Penn State University Home





T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D


Volume 40 ----- March 20, 2007 ----- Number 5


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 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.




                                          I.      Final Agenda for March 20, 2007                                                                                         

                                       II.      Minutes and Summary of Remarks                                                    


            a. Attendance                                                                                                         

                          b. Senate Council Nominating Committee Report for 2007-2008 (Corrected Copy)







             A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING                                                                                                                                              

                    Minutes of the January 30, 2007 Meeting in The Senate Record 40:4



            B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE                                                  

                  Senate Curriculum Report of March 6, 2007                                                                    



            C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of February 27, 2007                               




            E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY                     




                        Educational Equity and Campus Environment


                                Revision of SRTE:  Inclusion of Campus Climate 




                        Faculty Affairs


                                Revision of Policy HR-21 Definition of Academic Ranks 


            H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS                                                                                  




              Faculty Affairs


                    Revision of HR 10 Distinguished Professorships                                       




            Committees and Rules


                    Nominating Report for 2007-2008                                                               

                    Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure                                   


            Senate Council                                                                                                


                    Nominating Committee Report for 2007-2008 Chair-Elect, Secretary, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President                                  


            Elections Commission


                    Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2007-2008                                               


            Faculty Affairs


                    Online SRTE Pilot Project                                                                                   


                    Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates                                                                                  


            Faculty Benefits


                    Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2006-2007                                                       




                    Annual Report on Research and Graduate Education                                            


            Senate Council


                    Authors’ Rights and Publishing Agreements                                                          


            Undergraduate Education


                    Update on Academic Integrity Violations                                                  


            University Planning


                    Energy and the Environment at Penn State                                                                         


K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS                                                                        





The University Faculty Senate

Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.


The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112 Kern Graduate Building

with Joanna Floros, Chair, presiding.




Chair Floros:  The January 30, 2007, 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?


Senators:  Second.


Chair Floros:  All in favor of accepting the minutes of January 30, 2007, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed say nay.  Ayes have it, motion carried.  The minutes of the January 30, 2007, meeting have been approved.




Senate Curriculum Report of February 27, 2007.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate Web site.


REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of February 27, 2007


At the end of the Senate agenda are the minutes from the February 27 meeting of Senate Council.  Included in the minutes are topics that were discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at the February 27 meeting.




Chair Floros:  Out of courtesy to our presenters, please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time.  Thank you.


The Senate Officers completed spring visits to University Park units and will debrief Provost Erickson on April 10. 

President Spanier has accepted the Undergraduate Education committees’ First-Year Seminar recommendation passed at the January 30 Senate meeting.  Following consultation with Provost Erickson and Vice President Pangborn on committee membership and charge, Dawn Blasko and I will contact individuals to serve on an ad hoc FYS committee.  This committee will be charged with developing solutions to the shortcomings of the current seminar, or offer a suitable alternative first-year experience.   The ad hoc committee will be asked to report back to the Senate no later than the end of spring semester 2008. 


The Web site for the Committee Preference Form was sent to 2007-2008 Senators on March 7 and we request that you complete this on-line form by March 28. I also want to encourage Senators to consider serving as a committee Chair or Vice-Chair.


The annual Rally in the Rotunda is taking place this afternoon in Harrisburg. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments’ efforts to increase public awareness of current funding to institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania.


At the February 27 Senate Council meeting, there was a discussion about the exodus of Senators leaving Senate meetings long before they concluded.  The Senate officers and I recognize that some of you have classes to teach, and others may be concerned about driving home in bad weather.  I want to remind everyone that you are here as an elected or appointed Senator, and as such, you have a responsibility to your constituents to stay for the full Senate meeting.  In the remaining two meetings of this year, I look forward to seeing many of you still with us at the end of the meeting.




Chair Floros:  At this time I would like to invite President Spanier to come forward to make some remarks.


President Spanier:  I checked and the weather is very nice today, but I am mindful of the fact that you have a number of reports ahead of you so I will be brief.  It is nice to see that all of you made it back from spring break, but how many of you were delayed somewhere?  I know some of our students were, or that is what they told us.  I want to say something positive about our students to begin my report.  I always put in a plug for Thon before it occurs, and this year Thon broke its prior record by one million dollars. They raised $5,247,000 for children with cancer.  It is just a phenomenal accomplishment; I know several of you attended part of Thon and saw for yourself what a remarkable enterprise it is. I encourage all of you to think about attending somewhere along the way.


A couple of weeks ago I had my Appropriations Hearings, both House and Senate, on the same day in Harrisburg, and both were done as panel presentations.  I know some of you were eagerly standing by your television sets at 3:00 a.m. for the re-run, and I think they both went very well.  The people were very friendly and it was certainly the most positive hearings that we had in my 12 years, but that does not mean the number the governor has proposed for us will increase.  It turned out to be 1.58 percent that he put out there for us, and we were particularly concerned that there was no increase proposed at all for Penn College, Cooperative Extension, or Agricultural Research, and a modest two percent increase in other parts of our budget. We are at a point in time where it is very important for us to try to hold down the size of our tuition increase. We are working very hard in Harrisburg to try to get those numbers up to some reasonably higher level and we will keep you informed on the status.  We did have an event last night in Harrisburg as part of the Rally in the Rotunda that continues today. We had members of our Grass Roots Network our Agricultural constituents groups, Penn State Alumni leaders, members of our Board of Trustees and others, making their rounds to the offices of the Senators, talking about Penn State and its needs.  We are very grateful to these volunteers who, on our behalf, are making the case for Penn State.  Today we have bus loads of students from campuses throughout the State in Harrisburg who are also making visits. Yesterday we had an alumni reception with the Blue Band playing in the rotunda, and with just a small portion of the Blue Band you could have really rocked that building. We appreciate all the support and encouragement that we can get because we certainly need it.


This morning we had a press conference announcing Penn State’s support for the Jonas Salk Fund. This is a proposal that the Governor has on the table which takes a portion of the tobacco settlement funds, and uses it to re-pay a bond issue of $500,000,000.  Those funds would be used across the State to invest in life sciences, construction projects, and other ways of supporting what we are trying to do in the area of biotechnology.  If that proposal were to go forward, Penn State would be in line to receive some support for some of our building projects that are in the queue and are extremely important to our work. Penn State along with the Secretary of Health and Secretary of Community and Economic Development participated in a public announcement showing our support.


Things continue to go well as we move through the applications and admissions cycle. We are up approximately 5,000 applications over the same time last year which was an all time record.  We will be approaching 100,000 applications this year by the time it is finished at all levels and campuses to Penn State, which is quite remarkable.  They tend to be sorting out the way that we would want them; they are actually bringing down the number of admitted and enrolled students at the University Park campus. We hope more of our students will accept offers at other campuses and we also hope that increase will hold.  We thank all of you for any efforts that you might be a part of in converting the students that we have accepted into actual enrollments. Those are a few things that I wanted to mention to you and now we will have time for questions.


