Penn State University Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 36-----JANUARY 28, 2003-----Number 4

 

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 2002-03.

 

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA  16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221).  The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs 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 and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record. 

 

Reports that have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance.  Remarks and discussion 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

   I.  Final Agenda for January 28, 2003

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to

January 28, 2003

Attendance

III.  Tentative Agenda for February 25, 2003

 

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR JANUARY 28, 2003

 

A.  MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

      Minutes of the December 3, 2002 Meeting in The Senate Record 36:3

      [www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]                     

 

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

                        January 14, 2003                                                       

                                 [www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html]  

 

C.     REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 14, 2003

 

D.   ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -               

 

E.   COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS -

 

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

 

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

 

J.       INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

                  Reserved Spaces Program Fall 2002

     

      Senate Council

 
                  University Faculty Census Report – 2003-04 

 

                   Report on Fall 2002 Campus Visits   

 

      University Planning

 

Status of University Park Construction Projects

 

Proposed Sale of Circleville Farm

 

K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.  COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -          

 

M.      ADJOURNMENT -

 

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and ninety-nine Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Moore:  It is time to begin.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the December 3, 2002, meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  Are there any corrections or additions to this document?  All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  Opposed?  The aye’s have it, and the motion is carried.  The minutes are accepted.

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for January 14, 2003.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of January 14, 2003.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting. 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Moore:  I am pleased to have received many complimentary email messages about December’s history-making thirty-minute Senate meeting.  That brief meeting does not constitute a precedent.  Rather, since most Senate meetings last about two hours, I figure that we now have an unused ninety minutes to tack onto some meeting if not this year then next.  Does that seem right?  No?  Well, Senate Council did not think it was right either.

 

The fourth issue of the Senate Newsletter was distributed last week.  We welcome all helpful and complimentary comments in addition to suggestions for improvement.  

 

We anticipate that the 2003-2004 Senate elections will be conducted on-line this spring.  In the next two to three weeks the Senate Office will conduct a pilot election to test the process of an on-line election.  Many of you will be invited to cast a ballot electronically during this pilot election.  We encourage your participation and look forward to receiving your feedback on this new technology innovation initiated by our Executive Secretary, Susan Youtz.

 

The Mont Alto Campus Alumni Association has established a Renaissance Scholarship in the name of George and Judy Bugyi.  Most of you recall that George is the Executive Secretary Emeritus of the University Faculty Senate and served the Senate for 19 years.  The Faculty Senate is cooperating with the Office of University Development in a targeted solicitation campaign to add funds to this scholarship program for academically gifted and needy students.  We encourage those targeted to make a contribution to this worthwhile program.  If for some reason we failed to target you and you wish to honor George and Judy in this way, please consult the Senate Office about how to contribute and we will make the process as easy as possible for you.

 

The Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon will begin February 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in Rec Hall and will continue through February 23, 2003.  This fund-raising event benefits The Four Diamonds Fund, Conquering Childhood Cancer.  The Four Diamonds Fund provides comprehensive care and monetary support for pediatric cancer patients and their families while continuing to foster innovative pediatric cancer research initiatives.  The Dance Marathon is the largest student-run philanthropy in the world, and, through its efforts since 1973, over $20 million has been raised for kids with cancer!  I urge you to attend this very important fund-raising event to show your support for the efforts of our students here at Penn State.  The event is well worth attending!  Just drop by Rec Hall and watch for a while, and I am sure you will be impressed and will have a good time as well.

 

The Senate Officers visited the College of Arts and Architecture yesterday, and we will visit four other units before our next Senate meeting.  Upcoming visits are to Engineering on February 6, 2003, Education on February 18, 2003, the Graduate School on February 19 and February 20, 2003, and Agricultural Sciences on February 24, 2003.  The schedule of Senate Officers’ visits is posted on the University Faculty Senate web site.

 

Please encourage your faculty colleagues to attend.  These meetings go best when ten or more faculty are present to express their views.  We, of course, look forward to seeing you there as well.

 

The Senate Nominating Committee met on January 14, 2003 and will meet again on February 11, 2003 for the process of nominating Senators for Chair-Elect and Secretary of the University Faculty Senate and a faculty member for the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.  Please send any suggestions to John Nichols, Chair of the Nominating Committee, or to a member of the Senate Council.  We will be very grateful for your nominations.

