curriculum Report of November 21, 2006
2007-2008 Senate Calendar
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of November 21, 2006
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Committees and Rules
Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)
Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 5 (c) (3) (Student Representation)
Revision of Senate Committee on Outreach, Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6 (k) 3
Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
New Student Government Report
Student Services Enhancements at Penn State Commonwealth Campuses
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 1:30 PM
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Joanna Floros, Chair, presiding.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Chair Floros: The October 24, 2006, Senate Record providing a full transcription of the proceedings was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate Web site: Are there any corrections or additions to this document?
Seeing none, may I hear a motion to accept?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Floros: Second?
Chair Floros: All in favor of accepting the minutes of October 24, 2006, please say aye.
Chair Floros: Opposed say nay. Ayes have it, motion carried. The minutes of the October 24, 2006, meeting have been approved.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Senate Curriculum Report of November 21, 2006. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate Web site.
The Senate calendar for 2007-2008 can be found in appendix B of your agenda.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of November 21, 2006
At the end of the Senate Agenda are the minutes from the November 21 meeting of Senate Council. Included in the minutes are topics that were discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at the November 21 meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Floros: Out of courtesy to our presenters, please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time. Thank you.
I received a letter from President Spanier regarding the Advisory and Consultative Report Integration of Strategic Research Institutes with the Colleges. Dr. Spanier notes that the recommendations are all worthy of careful consideration, and that with greater outreach and communication there is potential to increase the interaction between campus faculty and the institutes. We are pleased to learn that Dr. Pell will follow up with institute directors to discuss ways of broadening participation with campus faculty.
I want to call your attention to two important national reports that appear as links on the Faculty Affairs Committee Web site the AAUP Faculty Gender Equity indicators and beyond Bias and Barriers Executive Summary.
The Senate Office has a new member. Will Mary Ann Moliterno please stand. Mary Ann is the receptionist and the friendly voice you hear when you call the Senate Office. Please welcome Mary Ann when you speak with her or when you stop by the Senate Office. We are pleased to welcome her to the Senate.
I would like to welcome Karen Schultz to the meeting today. Karen, will you please stand. Karen was appointed as the University Registrar effective November 1, 2006, and will serve as an Ex Officio Senator and will also serve as a member of the Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid Committee. Karen was the Director of Student Information Systems in the Office of the University Registrar from 1991 to 1996 and most recently she was the Director of Solutions and Services in Administrative Information Services. Karen also served as Chair of the Penn State Commission for Women last year. We are pleased to welcome you to the Senate Karen.
It is time to begin preparing for spring elections. The elected members of Senate Council nominate for Secretary and Chair Elect of the Senate, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and the Committee on Committees and Rules. The Senate Council Nominating Committee is chaired by the Immediate Past Chair of the Senate, Jamie Myers. Nominations are also needed for the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. These nominations are done by Committee and Rules chaired by Deidre Jago. We want the best possible candidates for these important positions. Jamie and Deidre will welcome nominations from you or answer your questions.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Floros: I would like to invite President Spanier to come forward to make some remarks.
President Spanier: Thank you. Joanna was saying to me the other day, you may not be much of a President, but we hear you are a decent magician. She actually asked me to do a little bit of magic today since the agenda was not too heavy. I thought I would split my time doing a little bit of magic, and then we will follow up with questions and a little bit of business. Some of you may know that I am the Faculty Adviser for the Penn State Performing Magicians, and we have some great young magicians at the University. We have the top magician in the United States who is a new freshman at Penn State. He won the Lance Burton Award in Las Vegas, and the Society of American Magicians Genie Award. He is a freshman in the Schreyer Honors College and he is quite amazing, I recruited him here very heavily. You may think it is just athletes that I help recruit, but he is a great magician and many of our recent graduates have gone on to become magicians. In fact two of our recent graduates were on the Jay Leno show doing their magic, and they perform professionally now.
I have a few brief items and then we will take your questions. I think most of you by now have heard of a remarkable gift that we received, a 25 million dollar gift from Bill and Joan Schreyer that will go to the Schreyer Honors College. This is in addition to their prior gifts, which means that their total giving to the University now is approaching 60 million dollars. This in fact is the first major gift that we are announcing as we launch a new significant capital fund-raising campaign at Penn State. We won’t have a specific goal for that campaign until we spend the next couple of years tracking leadership gifts. We hope it will be a very ambitious campaign, as ambitious as the last one, The Grand Destiny Campaign.
One of the things that I would like to do, which is not something we have ever done before, and it seems like a good thing to do, is to share with the faculty in a fairly public way, the case statement as it’s called that we are writing and editing right now that will be shared with prospective major donors of a University. This is a statement in which we outlined where we have been philanthropically, what our vision is for the University, and in very general terms some of the big concepts that we are using in trying to attract funding in this next campaign. Individual colleges, departments, and campuses will have their own set of goals keying off of this. In the past, we have focused the campaign materials on the donors, and that is what we do here because they are the ones who give the money. It seems to me that it is an opportunity to communicate some of our ideas and values and some of the things that we’re discovering resonate with our donors with our faculty members. In early 2007 we hope to be able to do that.