Chair Floros:  Are there any questions for President Spanier?


Thomas Beebee, College of the Liberal Arts:  On today’s Agenda there are several reports on fixed-term faculty and as a member of one of the committees that debated and voted on these reports, I found myself in something of a double-bind.  On the one hand I wanted to recognize the outstanding contribution that fixed-term faculty make towards our University in terms of giving them significant titles and representation in the Senate. On the other hand, I felt that in voting for these things, I was in some sense voting against the idea of a University or College as a community of scholars that are there on a permanent basis for which tenure is the fundamental idea.  According to a December 15 report in the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1975 nationwide 57 percent of faculty was either tenure or tenure-track and by 2003 that had descended nationwide to about 35 percent.  I know Penn State is still above 50 percent tenure or tenure-track, but I wanted to ask you as President of this University, where you see us headed in this area in terms of the percentage of tenure vs. fixed-term, and whether this is a topic of conversation and policy in the higher spheres of administration of this University?


President Spanier:  I feel exactly the same way you do and Penn State is doing a lot better than most other universities in this regard. The Provost and I have in many ways, and many times over the years, stated our philosophy that is consistent with yours.  There is a decided national trend, not so much away from hiring people in the tenure-track, but it is more of a function of the fact that a disproportional large share of the newer faculty are being hired as fixed-term. 


We don’t have any noticeable diminution of tenure or tenure-track faculty members, and what we have at Penn State is a lot of additional growth and extra credit hours are being taught by people on fixed-term.  This is not the preferred approach and there are some units where for good organizational, academic, pedagogical, reasons there are some very good things that fixed-term people can do, and you would want to lean that way.  In many cases it is being done for budgetary reasons. It is being done because there are so many courses that have to be taught, so many students to deal with, and they can do it for less if they go the fixed-term route.  There may be programs that are in a rapid transition, where enrollment is growing very fast, enrollment is decreasing, or there is some uncertainty about enrollment, and you don’t want to bring people in on the tenure-track that you are not sure about making a long-time commitment to.  For a combination of reasons we are seeing more fixed-term people and it is a larger percentage of our employee-base.


Philosophically, what Rod Erickson and I are saying to the Deans is that we have to keep up significant tenure or tenure-track faculty members, and not fill the ranks with fixed-term people.  This is a tug and pull that we have with the Deans because they have certain realities that they are trying to deal with.  At the department head level it is very much where the decision is being made with the resources they have. At Penn State a certain portion of our faculty are not going to be fixed-term. We have to treat them fairly and we want to make sure the proper array of titles, benefits, and opportunities of salary increases are there for fixed-term people. I don’t like the idea that we have in higher education, and in America, two classes of citizens. Anything we can do to minimize the gap would be a step in the right direction.


Chair Floros:  Any other questions for President Spanier?  Thank you very much, President Spanier.


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 Senate.




The Senate Committee on Educational Equity is sponsoring a forensic session entitled, Revision of SRTE: Inclusion of Campus Climate, Appendix B in your Agenda.  Committee Chair JoAnn Chirico will introduce this report.  You will see there are four questions on page three of the report.  We will move through the questions in order.



Revision of SRTE: Inclusion of Campus Climate, Appendix B

JoAnn Chirico, Chair and Harjit Singh, Vice Chair


JoAnn Chirico, Penn State Beaver:  In the mid 1990’s, the Faculty Senate considered questions related to climate on the SRTE.  At that time the issue was addressed very narrowly in terms of multicultural concerns.  Penn State’s Framework to Foster Diversity in the strategic planning process has recognized and elevated the importance of climate issues as they impact all students in achieving their academic potential.  EECE would like to use this time to initiate discussion about piloting the SRTE as a tool for faculty to access student’s perception of classroom climate.  I would like two other members of the committee to make brief statements from their perspective on the SRTE.


Christopher Engelhardt, Penn State Erie:  As a student representative, I took the question of the climate back to my campus and there was an overwhelming response that we should have a climate question on the SRTE, and it should be mandatory.  To what extent the student input matters to the Faculty Senate here, I think it should have a big influence.


Susan Faircloth, CORED representative to EECE:  I was asked to speak on behalf of the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CORED).  We had an extended discussion about this issue yesterday and decided that we would firmly support this initiative to add a climate- related question to the SRTE, and we firmly felt that this question should be standardized across units.  We proposed a question which would read as follows, “To what extent does my instructor create a learning environment where all students are treated with respect and are enabled to achieve their academic goals?”


We also thought that it was important before this question was instituted, and became a part of the promotion and tenure process, that it be piloted.  We also understand and recognize that this is a question that we are recommending, but some other version of that question might actually be adopted.  We are recommending that the question be piloted across all colleges and units for a period of three years.  At the end of those three years, data would be collected, and then brought back to the Committee on Educational Equity and Campus Environment. It would then be analyzed to look at what are the potential ramifications of that data, and use of that question particularly to look at what is the potential impact on the promotion and tenure of junior faculty and minority faculty?  We also wanted to note that although we support the inclusion of a climate-related question, there are other issues related to that, particularly the issue of diversity. At some point we would push for a discussion of whether or not this question that gets at the issue of climate, also adequately gets at the issue of diversity.  The discussion should deal with whether or not they are two separate issues and if they are how we would address that?  We want to make sure there is ample opportunity to look at the potential implications of what data is being collected as a result of this question, and the extent to which this question needs to be revised, kept as is, deleted from the SRTE, or completely re-written.


JoAnn Chirico:  The first question on our agenda is, “should there be a climate question on the SRTE?”


James Donovan, University College, Mont Alto:  On the question of whether the Faculty wants to include an SRTE question which deals with diversity climate, and I don’t know how we can respond without knowing just what the question will be, although I just heard one version; I could approve of the inclusion of a diversity question but it must be very carefully worded.  It should: 1. not appear to prescribe course content as did one of the questions from 1990 which asked students to “rate the degree to which the instructor included course content representing a different or culturally diverse perspective.”  This has many implications regarding course descriptions and redesigning of courses and syllabi. 

2. Not entirely unrelated to the above, the question must not be framed in such a way that it violates academic freedom. 3. The words “appropriate and applicable” must be clearly defined or understood by the students within the context of the course.  4. The word climate should be avoided for obvious reasons.