 

May I now ask Professor Patricia Koch to join me at the podium?  And Professor Koch today is accompanied by her son Jason.

 

In the early 1980s, the Penn State Alumni Association established a generous annual prize to be given to faculty who had distinguished themselves as classroom teachers.  The holder of this award was to be called the Alumni Teaching Fellow.  We are delighted today to honor this year’s Teaching Fellow, Patricia Koch, Associate Professor of Biobehavioral Health in the College of Health and Human Development, the 2002 Alumni Teaching Fellow.

 

Professor Koch’s field is human sexuality, and her courses deal with sexual development, sexual orientation, and sexual assault.  Class discussion of these topics requires great sensitivity as well as the tact necessary to balance openness on the one hand with fidelity to the subject matter on the other.  Professor Koch teaches in order to facilitate changes in attitudes that affect the lives of her students.  One anecdote crystallizes both her method and her achievement.  The story deals with two young men in an introductory sexuality class with an enrollment of fifty.  One student, let’s call him Tom, was failing the course through lack of effort and motivation.  Another, let’s call him Andy, had cerebral palsy and came to class in a wheelchair.  Andy did not allow his slurred speech and intermittent muscle spasms to interfere with his class participation.  The other students could not understand why he was in the class or participating in discussion because how could Andy have a sex life!  Andy knew that people considered him asexual and that was why he wanted to take this class.  In fact, he asked to do a special presentation concerning sexuality and disability in order to debunk myths and misinformation.  During the presentation, the class was spellbound as Andy openly disclosed the negative attitudes he had to face and the challenges he had to confront in finding intimacy with another person.  His classmates left the room with a new-found understanding of sexuality and humanity.  Tom, the lazy student, later confessed to Professor Koch that Andy’s talk had changed his life.  He realized as never before that he was not making any effort at all in school or in his own life.  Faced with Andy’s heroic determination, Tom had to change.  Professor Koch comments on this incident with profound understatement:  “Being able to facilitate such transformative experiences is the most rewarding part of teaching.”

 

Good teaching, she writes, begets the "aha" moment of epiphany, that sudden flash of comprehension.  The incident we have just heard probably provoked that response in each of us.  Imagine what it must be like to experience a full semester of classes that lift the veil on the mysteries of human sexuality and lead one to better comprehend this aspect of our humanity and to become more at ease in discussing it with others.  No wonder that both undergraduate and graduate students and her Penn State faculty colleagues all speak of her courses as transformative.  Professor Koch has also written that master teachers are both artists and scientists.  The teacher’s role, she says, is that of an expert who has developed the gift of insight into the needs, interests, and abilities of her students as well as their often unexpressed questions and who can then transform those insights into meaningful learning experiences.  Great teaching then is done by subject matter experts who possess the artistry of every day intuition and decision-making.  Professor Koch’s abilities as a scholar and teacher have won her both a national and an international reputation with recent work in China, Japan, Columbia University, and Massachusetts General Hospital.

 

Professor Koch, you are indeed a master teacher who has transformed the lives of your students by leading them to understand better their sexuality, themselves, and the humanity we all share.  Congratulations and many more years of success in your Penn State classroom!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Patricia Koch, College of Health and Human Development:  Thank you all.  I must admit that I was going to be interested to hear what John had to say because I know he looked through many of my materials and I think even spoke to some of my colleagues and so thank you.  That was as he said, one of the experiences that I have been fortunate to have here at Penn State.  I want to add a little bit to that story.  The other student that he is calling Tom, was the “lazy student,” there was not a possibility for him to pass the class because of the poor work that he had done throughout.   And he realized that, but he said that he wanted to continue coming to the class anyway because it was such an important experience to him, so that was also, as you said, a very transformative time for him.

 

Just quickly, I want to thank the Faculty Senate for this honor, and I also want to thank my colleagues, many of them who are standing in the back, who I am fortunate enough to work with.  Also, for their recognition and their support of our work.  I want to say that this is an especially meaningful honor coming from you all who are my colleagues and peers here at Penn State, who clearly value education because you devote your time, your energy, your expertise to the job here that you do at the Faculty Senate.  The Senate looks at our curriculum making sure that it is innovative and cutting edge and challenging, and to creating the supportive learning environment which includes university policies that facilitate the learning and make this a more positive environment for both the students and the teachers.  I know that this is something too that you make extra effort for doing, and it may not always be valued, and so I want to express too my appreciation to all of you because I think what we are all doing working together really helps to improve Penn State and all of our academic lives including the teaching and the research and the service.