There is some wonderful new data out, for those of you on the newswire you may have seen references to this new data on the academic achievement of our athletes at Penn State. I know this is a topic of interest to the Senate because Intercollegiate Athletics has such an opportunity to really enhance the reputation of the University but also to detract from it. Many universities struggle with this and it is part of our oversight in checks and balances of athletics. You have reports at the Senate every year and you had one recently from Tim Curley. The new NCAA data is out and shows that Penn State student athletes earned a graduation success rate of 86 percent, which is many percentage points ahead of all Division 1A institutions. For the period of students entering from 1996 to 2000, it sounds like there is a lag, but you have to give them enough years to graduate to see how it really turned out. I can assure you that this is an exceptionally high rate, and Penn State is a little bit ahead of the rate for our students as a whole. What is equally remarkable is the four year graduation rate, those students who graduate in precisely four years. The average for our student athletes was 81 percent; well above the national average of 63 percent for student athletes. The four year average was highest of the Big Ten public universities. African American student athletes at Penn State; this has always been an area of interest because the numbers have not looked good nationally particularly for many of our sports for quite a long time. African American student athletes at Penn State continue to graduate at a much higher percentage then at other Division 1A institutions. This is the 16 th consecutive year that Penn State’s graduation rate for African American student athletes topped the figures for all the Division 1A institutions in the United States. We are very proud of that number. There is a lot more detail on this if you have read the newswire item or you can go to the Web and look at the announcement on December 1, 2006.
I am pleased to report in the admissions area that applications for 2007 are still running double digits ahead of this time last year, and as you know at this time last year we were way ahead of the year before and broke an all-time record. We continue to look very good in that respect.
The last thing I want to comment on before we open it up is that I understand that one or more Senate committees are looking at the whole topic of freshman seminars and I know there is some varied opinion about how they operate and whether, in fact, we should even continue to have them. I think that is a very worthy topic to be discussing but I just urge a little bit of caution in rushing into anything on that. I think there is a lot at stake in talking about that program and what we expect for our students; what our expectations are; what kind of success we’ve had; whether we should change the system, before we say we are giving up on it altogether. It might be something we could argue about, but I encourage us to have a very healthy discussion of that. I was not frankly aware it was as far along in the discussion with the Senate committees as it apparently is. I will make some effort in the next few weeks to get up to speed on what the thinking is there, so that we can talk about it. With that I will be happy to open it up for your questions.
Chair Floros: Are there any questions for President Spanier? Please stand and wait for the microphone before you give your name and unit.
Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: On November 21, 2006, a memorandum was circulated from Bob Myrick concerning intended actions to levy penalties in the form of fines, against academic unit budgets for messiness in general purpose classrooms. I find that a non-constructive approach to a serious problem, and I have cleaned up my share of classrooms and think that something needs to be done. It seems to me that this is a heavy handed kind of approach to addressing a problem. Second, it places culpability on those who are not guilty of the infractions of the policy. Thirdly, it suggests a complete disregard for due process because as I read the memorandum, department heads can be notified that it has been determined that they schedule the general purpose classroom that is messy, and the fine will accordingly be levied. I am wondering if in light of those allegations on my part you might be able to work some magic to get that decision reversed.
President Spanier: I must say that memo doesn’t ring a bell with me; I am not sure that I have seen it, or I can’t say I know exactly what is in it. I don’t think anybody has been fined yet, I probably would have heard of that, and we do not want to have to fine anybody. It sounds like a memorandum whose heart and spirit is in the right place, but the objective there is not for us to make money, and I am sure we do not want to ever be in the position to fine somebody. Over the summer the beginning of the academic year, whenever it was we announced that we were going to change some of the classroom policies in terms of what could be brought in, that was after a lot of study and analysis of rooms and picture taking. I saw the pictures and it was unbelievable how people were treating our facilities like garbage cans. It is not right, and when we said we will not allow that to happen there was a lot of stir about it. Several months later it has worked; our classrooms are far cleaner. The custodial effort that has to be expended is vastly different; it has made a difference in people’s awareness and behavior.
I suspect that the memorandum was an attempt to say that when there’s an egregious case and a faculty member or a department is knowingly party to, or allows something to get way out of control, that there has to be some financial consequences for that. Regardless what the memo says, we’ll look into it; the goal is not to fine anybody. I know we have had some problems with not even just classes but many people just park themselves in a classroom after hours for parties, student events, and other things which have caused some problems as well. We have a lot of organized spaces, and spaces under departmental control where such events can take place. I will try to track down that memorandum; I will look at it and see what the thinking is, and I am quite sure we will be very careful about it. Of course it will be due process; we will not be just sending out bills, there will be some discussion and probably some warnings. If it is some absolutely outrageous situation where somebody knew or should have known that there was going to be an excessive problem or damage in a particular facility, and I don’t think you have too worry about this to much, but I do encourage you to pay attention to this issue.