JoAnn Chirico:  We proposed this forensic to be a step one in the process. For step two we want to do a small validity study in the fall term. That would take these questions into some of your classrooms, not to be piloted with students in terms of accessing that classroom, but to be interrupted by students to see whether or not we are capturing what we want. We are trying to avoid the use of the word climate, but it is hard to come up with another word that has the same kind of objections.  We see doing a validity study of the questions, which Beverly Vandiver is going to design, and then getting authorization from the Senate to do the pilot study.


Leonard Berkowitz:  As you develop and continue to work on this, I would ask that you be very careful to keep in mind what the SRTE was designed to do and its purpose.  It was designed very specifically for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure.  It was expanded to include the natural expansion for teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions.  The reason that there are two substantive global questions was that the research showed that the best way to get an overall view of faculty members’ teaching effectiveness was to ask global questions by themselves, in addition to specific behavioral questions.  That is the reason you have a section A which has two substantive global questions and two data gathering questions about expected grade.  I am not sure the way you framed your questions get at those assumptions.  I think one is a mandatory question, but that doesn’t make it a good candidate to sit with the other two global questions because these are getting at specific behaviors. That is what is in the B section and you may want to do a little more revision of what we do with the SRTE if you should decide this is important enough to include.


Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  Did your committee grapple at all with the question of what you mean by effectiveness?  It is difficult for me to assess the value of adding an item like this to an instrument, when many of the items that already comprise that instrument had dubious relationship to any concept of effectiveness that I’m familiar with.  If we are going to make this mandatory, rather than elective, then it seems to me all the more important that everyone have a common understanding of what we are talking about when we refer to teaching effectiveness.  I always have had some problems with the SRTE’s, because I don’t think the University has addressed this. We had testimony of this kind that Professor Berkowitz just offered and the evidence shows that you get at this better with global items than with behavioral items.  How can a particular item that may be included on a questionnaire, in which students record their perceptions, get at effectiveness in terms of what they know or what they are able to do as a result of the instruction that they received? As a University, we keep ducking this question, but it seems to me that it is a fundamental one.


Richard Yahner, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I like the idea of not having arrogant professors in the classroom. I like the idea of tolerance and value of diversity of opinions, because diversity means different things to different people.  In my program it could be gender, and it certainly is not ethnicity or race because we don’t have that diversity.  I don’t like the word climate and I think that would be clear to the students because diversity can mean something to a lot of people, but it may not be appropriate to some programs.


JoAnn Chirico:  I think we have addressed some of the items in the following questions, but were there other opinions as to whether it should be mandatory.


Beverly Vandiver, College of Education:  I am on this committee as well as the College of Education caucus and we are supportive of this question being piloted as a mandatory question.  I think there are a couple of reasons for that.  Some very good questions were asked and those can’t be answered unless we imperatively take a look at it.  By doing a pilot for three years and collecting the data, we would be able to answer more clearly and more objectively the questions that have been asked.  I am supportive for a couple of reasons and as a cultural worker it is important for us to live up to the mission of this University. We are acknowledging and taking some steps in terms of making this a more welcome place, on the campus as well as inside the classroom.  I recognize that sometimes when you get into cultural issues it begins to become very sensitive, and people worry especially as faculty members, what is going to happen and how is it going to label you.  That is the reason I support a pilot, however at the same time, I think that it is a double edge sword. Not only for white faculty who may worry about getting labeled, but minority faculty and women aren’t going to get a pass on these questions. They are going to be at the same risk as the white faculty.  I hope we would want to move forward to at least consider a pilot of a mandatory question and see what comes out of data and then re-visit it in a more objective fashion.


JoAnn Chirico:  Is there an opinion as to open-ended or scaled item?


Chair Floros:  Now you have some feedback.  Thank you, JoAnn and Harjit.




Chair Floros:  A report from Faculty Affairs held over from the January 30 Senate meeting appears on today’s agenda as Appendix C, entitled Revision of Policy HR-21 Definition of Academic Ranks.  Committee Chair Cynthia Brewer and Faculty Rights and Privacy Subcommittee Chair, Zachary Irwin will present this report and respond to questions.



Revision of Policy HR-21 Definition of Academic Ranks

Cynthia Brewer, Chair

Zachary Irwin, Subcommittee Chair


Zachary Irwin, Penn State Erie:  The report you see before you, the Revision of HR-21, is a result of two things.  First is some prior work that the committee has been dealing with about HR-21 in the earlier revision, and also a forensic discussion in April 2006, on the question of fixed-term faculty.  What we did in that report was to ask four questions.  One of them was should qualified fixed-term faculty with terminal degrees be awarded professorial ranks comparable to those of standing faculty?  After a lot of discussion, our sense was yes they should, and in addition we concluded that in some cases because of professional achievement, individuals with terminal degrees should also be considered for professorial rank, in particular this notion of professor of practice ranks.  It turned out that similar institutions already do have professor of practice.  Sometimes they call this a clinical or adjunct professor of practice; but the pattern seems to be fairly similar.  What it involves are programs typically in criminal justice, in colleges of schools of law, medicine, and I suspect in our planned School for International Studies. All of these have need for this particular rank.  Finally, it is our hope in this particular legislation that it will be understood as nothing that is going to alter or change existing ranks or reassign some kind of appointment.  We are looking forward to a change that we think will add some much needed flexibility to different units of the institution and should be seriously and positively considered.


Cynthia Brewer, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  We are proposing adding three ranks for fixed-term faculty to the ranks at Penn State, which is Table 1 in the Agenda and there is an additional one beyond the ones listed.  Our proposal is for two groups of faculty that do not fit into the current set of ranks that are missing those three, full-time teaching faculty with a terminal degree who are in fixed-term positions, who are part of the curriculum and are innovative teachers actively sought by their units. This includes people with exceptional professional experience in industry and leaders in the arts who are also sought by teaching programs and don’t have a terminal degree.  Penn State ranks are complex; these are ranks not titles, so titles may have additional specificity to them, and all of you have one of these ranks. To make a distinction between rank and title, between fixed-term and standing appointments, between tenure-line and non-tenure-line, between professorial and lecturer or instructor, none of those are one-to-one matches in which they have slightly different overlaps with each other.  When I say professorial ranks I am talking about Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor.  We are proposing a sequence of ranks for teaching that are parallel to the existing sequence of ranks for research appointments: Scientist, Research Associate, Senior Research Associate and Senior Scientist that people that are appointed for research specifically fall into. 