 

And finally, I did want to acknowledge my son Jason who is here, he is a junior here at Penn State in political science, and I just wanted to say that he has also helped rekindle my excitement and enthusiasm for being a faculty member, for my teaching, and for my research, and for my service and has constantly reminded me as to the importance of what we do and that we actually really touch and improve other people’s lives.  Thank you all very much.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  No doubt you have been asking yourselves what do old Senate Chairs do?  If you are John Nichols, you keep on serving the Senate.  Not only is he chairing our Senate Nominations Committee, but he has also assumed a role of national leadership in matters of faculty governance. 

 

Each year, faculty governance leaders from all the CIC institutions meet to discuss common issues.  The issue that John has grabbed hold of is the proper place of intercollegiate athletics at major institutions of higher learning and how such universities can maintain the proper balance between learning and athletics, a balance that Penn State has successfully achieved and works hard to keep.  But, not all institutions seem to be doing as well.  Close readers of The New York Times noticed in its January 17th edition an article entitled, “Unusual Alliance Forming to Rein in College Sports.”  The alliance referred to is that between senate leaders and the Association of Governing Boards, the national trustee organization.  The article identifies John as an early leader of the Big Ten initiative of 2001, when he was our Senate chair, and he is quoted several times.  Three days later, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article entitled, "Trustees Group Plans to Work with Faculty Senates for Reform of Big-Time Athletics."  The article makes reference to the resolutions passed by the Big Ten faculty governance leaders—resolutions that John helped draft.  On January 2, the new president of Stanford shared his concern with an environment that “encourages athletic success over academic success as well as a creeping professionalism.”

 

As this topic gathers momentum, keep in mind that on this issue John Nichols holds a position of national prominence among faculty governance leaders.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  Now what about our chair-elect?  There is much to admire about our Chair-Elect, Chris Bise.  As a scholar he holds the George H. Jr. and Anne B. Deike Chair in Mining Engineering.  As an undergraduate advisor, he is the current holder of the Undergraduate Student Government/Academic Assembly Award for being the best faculty advisor in the entire university.  As an administrator, he is the Program Chair of Mining Engineering and Industrial Health and Safety in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.  I particularly treat him with great respect because he has a black belt in judo and plays racquetball on a national championship level.  As a Senator, he has served as Secretary and has chaired the Senate Committees on Curricular Affairs, Libraries, and Outreach Activities and was a prominent member of our General Education Task Force.  In addition, he has chaired the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. 

 

Well, okay, so Chris is a great scholar, and advisor, administrator, and Senator, but what kind of a teacher is he?  Chris will have to miss next month’s Senate meeting in order to receive a national teaching award from his professional society, The Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.  At its national meeting, his professional colleagues will bestow upon him the Ivan Rahn Education Award, the society’s highest academic award.  Congratulations, Chris!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Moore:  Three hand-held cordless microphones will be used again at today’s meeting.  If you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the chair and then wait for a microphone before speaking.  I remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.  President Spanier is with us today, and I am pleased to invite him to come forward and make comments.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Well, after all those accolades for the previous people I was waiting for mine, so I want to thank you for that wonderful introduction.  Actually, I do want to join John in congratulating Chris and John and Professor Koch, and, Jason, I hope you are not missing any class right now.  There are a lot of wonderful stories to tell at this university, and I think it is great that your Faculty Senate Chair is taking a few minutes to recognize some of them.

 

I want to begin by reinforcing something that John said about the Dance Marathon.  I think it is probably the single best thing that happens at this university.  It is incredibly extensive and inclusive.  Students on all of our campuses are involved.  Literally thousands of Penn State students are involved in one way or another in the Dance Marathon.  I spend a good part of Dance Marathon weekend there on the floor with the dancers, and it is always nice to see faculty show up, but frankly not many do.  Yet, there are people who travel from all around the United States to be a part of that and see it, and I would just urge you to stop by for a half an hour sometime during that weekend.  It will surprise you, and it will amaze you.  It opens on Friday night of Dance Marathon weekend, and that is a great time to be there.  You cannot say that it does not match up with your schedule because it is all day and all night for the whole weekend.  You could go at 3:00 in the morning and find a couple thousand people there, but I urge you just to stop by and take a look.  It might change your life a little bit, and the support that you show for the students and the organizers there would always be greatly appreciated.