Dale Holen, University College, Worthington Scranton: I was off the week of Thanksgiving, and when I came back a week later I checked my email and had 1,125 emails. Twenty-five of which were good and 1,100 of which were junk, and I spent the next two hours sorting through which were good and which were bad. I use Eudora which has a filtering system where the good stuff is suppose to go into the inbox and the junk is suppose to go into the junk box. It seems that 50 percent of the junk still goes into the inbox and some of the good stuff goes into the junk box. Every morning it seems that I spend at least a half hour, to one hour wading through all the junk email we are getting and find it difficult to believe that Penn State can’t somehow filter this stuff prior to it coming in. Maybe I am naive, but I think there is a better way for us to utilize our time in the morning than having to wade through all the junk email that we get. Is Penn State doing anything about this problem?
President Spanier: Yes we are. There are at least two if not three levels of spam control. One is at the University level. Believe it or not there is a tremendous amount of junk mail and spam filtering done at the level of the University email system and file servers. It is not at the level a lot of you would like to see because we don’t want to have the false positives, meaning you don’t want stuff filtered out that is really intended for you. The stuff that is obvious and they can electronically without invading your privacy determined, from whatever the electronic tags are certain other indicators are clearly as junk, there is some screening done at the University level. The next level is really in each of our individual systems. Many of you are in college-based systems, or campus-based systems. We have an Old Main system, and I don’t get junk mail anymore; I don’t get spam. Whatever our system is does a pretty good job of filtering it out. There are certain things that come through from folks who have my email address that is not really spam, but they think I want to get their email. I have the prerogative of defining it as junk mail, and it goes into a junk mail folder and many of you do that. What a lot of people do not realize is that they can go into their own system and set the level of screening that they want. I recently backed off of my screening one level. I wasn’t getting any, now I may be getting five or six in a week, but I backed off one level because there was one email, and I am only aware of one in the last four years, that somebody tried to send me that was screened out that I really wanted to get. It happened to come from the Director of University Health Services, I was writing a paper on medical and mental health issues affecting college students. I did a section in the paper on that, so every year she gives me, without any names attached a rank ordered list of prescriptions, what things are prescribed to college students today. Some of you may have read a little section on that in a speech I gave, and because she is mentioning specific drugs, every time she sent it to me it got screened out. I had to drive over to her house to get a hard copy of it, and I thought my filtering is to extreme and I urge you all to talk to your IT people in your own unit because there are some things they can implement at the level of the file server that is supporting you and they can show you some ways where you can adjust your own level of filtering and screening. Now having said that I have noticed literally within the last three weeks I would say, that some of the spammers are getting smarter about how to avoid the system. You do go through some waves and have to make some adjustments as they get smarter and you have to update your filtering systems as well. I think that some of the systems we are using are frankly better than others. In your colleges, departments, campuses you are using a particular system that is just not as good as the one we have in Old Main, which may have some other problems compared to others but is just great at the filtering. I would check with our IT people because it is a big issue for them.
Michael Chorney, College of Medicine: President Spanier, my wife and I have two young adults who are attending the University here and never in my wildest dreams as a younger man would I have envisioned, is the admonishment that both my wife and I give our kids, watch crossing the street, especially on the weekend. Actually it is a mild terror I think I feel about this and I was glad to hear this morning that Dale Holen and Alex Vgontzas are actually addressing the student drinking. What can we do as a University to curb this waste of life in terms of the fatalities on the streets, and especially even the kids that are driving those cars who are actively responsible, which is a tragic waste of life. What can we do as a University to alleviate this? That is the first part of my question.
President Spanier: I think we are doing about everything that we can, but some days it feels like we are losing the war even while maybe winning a few battles. I am often asked, what’s the single biggest problem facing American higher education? I would say it is the excessive consumption of alcohol. People expect me to say that it is the budget, or it is something else, but it is such a phenomenal part of our culture. We have a lot of surveys, and Student Affairs has a survey research unit that we do studies on every month. We also do studies regularly on excessive alcohol consumption and its consequences, and we have seen periods of improvement but the improvements are modest. Despite the fact that we have full-time people in our health center dedicated to alcohol education and intervention, we changed our Judicial Affairs policy so that we work with the Borough, and we get referrals from them when there are criminal incidents of any kind, but the overwhelming majority of all crime in State College has a component of excessive consumption of alcohol.