The new ranks, the professor of practice ranks, provide a career path for teaching faculty that does not exist in the current structure.  At the end of the report I have an appendix that gives you some data on the number of faculty and there are over 5,000 full-time faculty that are in varied ranks, because we do a wide variety of tasks that mix teaching, research, and service in different proportions.  Forty-five percent of those 5,000 faculty are not in tenure-line positions. Of the faculties who already have professorial titles, 17 percent of those are not in tenure-line positions.  We already appoint people who are not tenure-track to professorial positions.  This proposed revision does not require your unit to use these new ranks, but it does provide you with an option of distinguishing teaching faculty from the faculty who combine teaching and research in your college if you want to make that distinction in the ranks.  I am seeing a wide variety of opinions and some of you believe that all faculties should be in professorial ranks regardless of your tenure status.  Some of you believe that only those in tenure-line positions should be in professorial ranks.  Resting between those opposing opinions is a large number of teaching faculty on our campus without adequate career tracks in our current structure and we have the ability to remedy that in our proposed rank structure.


Chair Floros:  Are there any questions?


Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  Over the period that I have heard this proposal discussed, I have not seen any consideration of the pragmatic aspects of doing this.  The emphasis has been on what it would be nice to have, and how this creation of a new set of ranks brings symmetry to an asymmetrical kind of structure.  I would like to be a little more pragmatic here and ask what the consequences would be of a positive nature that would stem from the passage of this proposal, and the negative consequences associated with the failure to pass this, especially under circumstances in which the utilization of it is going to be voluntary.


Cynthia Brewer:  I would expect that a college or unit would adjust their Bylaws to specify whether they are using those ranks, and for what situation they are using them. In terms of the practical implementation, it is up to the unit as to whether they want to use them.  I have heard strong support in which some people that are fixed-term, currently in an assistant professor position, have been offered the option of being promoted to a lecturer, which is a rank that only has a master’s degree requirement.  There is an honoring in the excellence of people and that is very positive. I received a letter from a person in the Harrisburg campus who feels that if we had these ranks, we would be able to attract better people and stronger candidates if they had a better ranking position to put them into.  If this doesn’t pass you will continue to have people who are working hard and for a long time with no promotion path. Penn State values teaching, and the people who come to teach are in a gray area where they don’t have an obvious set of ranks that they fit into.


Zachary Irwin:  When people seek money or support outside the institution and they are able to say that one is a professor this obviously means that one’s application for support is going to be taken a lot more seriously.  I think it is very easy to underestimate the impact of being able to offer a person professorial rank who might have some appealing alternative and what a difference that really makes. Going over the literature I really don’t see the negatives.


Tramble Turner, Penn State Abington:  I appreciate all the thought that Faculty Affairs has given to the issues associated with this.  If we compare Table 3 to Table 1, am I correct in assuming that the 580 non-tenure line professors that currently teach at the University are not reflected in Table 1 where we don’t see a listing of that professor title with a non-tenure line designator.  


Cynthia Brewer:  You are saying that these people in these ranks that are not tenure-track, and they are in here because these ranks are here. In the agenda, I have the columns labeled tenure-line or fixed-term. Some units choose to, or choose not to, appoint people who are fixed-term into these ranks, and the 580 are in the count.


Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine:  You talk about remedying in essence a deficit.  What I don’t understand is why that deficit can’t be remedied by leaving that table exactly the way it is and erasing the words “of practice.”


Cynthia Brewer:  You are in the College of Medicine and that is what the college chooses to do.  You appoint both your tenure-track and your fixed-term people; associate professor vs. professor and that is your choice. As we talk you will find that many units think that is a terrible thing to do; they only want tenure-line people to be in those professor ranks.  It is a different culture and I think we should not impose a uniform culture, but honor those cultures by having the options of these ranks for people to use.  Some people find out that professor rank is the key thing that identifies them as tenure-line, and that is not so important in your group.


Matthew Wilson, Penn State Harrisburg:  I have been asked to read a statement into the record from Penn State Harrisburg Faculty Senate.  The Faculty Senate of the Capital College has voted to reject the proposed revisions of HR-21.  The Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg Senate supports the institution of the rank of professor of practice for individuals who have achieved exceptional and unique professional distinctions in non-academic professional activity.  Its members express grave reservations about including individuals who do not merit full professor rank at the time of appointment.”  I am in a difficult position because I was on the other side of this issue. I think the reservation was that they didn’t understand the idea of assistant and associate professor of practice for people who have less than exceptional and professional experience. From the prospective of Penn State Harrisburg, we didn’t see the need for the professor of practice for those people who are in non-tenure track lines who already have a Ph.D.


Kathryn Dansky, College of Health and Human Development:  How would the promotion decisions be made? Would you have a separate committee for people who are not involved in research?


Cynthia Brewer:  We wouldn’t try to cover those in HR-21 which just lists the ranks, but in my college we do have a separate promotion committee for fixed-term faculty, because they are doing different things than the tenure-line people. I believe that it would be a college decision, and other units may choose to have their promotion, tenure, and evaluation committee all in one group. Currently fixed-term people can be appointed as graduate faculty.  I have repeated all of HR-21 and I am not trying to edit the portion that refers to instructors and lecturers, it is written that HR-21 recommends that when a person is promoted, for example, from lecturer to senior lecturer that promotion includes a salary increase.  That is also a college-level decision, though. If we were talking about meaningful promotion steps, they would include a salary increase with a promotion step.


Mary Beth Clark, College of Health and Human Development:  I am also on the Faculty Affairs committee and I would like to clarify that one of the issues that came up is, do we really need another professor of practice?  In my specific school, faculty who are hired with terminal degrees and are clinically expert; if they do not have a tenure-line position, they cannot have a professorial rank. They have to be known as an instructor.  This has led to a problem in recruitment of qualified faculty, because they can easily go to another university and be accepted in a non-tenure line or tenure-line with a professorial title. We are not competitive when trying to recruit faculty.  Nationwide there is a nursing and nursing faculty shortage, and by creating this parallel line to the tenure-track would enable us to alleviate some of that problem.  This would hopefully give each school or department within a certain college more flexibility and more ability to encourage the Dean to accept this type of an appointment.


Leonard Berkowitz, University College, York:  I find myself persuaded by your argument that there are good reasons to have three additional ranks for recognition for faculty who are not on tenure-track.  I am still troubled by the actual titles you have chosen: professor of practice, associate professor of practice, and assistant professor of practice, which are almost identical to the tenure-track professorial titles.  I think in practice the “of practice” is going to drop out and people will be know as assistant professor, associate professor, and professor, and that troubles me. If you look at one of your arguments, we need something parallel for research, but we didn’t make those professors of research, associate professor of research, assistant professor of research, we found names that made them different.  Since they are different, if you can find some other name that doesn’t make it exactly like the professorial titles, I will vote for it.  Until then I am too troubled, and if indeed it becomes a real major problem for any unit, they are entitled to use the current professorial titles.  I don’t think the negative consequences are there, and I think if it is something important enough for a unit, use that now, and if you can find another title, you’ve got my vote.


Cynthia Brewer:  The word professor is not a mistake, these people profess. Their teaching is a key part of that and a key part of recruiting people to these positions, and we require people to use specific titles and they would have those as part of their rank.


Cynthia Lightfoot, University College, Delaware County:  I think what you are doing here is a wonderful idea and I think it is appropriate.  I do have a couple of problems with what you have proposed.  The tension between promotion on the basis of innovative course and curriculum development, delivery, and assessment on one hand, and on the other hand, it sounds like there is an effort being made to reward performance in one’s discipline and that seems to be a conflict.


Cynthia Brewer:  Are you talking about past performance?


Cynthia Lightfoot:  You are instituting this structure in order to reward people who are absolutely outstanding in their field. The narrative description of all of these sounds like the promotion is based on innovation in teaching and learning.


Cynthia Brewer:  There are two things in the report, and one is that we are trying to attract a person that is well established. If Nelson Mandela or Al Gore were to come and be a professor, you are not going to appoint them as a senior lecturer. If you only want him to teach, if you aren’t expecting to evaluate him on his research, then these would be ranks that would identify that person as a teacher.  If you were to move through the ranks, you would be recognized and rewarded for excellence in teaching. As you come into these ranks it may be either on the merit of what you want to teach and you have a Ph.D, or you want to come in and teach and not be evaluated also on research. You would be in the professor of practice ranks. That is a bit of a distinction from someone who is well established as the Vice President of IBM, or as a world leader, or as a performer in the theater. They are already well established and you want them to come in and bring their abilities to the teaching program.  They wouldn’t be stepping through these ranks based on their continued performance in theatre; they would step through those ranks based on their ability to teach.


Cynthia Lightfoot:  I can imagine it being used in that way. I can also imagine you wanting to recruit someone like Mandela, who you want to continue doing that kind of work and also doing some teaching.  The other issue is who would have access to this, and I brought this issue up when we had the Caucus meeting last month.  You said, as you have said today, that individual units will decide whether or not they would want to institute something like this.  It sounds like the choice is something that would be freely given and freely taken.  My impression is that this is not the case, and that this structure would be differentially available to units not depending on the person coming in, or who you want to recruit, but based on the budget.  I can imagine some units that have sufficient money wanting to support this kind of structure, and would in fact be giving these kinds of ranks and would be able to move through these ranks. Faculty in other units who do not have the money and would support the implementation of such a thing would be left in the dust.  I think that makes this policy inherently prejudicial and discriminatory.  Despite the fact that I would overwhelmingly support what is going on here, I think that my support would only be in principle, and policy is not principle, policy is applied principle, and I think it is very important to consider issues of implementation.


Cynthia Brewer:  With the current structure I don’t think there is anything budgetary that determines whether you are or are not allowed to appoint someone as a Senior Research Associate.  If you have someone coming in and teaching full time, and you want to appoint them as a professor of practice, you can make that decision. If you want to appoint them as a professor and they are not tenure-track you could also do that, but that is not a budgetary decision.


Cynthia Lightfoot:  I am sure I was making reference to some of the comments made by the HHD faculty who already have on their books outstanding faculty that they would like to see move through the system and this isn’t just for incoming people. We at the University College campuses have individuals who want to be promoted to Senior Instructor and we have something in place for that now, and in fact all eligible faculties are not able to advance to Senior Instructor for budgetary reasons, which mean a system that rewards accomplishment turns out to be a competition.


Cynthia Brewer:  You are talking specifically about as we re-work current appointments.


David Richards, University College, Hazleton:  I think revising HR-21 is perhaps not a sufficient condition that what probably all of us would like to see happen probably will happen.  If you are going to have this at all, you have to start somewhere, and unless you revise the law in some way you are not going to hear about changing the budget.


Winston Richards, Penn State Harrisburg:  I want to say I appreciate the thoughts given to this issue by Faculty Affairs. I want to also add that my colleague gave an excellent and objective presentation of the feeling of the faculties at Penn State Harrisburg even though, as he pointed out, he was on the opposite side of the discussion.  We already have the mechanisms to correct the illnesses this legislation is designed to correct. We have current provision for assistant fixed-term person, associate fixed-term and full fixed-term individuals.  In addition, I would also like to point out that those of you who have been here 37 years or more at Penn State will realize that Penn State has already dealt with issues like this. We do already have the mechanisms for dealing with these issues and there is no need for this legislation; this is bad legislation.


Cynthia Brewer:  Some units would like to assign only people who do teaching and research to the professor ranks. If you are hiring someone to only teach then you might want a rank that specifies that role.


Keith Nelson, College of the Liberal Arts:  I have both a tongue and cheek and a serious comment.  I think if the legislation were approved as a senior teaching wizard, an associate teaching wizard, or assistant teaching wizard, the name should change.  I doubt that our Big Ten colleagues and most competitive institutions are really very often using this, and I may be wrong on that, and I don’t think it is a great title.  I agree with the last speaker and several other speakers. I think the remedies are already in the system, and the hard work and the differentiations, and the research that has been done by the committee might be used more in a consultative way in which to prod individual faculty units into being more creative in the use of the current system, and to spread the word about how other institutions and other units at Penn State are achieving creativity.  We don’t have, as far as I know, in psychology here at University Park, an applied professor of psychology.  There are people in other units where perhaps if we use a little more innovation were encouraged to do it, and it was perfectly fine to work that into the tenure and promotion committee and the salary raise system, then I think it could done.


Cynthia Brewer:  You are talking about creativity in titles, and titles are different than ranks, so you may be creative in offering a job and trying to recruit somebody and say to them that we are going to appoint you as a applied professor in psychology, when in fact they are going to get a contract from the Provost’s office that says, if your unit chooses not to use the professorial titles for teaching only, that contract is going to say lecturer on it. In Smeal all the people who are clinical professors and associate clinical professors have contracts that are lecturer.


Keith Nelson:  That is something, that in terms of back and forth both with administration and with faculty units, they can do it at Hershey and you don’t have something that says lecturer, so there is no reason that I can imagine why it couldn’t be done here.  We should use the force of the arguments for giving people respect, using creativity, and having effective recruiting, but do it within the current system.


Kim Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I thought I knew how I was going to vote on this and I am not sure anymore.  There seems to be two issues that are rolled up in this legislation.  One involves what is, in effect, the extension of the professorial label, and I won’t call it a title, into a new category of employment and that is the fixed-term 100 percent teaching category.  The other element in this legislation seems to be an extension of the professorial label to faculty who don’t have the terminal degree in their field.  I think the prepositional phrase “of practice” attached on to the end of these titles, because both of these are wrapped up into one, makes it hard to sort out. I happen to agree with both objectives and I don’t mind as a tenured professor. I am not jealous of fixed-term faculty that have a professorial label, because they are fully deserving of being labeled professors at Penn State, but I am not sure this is the way to go. I am confused by the label “of practice” and the way that table is set up. It appears to me that all of those ranks can be given to someone without the terminal degree.