I get a summary each month from the hospital emergency room with names removed, of all the Penn State student admissions to the hospital. It is very eye opening because virtually all of them are alcohol related. They test for their blood alcohol content so we get the level of the blood alcohol, whether they were admitted overnight in the hospital or just kept in the emergency room, and we have the time they arrived and the time they leave. We have their age; we have it by days of the week, of course Friday and Saturday nights are very heavy, but you do see a little on Wednesday nights getting back into the week. If you see something that is on Monday night or Tuesday night, there is a very good chance that it is that persons twenty-first birthday, and they were excessively celebrating. We get data on what adjunct things occur; is it just pure and simple, is it alcohol poisoning, or an overdose of some kind. Were there broken bones, lacerations, were they hit by a car, were they in a fight and their jawbone got broken. You see that there are a lot of other things happening to the students that are tied into the alcohol.
The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults have alcohol as a component. It is very pervasive at the level of the crime that is being committed. It is very pervasive in terms of sexual assaults, and we have data from our Student Affairs surveys and students were missing classes who had to take care of a friend who has serious problems. Although the number of students who drop out of Penn State is not great compared to most universities, among those who do drop out on this campus, alcohol is probably the single largest component of that, as far as I can tell. It is a major issue; the folks who are driving while they are intoxicated, or intoxicated and wandering into the streets and get into an accident, that is all part of what really is a larger issue. The cases that come into the hospital start to increase as the night goes on; there are a very large proportion of them between about 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. You can see the numbers that occur just as the bars are closing. A lot of people would like to point their finger at the bars, but they are pretty good about checking ID’s and most of the bars are pretty careful about keeping track of what is going on.
A lot of it is at parties, private parties. If it was in the residence halls, we have a little bit of control over it, and if it is in the bars, the proprietors have a little bit of control over it. When it is out in the apartments and out in the community that is tough for us. We have a task force that is actually co-chaired by the mayor of State College, and by Bill Mann, who’s our Associate Vice President for University Relations, and is very committed to this issue, and we have a Town and Gown effort. The director of our Counseling and Physiological Services unit, Dennis Heitzmann, oversees University efforts in this area. We have health educators in the University Health Services who are very focused on this. It is an important part of what we are working on with our Greek Pride initiative. Vice President Triponey and her staff are working very closely with the fraternities and sororities to try to get them to lift themselves up to more traditional values and to de-emphasize the role that alcohol plays there. We think all of these things are helping but it doesn’t change the fact that it is very much a significant problem for us.
Michael Chorney, College of Medicine: Can we do more on the weekend with respect to road blocks and sobriety checks; are we doing enough in that area?
President Spanier: We are doing a lot, University and the State College police are out in force on the weekends, and they do have their hands full between the alcohol related crimes, and getting people back and forth to the hospitals. CATA has concerns because people are getting on the buses late at night and acting very rowdy. We have engaged in a partnership with the community where we actually use student auxiliary officers. They are not police officers, but they are students you see on campus checking the locks on doors at night, and providing a security presence. You also see them with traffic control on football weekends. We have deployed these students downtown. They are not allowed to get involved or intervene, but they do have a radio and can say when something is going on and if it is dangerous, and then the police will come. We are trying different things, and we also have at the state level, the State Liquor Control Board and their enforcement folks spend a fair amount of time in State College, much to the chagrin of many of our students who think it is a little bit to police state like. We try to get the right balance, because we don’t want to have to heavy a hand, but we want to pay attention to the issue.
Michael Chorney, College of Medicine: Thanks so much for your response. I have a follow up question that comes from the highest authority, my wife who is standing in the back. She wants to know as do I, that admissions are up 25 percent. How does it look for the fall of 2007 with respect to incoming freshman, will we increase? Was last year at aberrancy? Will we go back down? Moving students, especially seniors, off of campus and into the town, is it cyclic thing, how would you respond?
President Spanier: Your incoming freshman, I’m sure, are quite brilliant and won’t have to worry about that. I have no response to that; we can talk about that later.
Michael Chorney, College of Medicine: Inaudible.
President Spanier: It appears that last year was not an aberration; we are ahead right now. Monday morning, the math in my head is that we were up about 12 percent in the undergraduate numbers and about 10 percent University wide if you include graduate students, law and medicine and everything else, so a round number would be about 10 percent or so. Now we are in December, and a lot of students know they are advantaged a little bit if they can get their application in by November 30. The fact that we are up 10 percent this deeply into the process is a good sign that last year was not an aberration, and that we are going to remain at a high level. The biggest mystery is what the yield is going to be, because we had this massive increase in the yield last year. The number of people who accepted our offer of admission over some other university’s offer of admission is why we have the high numbers. It is not because we accepted so many students; we accepted a normal number and they all accepted to come. So we don’t know if that was an aberration, and we are being a little more careful this year.
Right now we are sending out acceptance to all the potential road scholars, to the really brilliant kids who under any scenario you know that they are in. I think it is fair to say that we are sending out rejections to those students who have no hope. That area in the middle is really big, and we are probably going to take a longer time than usual to wait and see how it sorts out. We would take an unduly long time, but we can’t afford to have an extra thousand students again at University Park. We might be able to do that at some of our campuses, but that is what we have to be careful about right now.