Cynthia Brewer:  I edited HR-21 to show that it already exists.


Kim Steiner:  If it already exists then I am even less clear as to why we need the new labels.  I have one final thing to say, if we approve this we need to look carefully at our promotion system for fixed-term faculty and make that system as rigorous for fixed-term faculty as for tenure-track faculty so that they have as much respect as anyone who has to go through the most rigorous of evaluations to get that title.  If we do this I think we should take a look at HR-23 or some other legislation.


Cynthia Brewer:  I agree with that Kim, I think this should be a rigorous promotion.  Right now as it stands, someone who is teaching and gets appointed into associate professor lands there without any committee process particularly at all, and I think that is what some people object to in using the existing ranks. For the teaching faculty that comes down to college Bylaws, but it is an area that definitely could be improved, and some units would want to improve it by having a different set of titles for those people.


Mark Kester, College of Medicine:  There may be a question for our Parliamentarian at the end of this.  I appreciated your well crafted compromise here, and at the same token I heard Professor Berkowitz talk about the fact that he does not want to give professorial ranks to fixed-term faculty.  There is another view from the College of Medicine unit saying we do it all the time, and we separate fixed-term vs. tenure-track or tenure. One of the assumptions in your argument is that if it came to a vote and we took out the words “of practice” then it would fail because there are enough Senators on the floor who could not give those ranks to fixed-term employees.  Is there a way we can poll the Faculty Senate to see if that assumption is correct? 


Chair Floros:  Before we move on I would like to ask Senator Kester if he wants to make a motion to vote.


Mark Kester:  I would like to move to amend the legislation.


Cynthia Brewer:  I think he is suggesting that it be very clear that fixed-term people can move through the professorial ranks.


Mark Kester:  Right, and at the end of the day fixed-term professionals should be able to come up with these ranks.


Chair Floros:  Are there any seconds?


Jamie Myers, College of Education:  Second.


Chair Floros:  Now the discussion will be on the amendment. Are there any comments on this amendment?


Jamie Myers:  I would like to stand and support the amendment and for those people who are worried that extending titles might affect tenure, I would like to point out in Table 2 that of the 5,196 faculty at the University, 2,800 or so are tenured, and 2,300 or so are fixed-term, and I don’t think the particular rank title is what is affecting any type of an erosion if it exists in tenure.  The second point I would like to make in support of it, is sometimes the flexibility in our culture leads to inequities. I would like to see us take a stand on this one, because it is fair that if one unit’s fixed-term faculty can be a certain title, then another unit’s fixed-term faculty should be able to access that same rank.


Ricardo Torres, University Park Undergraduate Association Representative: From a student’s perspective, it is always a little awkward in the sense that we have really good teachers out there, and when you email them you really have no idea if you are speaking to a professor, associate professor, or any other rank. It is really hard because we call the people out there that are in the classrooms teaching us, professors because we assume that is what they are, and we can be completely wrong.  So in that sense I would be in favor of such a move. However, I do have a question on the logistics of the matter.  Am I right by assuming that there will still be two different tracks either fixed-term, or tenure, and if so would a fixed-term professor have to go down in rank to assistant professor if they were to enter the tenure-track or would they be horizontally moved as opposed to vertically moved?


Cynthia Brewer:  You would have a person in front of you whose rank was professor and you wouldn’t know if they were tenure-track or fixed-term.  If they didn’t have a terminal degree in their field they would probably still be a lecturer or an instructor; that is not an absolute given the way HR-21 is written.


Ricardo Torres:  We really do call them professors when they really don’t have the rank, but they still do the job.


Cynthia Brewer:  They want to be able to call themselves professors because they are standing in front of you professing.


Leonard Berkowitz:  Let’s take a look at what the new amended version of the legislation would be on page 5, “The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends addition of three non-tenure-line ranks to Penn State faculty ranks:  assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. We have to vote on legislation, and what we are doing is not changing anything.


Cynthia Brewer:  The current policy does not say that an assistant professor is a tenure-line person. 


Leonard Berkowitz:  It is actually worse than that.  There is a second part to the recommendation, which is to change HR-21 in the following ways, page 7 in the Agenda:  assistant professor (or assistant professor of practice or research assistant), you can’t do it this way.


Cynthia Brewer:  We are making a decision on items 1 and 2, and item 2 is more of an editorial change in the existing policy to just change to the word “rank” instead of “title.”


Jamie Myers:  I don’t think the intention of the amendment was to make this read better; the intention of the amendment is that we should be extending these titles without the word “practice” to our entire fixed-term teaching faculty.  That was the intention of the amendment and of course it makes this read as if it were ridiculous.


Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering:  I would like to move the question and speak against this amendment; the amendment offers nothing that does not currently exist.  I think it is making a mockery of all the hard work the committee has done.


Chair Floros:  Is there a second to move the question?


Senators:  Second.


Chair Floros:  We are going to take a vote to end discussion.  All those in favor say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed say Nay.


Cynthia Brewer:  We are ending discussion of the amendment not the whole issue.


Chair Floros:  Are we ready to take a vote on the amendment?  All those in favor please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed say Nay.


Senators:  Nay.


Chair Floros:  The Nays have it and now we are back to the discussion on the original report; are there any further comments?


Lynn Carpenter, College of Engineering:  Yesterday we had an extensive discussion on this matter and the Engineering Senators approved the motion and we are in favor of this proposed change.


James Ruiz, Penn State Harrisburg:  This does not represent the entire faculty or does it represent the School of Public Affairs which is four square for this amendment.


JoAnn Chirico, University College, Beaver:  I am a senior instructor and I really appreciate having a third level that I can aspire to, and I like the wizard title, but I will settle for professorial ranks rather than the wizard rank.  I just recently chaired the Promotion to Senior Instructor Committee for the University College and among those who were recommended for promotion were people who have quite a number of publications as well as books under their belt, and were just promoted in the senior instructor rank.  I would appreciate your passage of this because I think that we deserve to have a third level.


Anthony Ambrose:  I may be missing the point but unless a lot of really smart people have been around here for along time, or they are fibbing, the mechanism already exists to call somebody who’s an instructor, a professor.


Cynthia Brewer:  That is true, but the unit may not want to use that term and they may want to distinguish the tenure-track and the fixed-term.


Anthony Ambrose:  Then why would you want to give the unit something else if they might not want to use it?