We are at our ceiling at University Park, as I have said before, we might end up having a little more here, but there might be a couple years where we actually go up slightly, only because we have this big freshman cohort moving through. We can’t adjust for it all at once by admitting five-thousand freshmen instead of the normal, let’s say, seven-thousand. People would think that it is impossible to get into Penn State, that only the straight A students get in, and we don’t want to do that. It has to be done gradually. We will be at the upper limit, even slightly above it, for a couple of years, but our goal is to stay at that forty-two thousand level and not any higher than that, so we have to adjust gradually. The good news is that you are still going to have 6,500 or 7,000 new freshman at this campus and an even larger number than we hope and expect to admit collectively at the other campuses. Penn State is wide open for business; we have to keep them coming. With this unexpected success, we have to be a little more careful about it.
Chair Floros: Any other questions for President Spanier? I don’t see any.
President Spanier: Thanks a lot everyone.
Chair Floros: Thank you very much, President Spanier. Enjoy the holidays and we will see you next year.
Chair Floros: As we begin our discussion of
reports, I remind you to please stand, wait for the microphone, and
identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the
We have three Legislative reports from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules. The first report appears on today’s agenda as Appendix C, entitled Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership). Since this report proposes an amendment to the Constitution, it appeared on the October agenda and has been tabled until today. Committee Chair Deidre Jago will respond to questions.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1 Membership, Appendix C
Deidre E. Jago, Chair
Chair Floros: Are there any questions for Deidre?
Chair Jago, University College, Hazleton:Hello. I don’t have any magic tricks, but you all should have received a paper at the door, a door handout that was prepared in the Committee on Committees and Rules meeting this morning. Following the October meeting, there were several suggestions regarding some additional editorial changes, and our Committee deliberated at great length this morning to try to put this together in a way that would be clearer for defining who the members are. Just prior to the Senate meeting it was pointed out to me that perhaps we could even drop a couple of other words, but when I pointed out that there is a colon that remains made it clearer. I do want to just tell you that the parts that will be stricken are all of the words that have a line through them. On the third line where it says; who fall into one of the following, there is a colon that remains and then the colon lists the general categories. For clarification and just for the record, the HR21 definition of academic ranks that would be included, include, and this is right out of HR21, Lecturer or Instructor, Senior Lecturer or Senior Instructor, Research Assistant, Senior Research Assistant, Assistant Librarian, Assistant Professor or Research Associate, Associate Librarian, Associate Professor, or Senior Research Associate, Librarian and Professor or Senior Scientist. Those are the categories that we are suggesting be included.
Chair Floros: This report has been brought to the floor by the Committee and needs no second.
Chair Jago: We have a question.
Chair Floros: Please wait for the microphone.
Larry Backer, Dickinson School of Law: I was wondering in light of the possible amendments to HR21 that may be coming fairly soon, and in light of the possible future amendments of HR21 over the course of any number of years, might it be easier rather than to list the names of the ranks here and in that way duplicate 21 that you have to amend this every time you amend 21, to just refer to 21 in the constitution, that are those ranks recognized as such as HR21.
Chair Jago: I spoke of it in light of HR21 because we, as Faculty Senate, do not control HR21. This is a policy that is administrative, and I am just clarifying what those ranks would be. If further legislation is past later, then we will also have to include that. The letters that are going out right now indicate to the administrative units that when they are coming up with the census for election and the representation for the Senate for the next election cycle, that we include the research categories that will or will not be passed today.
Larry Backer, Dickinson School of Law: It is just a choice you make to the extent that you don’t link this to HR21. I guess you are suggesting that at some point there may be ranks that either are no longer included as ranks in HR21, that may be included in the Constitution until we get around to changing it. There may be ranks that will come up in HR21 that will be official ranks but will not be listed in the Constitution, and those people technically will not be members in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. What you have done now is officially de-link two documents that, in a sense, are linked, or you have suggested that you don’t really care what HR21 says that for your purposes in this Constitution, it is whatever you say here irrespective of what happens somewhere else. This is ok, but if you are going to do that why bother making the indirect link to HR21.
Chair Jago: Because we are putting the categories into our Constitution without specifically saying that all of those ranks that are listed in HR21, we don’t have the control over who is listed in HR21.
Leonard Berkowitz, University College, York: This is actually much more complicated than you think. We are treating this as if this were a matter of clarification in making the wording clear. It is not; it is a very substantive issue. If we go back to the history of the Senate in this particular article of the Constitution, in fact the section that is being eliminated, lets for the moment concentrate on what brought this about, which is getting rid of the exclusion which says excluding non-continuing research appointments. That first came in 1975, in 1972, 1973 when the Senate was officially formed; there was nothing about graduate faculty research appointments. In 1973-1974, graduate faculty who are not included in professorial ranks otherwise were then included. In 1975, that was taken out and the following phrase was expressed: research appointments exclude non-continuing research appointments, and that has been the case from 1975 through the present day, in other words for more than 30 years. Some units have included their non-continuing research appointments and some have not. That has been part of the problem, but the Senate Constitution has been clear.