Cynthia Brewer:  They want their person who is teaching and fixed-term to have professor of practice title but not the same title as their tenure-line.


Anthony Ambrose:  It already exists.


Eric Paterson, College of Engineering:  In Table 2 you recognize that there are standing appointments in the University, and that is not reflected anywhere in the Table. In the research faculty I know that there are standing appointments, and do you foresee that there will be standing appointments for the teaching practice positions, and what would that mean?  For research faculty the actual promotion criteria is not only research and service but also teaching, and therefore to maintain symmetry would you see that the practice positions also include “service and research” to make it accurate with the research faculty.


Cynthia Brewer:  This table could get very wordy if I reflected all of HR-21 and I think there is a service component that I’ve added.  Not all research appointments teach, many of ours don’t, and if they do it is on a temporary basis. There is a mechanism in HR to have the title of Professor for just the year that they teach, so those are distinguished in the policy. Standing and multi-year appointments are on permanent funds; fixed-term one appointments are on temporary funds.  The unit doesn’t have the permanent funds to put them into a multi-year or a standing appointment.  Everyone on tenure-line is standing, and people on fixed-term are standing, multi-year, and one-year fixed-term.


Eric Paterson:   I am on the research faculty and I have a standing appointment.


Cynthia Brewer:  There are some people in that situation, but it is a budgetary decision on whether you have permanent funds vs. temporary funds in the unit to make that appointment.


Victor Brunsden, Penn State Altoona:  The distinction we have here is between rank and title, what units are currently able to exercise creativity in the title.  When faculty is appointed either as research faculty or as fixed-term teaching faculty, what title they are given may have absolutely nothing to do with the rank that they are appointed to.  This is the sort of distinction that unfortunately Penn State has allowed to flourish over the years, and this proposal restores some symmetry to the ranks, and the kinds of budgetary consideration that these individuals may receive. If this policy is adopted there would be some degree of parity between those non-tenure-line faculties whose primary duty is teaching, or whose primary duty is research.  Creativity can continue to flourish in giving a whole bouquet of titles to various faculties and that is not going to change, but this does restore some parity in the budgetary allocations that can be given to teaching faculty.


Caroline Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts:  Is it your intention that the fixed-term and associate professor of practice ranks will be people on the permanent budget?


Cynthia Brewer:  Not necessarily.


Caroline Eckhardt:  Is it your intention that the ladder would start with lecturer, or senior lecturer, and then move into assistant professor of practice?


Cynthia Brewer:  That is not our intention.  I would say someone with a terminal degree would come into these ranks, and right now we have a lot of people with Ph.D.s in the senior lecturer rank, so I think a unit could choose to correct the assignments and make that distinction between their master’s degree, and terminal degree credentialed people.  Once this is established, I don’t see this as a five-step business, it is one set of ranks and another set of ranks.


Gary Catchen, College of Engineering:  I move to eliminate debate and call for the question.


Jamie Myers:  I have a question on the Recommendations. There are two Recommendations listed on page 5 of the Agenda.  When we vote are we voting on these one at a time or both together?


Cynthia Brewer:  We separated them so they could be voted on separately.  The second one is literally typographic and I think we are discussing the first one.


Jamie Myers:  Let’s vote on the first one first, and then we can discuss the second one. 


George Franz, Parliamentarian:  The point of order takes precedence on the call for the question, because it was unclear as to what he was voting on, and that always takes precedence on the question to close debate.


Chair Floros:  We have a motion and second to close debate.  All those in favor, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed nay.  The ayes have it and we close the debate.  This report has been brought to the floor by committee and needs no second, so now we are going to be voting on Recommendation Number 1 first.  All those in favor of Recommendation Number 1, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed nay.  The ayes have it.  Now we are going to vote on Recommendation Number 2, but Senator Myers has his hand raised.


Jamie Myers:  Cindy, you just said something that I think is very important and I sense people are interested in how units might decide on using the new ranks that we will now be recommending to the President.  I am going to make a motion, and maybe no one will second it but I am going to make it anyway, because I think we now made available these additional professorial titles.  We need to do a little bit more in our role as a Senate in recommending that people make use of them and not just make them available.  My motion is going to be a third recommendation to this report, and I am going to read it right now and I don’t think it is that complicated.  “Full-time, fixed-term faculty who possess a terminal degree should be moved into professorial ranks over the next three years.”  There are two sets of professorial ranks, it could be professor of practice, or it could be the other professorial ranks.  My motion again, is a third recommendation that full-time, fixed-term faculty who possess a terminal degree should be moved into professorial ranks over the next three years.


Chair Floros:  We are going to move on to Recommendation Number 2, and then we are going to come back to the proposed Recommendation Number 3.  We are going to take a vote on Recommendation Number 2, all those in favor, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed nay.  The ayes have it.  Recommendation Number 2 passes.  There was a motion and second for Recommendation Number 3. 


Caroline Eckhardt:  Practice differs so much by fields nationally and in my own field that would be a highly unusual thing to do, and for others it may be routine. I think we need to leave that up to implementation starting with the departments, the Deans, and so forth, and see the extent to which it is suitable in different disciplines to be using those titles, rather than making a Senate mandate to move everybody into those titles within three years. I also think we need to distinguish carefully between full-time and part-time, because it is a much more complex situation, and I think it can really be implemented on this basis. 


Dennis Gouran:  We spent nearly one hour talking about providing an option to colleges who wish to use this, and nowhere in that discussion was there very much of a hint that the underlying motivation was to change the status of those who presently occupy particular classifications within our given structure, we are just going to give colleges the option. Now we hear that having created that option within 30 seconds we are ready to insist that the University transforms the structure that is in place within a period of three years.  What did this committee want us to do and I take it as not Recommendation Number 3?


Cynthia Brewer:  Jamie did not talk to us about this at all.  What would the committee want you to do?  We are Faculty Affairs and I guess I would say we are in the midst of talking about best practices for fixed-term faculty so I frankly wouldn’t rush into it.


Tramble Turner: I thought I remembered that the Senate used to talk about costing if there was such a motion, what would be the budgetary cost?  I am curious if it is ever going to be discussed again.  The amendment that I would like to propose is to take out the two words “moved into” and replace them in the motion with “reviewed for.”  Then it would be “full-time faculty who possess a terminal degree should be reviewed for professorial ranks over the next three years.”


Cynthia Brewer:  Do you want to read me the whole thing so people know what we are talking about.


Tramble Turner:  The motion as amended would read “full-time fixed-term faculty, who possess a terminal degree, should be reviewed for professorial ranks over the next three years.


Chair Floros:  Are there any other comments?