The questions that we need to talk about are how we want to word this so it is clear without getting ourselves into trouble later. Secondly, the substantive issue that I have had no success whatsoever in getting Committee on Committees and Rules to discuss, or the Senate to discuss, which is who should be included as a substantive issue. There was some reason, I would assume, and that when they put forward research appointments they said “excluding non-continuing research appointments”. We have not even discussed why they might have or why they might not have put that into the policy; this is not a minor issue.
We are talking about hundreds of additional faculty, and that will mean some change in the Senate. It is a substantive issue; I am not taking a position of whether they should or should not be counted. I asked Susan Youtz what the practice is at other CIC institutions, for example do other CIC institutions include Post-Docs in their faculty census, and her answer was, some do and some don’t. If we go in this direction that means everyone with a research appointment for a single year will be included, and that includes Research Assistants and Senior Research Assistants; all of them will be included in our faculty census. Is that what we want? If so, this is fine. If it is not, then this is not something you want to do at this point. Separately, we have the very difficult question about how do we address making this clear for the future, and that was the reason that these need to be de-linked. If we are trying to decide who should be in the Senate, then we shouldn’t be letting the administration just change things, and as they change it and we automatically include it. We have a substantive decision to make in each and every case, and this is a substantive decision today as well.
Chair Jago: The other aspect also, is that some of the colleges have been including these people in these categories of research individuals in their census and some have not. We are trying to make it consistent throughout; that was the intent.
Roger Egolf, University College, Lehigh Valley: What Lenny just spoke to is partially what I am speaking to also, which is the question of Post-Docs. When the ratio was changed a few years ago going from one-to-twenty, to one-to-twenty-five, one of the arguments made was that certain units such as Hershey and such as Eberly, were having trouble getting enough people to run for the Senate with that one-to-twenty ratio. We did change that number; one of the other reasons was to lower the total number of people in the Senate, so that the Senate wouldn’t grow too unwieldy. Because of that, the campuses outside of University Park took a hit in their representation, but the other units did also. If this policy passes the way it is written, and if Post Doctoral Research Associates are counted as faculty, the very units that were complaining that they couldn’t get enough people to run for Senate would now have more Senators. The total census would go up probably higher than it was if we would have remained at the one-to-twenty with the old definition of who qualified for the Senate. The campuses outside of University Park have taken their permanent hit, because those campuses don’t have the kind of funding, and their faculties don’t have the kind of funding to hire Post-Docs. That is basically what I wanted to say.
Chair Jago: Earth and Mineral Sciences for example, list the total research titles at 85, and if you use one-to-twenty-five ratios that would increase their representatives and the Senate by three. They did not count their individuals prior to that. Another example is the College of Science. Science did not count them, and they had 79 total research titles, so that would be three additional in the College of Science. For those two, it would be six and those were the two largest. Engineering already includes them; several of the other colleges include them as well.
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: I would like to submit that this is not a substantive change that we are just clarifying and making the policy consistent.
Cynthia Brewer, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Lenny, I want to clarify that many of the research faculty are not Post-Docs; they are people with careers, doing funded research over many years. I don’t want to suggest that all of these are Post-Docs, so if you want to exclude Post-Docs, then exclude Post-Docs, but don’t exclude all research faculties. You could add a sentence there just as it has for Pennsylvania College of Technology and just say Pos-Docs are not included in this group.
Kim Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences: I am somewhat nervous about this proposal because I don’t understand who exactly would be added to the faculty ranks, for the purpose of calculating the Senate census. I don’t even understand whether all the people who would be in these categories necessarily have Ph.D.s. My comment is, and I should say I understand the folks who have spoken up on behalf of including the research category, and I just don’t know who else might be included, in addition to the people these particular individuals are thinking that when they stand up and speak to us. The rational here is that the Senate Office could find no justification for the exclusion, and I would like to suggest that a better rational would be to provide justification for the inclusion, so that all of us sitting here would know exactly who was being added to the Senate.
Chair Jago: The categories that I listed before would include the Senior Scientist, Senior Research Associates, Research Associates; Senior Research Assistants, Research Assistants.
That is why, for the Senate Record, when somebody looks in the future why it was determined, we could not find it in the Record from 1974 and 1975 why that was included. Susan had done a study to find out why that parenthetical phrase was in there, and there was nothing that showed up. That is why we are de-linking it for the Record today.