Leonard Berkowitz:  The question was raised but not answered.  My recollection is Senate policy requires costing to be presented with a motion anytime it has budgetary implications.  The Senate committee made a proposal, it had two recommendations and they have passed. Is this part of the committee’s recommendation? If so, we can vote on it, and if it is not, doesn’t it have to sit on the floor? I am troubled even if we are not required to have it costed because it has significant implications, and if we are not going to make these anything more than fancy names for what we had before, we haven’t done much of anything. If it does have budgetary implications, I am scared to death of asking units to put out thousands and thousands of dollars without ever giving them the opportunity to come and talk to us about the implications of what we are asking for.  Finally, I think Kim Steiner brought up a very important point, if we are going to take these new ranks seriously there has to be a set of procedures, and as Zach pointed out before, this is a first step towards that, and we have not taken the second step. We are now being asked to take the third step first and I am interested in hearing what that second step will be, perhaps an HR-23A.


Cynthia Brewer:  From Faculty Affairs who re-writes the HR policies that are related to Promotion and Tenure and evaluation I would say you want to come back to us and have us present to you an HR that is relevant to this step.  This seems pretty speedy to me.


George Franz:  Let me respond to several questions that were raised.  First of all about costing, in 1988 the Senate approved the costing model, the legislation that was passed was when the Chair of the Senate determines that pending legislation could result in major direct or in-direct demand of resources requiring either allocations or re-allocations of funds, physical facilities, or supporting services, the chairman shall charge the Planning and Development committee to prepare estimates of such cost.  All such estimates shall be reported to the Senate at the same meeting as the related legislation.  However, we have not been doing that for ten years and I would say in response, since the Chair did not ask for it, it is not germane at this point, end of discussion, because it leaves it up to the Chair to make that decision.  As to the other question about does it have to sit on the floor? I believe that what Jamie proposed was an amendment to pending legislation and we do not require amendments to sit on the floor for a month.


JoAnn Chirico:   Just a comment that we might be overestimating the budgetary cost, because I think if we are thinking in the next three years primarily faculty that are already on board, are already in the ranks of instructor and senior instructor and would be moving over to assistant professor, and the main jump would be adding that third level.  I think it is only one extra level that might imply a more direct cost.


John Boehmer, College of Medicine:  I believe the comment that we have created new ranks, but they are like a room without a door, we don’t know how to get in or out.  I think the promotion process in establishing how you attain these ranks, first they have to be created before you establish that, and I think it has to be established before we can put a time frame on when that is going to occur.


Roy Clariana, Penn State Great Valley: I have an opinion on one side of the issue but I would really like to take it back to my constituency and find out their opinion before we move forward on this vote. 


Cynthia Brewer:  Can I call the question?


Chair Floros:  Is there a second?  We are going to take a vote on stopping discussion on Recommendation Number 3.  All those in favor, please say aye.


Senators: Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed say Nay.  The ayes have it.  Are we ready to vote for the third amendment?  All those in favor, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed say Nay.  The Nays have it.


The Senate has approved the original Advisory and Consultative Report; the Report will be sent to President Spanier for his approval and implementation.








We have an Advisory and Consultative report from Faculty Affairs, appearing on today’s agenda as Appendix D, entitled Revision of HR10 Distinguished Professorships.  Committee Chair Cynthia Brewer and William Brockman, Chair of the Subcommittee on Promotions, Tenure, Appointments and Leaves will present this report and respond to questions.



Revision of HR10, Distinguished Professorships

Cynthia Brewer, Chair

William Brockman, Subcommittee Chair


Chair Floros:  This report has been brought to the floor by committee and needs no second, are we ready to vote? All those in favor of this report, please say aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros:  Opposed nay.  The ayes have it.  The motion carries.  The Senate has approved this Advisory and Consultative report.  The report will be sent to President Spanier for his approval and implementation.  Thank you Cindy and Bill.






            Nominating Report for 2007-2008, Appendix E. Deidre Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules presented the slate of nominations for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The floor was opened for additional nominations for these positions. There were no nominations made from the floor and the slate was accepted.




            Nominating Report for 2007-2008, Appendix F. Jamie Myers, Chair of the Senate Council Nominating Committee and Past Chair of the Senate, presented the slate of nominations for the positions of Chair-Elect, Secretary, and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. The floor was opened for additional nominations for these positions. Leonard Berkowitz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Penn State York was nominated for the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at the March 20, 2007 Senate meeting.




            Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2007-2008, Appendix G.   This annual report gives the names of new, continuing, ex officio, and appointed




Online SRTE Pilot Project, Appendix H. Angela Linse, Executive Director and Associate Dean of the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, presented an overview of the Online SRTE and Pilot Project.


           Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates Appendix I.   This report provides data on the percentage of  faculty who achieve tenure in the categories of male, female, minority, and non-minority.




            Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2006-2007, Appendix J.  This annual report focuses on comparisons internally among units at Penn State and externally among peer institutions. Vice Chair Thomas A. Frank stood for questions.




Annual Report on Research and Graduate Education, Appendix K.  This report will be rescheduled.




Authors’ Rights and Publishing Agreements, Appendix L.  Mark Kester, Chair of the Senate Committee on Research presented the following statement.


       The Senate Committee on Research felt that the overall goals of the Statement by the CIC Provost’s on publishing agreements were compelling and significant. Protecting intellectual property rights for academic authors is crucial to ensure optimal dissemination of information between colleagues, students and institutions.  SCOR fully supports the goals and objectives of the statement.  However, critical concerns in implementing this document were raised by SCOR members.  The major question centered around who, in fact, would negotiate an amended publication agreement?  It appears that the onus of negotiating an agreement with publishers would be placed on individual faculty members and not the institution.  Would this type of negotiation make publishing more difficult?  What happens if the Publisher refuses to sign the Addendum to Publication Agreements for CIC authors? SCOR would like to suggest that the CIC University’s and their Provost’s negotiate these amended publication agreements directly with the Publishers.




Update on Academic Integrity Violations, Appendix M.  This report gives data on the total number of academic integrity cases for the past five years.  Also included are titles showing violations by code type, distribution by student enrollment year, and data related to case management.




Energy and the Environment at Penn State, Appendix N.  This report will be rescheduled.








Chair Floros:  Are there any comments?


Donald Rung, Retired Senator:  Today is the last meeting of one of our most distinguished Senators who has over the years given great service to the community and to the Senate; unfortunately he will not be at the next meeting.  I would like to personally thank Tom Frank who just gave the report on salaries.  Thank you Tom.


Chair Floros:  Thank you for your comments.




Chair Floros:  May I have a motion to adjourn?


Senators:  So moved.


Chair Floros:  All those in favor, please say Aye.


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Floros: Motion carries.  The March 20, 2007, meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.  The next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.