Jamie Myers, College of Education: A simple way to think about this is who we want to have represented in our Faculty Governance. Some of our sister institutions like Ohio State do not include fixed-term faculty in their Governance as representative. Penn State includes fixed term faculty who teach, and not necessarily all the time do fixed term Instructors or Senior Instructors have doctorate degrees as well. Those folks are included in our electorate, and we represent the faculty of Pennsylvania State University across all of the 24 campuses. I know that underneath a lot of us have this resistance to research, and feel that research carries the day, that it’s all about research, and it is really not about teaching. Full-time Research faculties are part of our University, and if we don’t represent them then they won’t have any representation. Whether they have doctorates or masters, I think the research faculty should be represented by the University Faculty Senate, which is why this membership includes them.
If you look back, as Len pointed out in terms of the history of this article during 1972 through 1976 there were three versions. The first two versions did not include research faculty and the third one did. So it seems to me that the Senate was wrestling with this idea, do full-time research appointments need to be included? It looks to me that by 1976 they decided they should be, but they put it in parenthesis, excluding non-continuing research appointees. I would contend that non-continuing in 1975-1976 means something different than it does in 2006. Many fixed- term faculty who are largely instructors and fixed-term faculty who are researchers are being pressured into one year contracts because of financial situations at the University that had nothing to do with their contributions to the University. I think the issue of non-continuing is prejudicial. I think that is why it is removed in this proposed revision. I urge your support for this.
Larry Backer, Dickinson School of Law: I’ve been hearing what is going on, and it is all very interesting. There are a lot of issues, and I have no resistance to research or anyone or anything else. I do tend to have a resistance to ambiguity and to unfinished business, or conflicts which are then subsumed in language in hopes that the discussions or the failure to reach agreement will somehow be buried and then brought out another time. My sense is that this language is extraordinarily ambiguous, and it cuts in directions which are different than the directions that I hear being put out by the presenters. I am very concerned that we adopt as a Constitution change, a document whose interpretation we are not really sure of, and I have heard of at least two here with respect to the meaning of this. I can read this changing the language from categories to rank as compelling a mandatory link between this language and HR21 whether you like it or not. Rather than going the other way of unlinking it and leave the word category, and get rid of the word rank. We are told that the precise purpose of this is to unlink this section from 21, but it would actually have the opposite effect. Whether it does or it doesn’t we have one-half of the folks saying it does one way, and one-half saying it does the other way. Some people believe that researchers are researchers for HR21 purposes, but not for HR21 purposes, and other people believe the opposite is true. At some point of all these things are going to have to be decided, but with language that will be absolutely no help. We have some originalist people who have an understanding of what was going on in 1970. Some people look at 1970 and say no; it was the opposite of what was going on.
Chair Floros: With that we will try to get some clarification from our Parliamentarian. We’ve heard both sides and thank you very much.
George Franz, University College, Delaware County: In an effort to set a record so that it would be clear in the future, I think the Committee has, in fact, complicated the issue. HR21 was never connected to the Constitution. What we are trying to do with this is to keep a document that is completely in the control of the administration out of the Senate Constitution. The Senate Constitution requires the Senators to pass any changes to the Constitution; we have no say in the changes to HR21. That is why we have not linked the definition of the membership to HR21. The only reason Deidre read the ranks today was so we would have something in the record, so in ten years when we want to go back and find out what we meant when we did this, was that we would have a transcription that would say these were the ranks. In two or three years, somebody will come back and say you guys screwed up and only listed Librarians; you mean Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarians and Librarians. That is how the words all got in there, and screwed up the wording several years ago. Someone came along and said you really mean all the Librarians not just Librarians. The only reason Deidre read those ranks was so that there was a record today of what those positions are and how we are interpreting those ranks at this point in time.
Chair Floros: Thank you George. Are there any other points other than what we have been discussing, any new points before we move on?
Thomas Beebee, College of the Liberal Arts: I have a totally simple question. In the relevant language without the parenthesis, those holding Professorial, Research, and I am assuming Professorial and Research are both adjectives, modifying what now?
Chair Jago: Ranks is the last word which is in bold at the end of the sentence. It is the door handout that we are looking at. I mentioned the door handout in my first opening remark.
Thomas Beebee, College of the Liberal Arts: Ok, so ranks go with all those adjectives.
Chair Jago: Yes, rank is in bold and is at the end of the sentence. Faculty members are also in bold, and that was the other editorial change that was mentioned by Gary Catchen at the end of the October meeting.
Ira Ropson, College of Medicine: The Post-Doctoral appointments which were named Post- Doctoral scholars when I was funding one, does not fall under these categories. It is clear that they may be named something else in some of the departments. Numbers and names within units are very different, so what I am saying is this language, depending on how the units are handling it still could mean different things in different units.
Chair Jago: From the Senate Office, Susan sends a letter to each of the administrators in charge of each college, each campus, and the Chancellors received a letter asking for them to verify who the electorate would be, and that is how we developed this census for election purposes. The Senate Office is always at the mercy of whoever is out in the units to be truthful as to who belongs in the unit.
Kim Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences: I am with Professor Backer; I am only for clarity for this. If some units were having trouble with the old policy where it clearly said non-continuing and were including non-continuing faculty in their internal censuses, then they will surely have trouble understanding what this is where we haven’t actually listed the ranks that we intend to be included. These are just certain categories, and there is a vague reference to HR21 that will be hidden in the minutes of this meeting. These people will not go back to those minutes or understand what we really did intend. I would prefer that we would have a policy that lay out explicitly who we wish to include.
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine: Just another point that might confuse the issue a little bit is that Research Assistants at Hershey can be Senior Technicians, and have a masters or may have nine or ten years of technical expertise from working in the lab, and they are definitely not considered faculty.
Chair Floros: Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of this report please say aye.
Chair Floros: Opposed say Nay.
Chair Floros: Well, the Nays spoke louder that the Ayes, so all those in favor please raise one hand.
Chair Floros: The Nays please raise one hand.
Chair Floros: The Nays have it and the motion does not pass. Thank you, Deidre. The next report appears on today’s agenda as Appendix D, entitled Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 5 (c) (3) (Student Representation). Because this Legislative Report is a proposed amendment to the Constitution it will be discussed today and then tabled until the January 30, 2007, Senate meeting. Chair Jago will present the report and respond to questions.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision to the Constitution, Article II, Section 5 (c) (3) (Student Representation)
Deidre E. Jago, Committee Chair
Chair Jago: Are there any questions? This is appendix D in the report.
Chair Floros: I don’t see any.
Chair Jago: So we will vote on it the next meeting.
Chair Floros: The last Legislative Report from Committee on Committees and Rules appears on today’s agenda as Appendix E, entitled Revision of Senate Committee on Outreach, Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6 (k) (3). Chair Jago will present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of Senate Committee on Outreach, Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6 (k) (3)
Deidre E. Jago, Committee Chair
Chair Jago: This is a revision to the Standing Rules so we will be able to vote on this today. It does not have to sit on the table for one month such as the other two reports did. The recommendation is at the bottom and you will see what the current language is on the second page. The proposed revision is the sentences or section in bold that will more clearly define what the Outreach Committee currently does. Are there any comments?
Chair Floros: Any comments or questions for Deidre? We are ready to vote. All those in favor of this report, please say aye.
Chair Floros: Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved this Legislative Report. Thank you very much, Deidre.
We have a Legislative Report from Intercollegiate Athletics, and it appears in today’s agenda as Appendix F, entitled Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes. The Committee Chair Martin Pietrucha will present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes.
Martin Pietrucha, Committee Chair
Martin Pietrucha, College of Engineering: You have the proposal in front of you. It is a change to the 67-00 rule following some changes that were made to it two years ago, and we are still cleaning up the language so that the semester completed falls in line with those regulations from the NCAA and the Big Ten. It provides consistent language across the board and reduces confusion on the part of the athletes, coaches, and the advisers. I will take any questions that you may have.
Chair Floros: Are there any questions?
Ira Ropson, College of Medicine: Why is it this way? Why are there different numbers of semesters for campus locations other than University Park vs. University Park?
Martin Pietrucha, College of Engineering: Are you talking about the credit requirements? That was a change; I believe that was voted on two years ago, so that is not part of the pending proposal. The reason there was a diminishing in the credit number was because of a case that was made by the campus athletes because of commute times, practice schedules, and odd practice schedules. Many of them work part time, there was a rather effective argument made for reducing those numbers. They are still in line with those from the NCAA, but that is not a change for today.
Chair Floros: This report has been brought to the floor by committee and needs no second, so we are ready to vote. All those in favor of this report, please say aye.
Chair Floros: Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved this Legislation, and the recommendation will be sent to President Spanier for his implementation.
Report on New Student Government, Appendix G. Dale Holen, Committee Chair presented a report on the New Student Government. He also introduced Jay Chamberlin, University Park Undergraduate Association President.
Report on Student Services Enhancements at Penn State Commonwealth Campuses, Appendix H. Dale Holen, Committee Chair presented a report on Student Services Enhancements at Penn State Commonwealth Campuses and responded to questions.
Summary of Fall 2006 Officers’ Visits to University Units, Appendix I. The Senate Officers visited Abington, Delaware, DuBois, Great Valley, Harrisburg, McKeesport and New Kensington. This report summarizes the meeting with students, faculty and administrators.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Floros: May I have a motion to adjourn?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Floros: All those in favor, please say Aye.
Chair Floros: Motion carried. The next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Amend the Constitution, Article II, Membership, Section 1 as follows:
For the purpose of defining the electorate of the Senate, the term
University Faculty shall mean all persons who hold full-time academic
appointments, and who fall into one of the following
categories: those holding professorial, research ( excluding noncontinuing research appointments), all librarian titles, full-time instructors, senior instructors, lecturers, or senior lecturer s ranks. Faculty members The faculty of the Pennsylvania College of Technology are not included.