 

I cannot stay for the entire Senate meeting today, and one of the reasons that the Senate meeting was so short last time, I think, was because I was not here to give comments.  I am on a national commission that is studying Title IX of civil rights legislation dealing with gender equity and the next two days we have our final meeting so I have to head to Washington, DC, for that meeting.  I think that was the reason I missed the last meeting as well.  That will be coming to closure soon, so I apologize for having to leave this meeting early.

 

I do want to give you an update on a few areas of interest.  If you have not noticed, we have a new governor now.  He was inaugurated last week, and I think he is going to be good for Penn State.  I do not think there is a day that has gone by since he has been elected that someone in the Rendell administration has not called me to consult on something, to ask for advice, to inquire about Penn State’s interest on a particular matter.  It is an incredible level of interest and responsiveness in the university that I have never seen before.  The problem the new administration has, however, is that it is inheriting something on the order of a $2 billion deficit in the state budget.  The budget of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a little over $20 billion, so I could be off by a billion dollars, but it is probably not too far off to say that by the time July 1st rolls around it would be something on the order of ten percent of the state’s budget.  So it is a little hard to imagine how much the new administration could actually do for us in the first year or two, but I know the inclination will be there, and we will be working very closely with them to look for ways in which they can be helpful to Penn State.  And, in turn, ways in which Penn State can be helpful to the commonwealth.  We are major players, of course, in economic development.  We are the principle engine of research and development in this state.  We educate a plurality of the students, the future members of the labor force and citizens of the state, so, in almost any way you look at the future of Pennsylvania, Penn State has to be at the table and will play an active role.  It does mean, however, that we are probably not going to get everything that we asked for.  Maybe nothing that we asked for during this first year in our budget, so we expect the budget will be tight again.  But we hope that you have noticed that, despite the fact that Penn State’s budget has been cut $25.5 million in the last 15 months, we have not allowed it to slow us down at all. 

 

There are a lot of indicators of progress at the university that are very positive.  You saw the announcement this week when all the official numbers came out that reiterated something I said in my State of the University Address:  that for the first time our research expenditures exceeded $500 million at Penn State.  This is quite a remarkable achievement for the university.  That comes about almost entirely through the personal efforts of faculty members who are out there competing nationally in peer reviewed research.  We are being entrepreneurial.  We are moving ahead.

 

We continue to be the most popular university in the United States.  Students are voting with their feet and expressing an interest in Penn State.  Last year you may recall that we had just a few under 80,000 applications for admission to Penn State.  This year, as of this Monday we were 5, 400 applications ahead of the same week last year.  And of course, now we are very deeply into that admissions cycle.  I think we are up to about 65,000 applications on the database for this year, and, of course, there are still many weeks left to go.  That is another very positive indicator of what is happening at the university. 

 

The data just came out from the Council on Advancement and Support of Education.  They are folks that deal with development issues, and, again, Penn State leads the nation in the number of alumni donors.  Harvard is a couple thousand behind us in second place, University of Michigan is about 10,000 behind us in third place.  We had over 72,000 alumni contribute something financially to the university just this past year. 

 

So I think it is important to say these things at the same time we talk about all the angst around the state about the budget because, despite what is happening around us, we have no intention of allowing the quality of what we do at Penn State to slip, nor of slowing down in our efforts to move the university ahead in all of the different ways we have laid out.

 

There will be more uncertainty this spring than we are accustomed to because, when there is a new governor, they customarily hold appropriation hearings a little later.  The governor announces his budget a little later, and the legislature takes longer to wrap things up.  So my appropriation hearings are not even scheduled until late March or early April, which is more than a month later than has customarily been the case, and, because of the financial difficulties in the state, I do not think it will be until very close to the July Board of Trustees meeting that we actually have the budget wrapped up and ready to go.  Only at that point will we really know what the tuition increase is likely to be and the pay raises and other variables that affect the state budget.  Fortunately, we have enough control over our own budget that we are not subject to what you see at a lot of other peer institutions, where one year the faculty members are getting a nice raise, and the next year nobody is getting a raise, and they are up and down, and the tuition increases are all over the place.  We are able to manage things in a little more straightforward way, so of course we expect to have pay increases, and keep up with employee benefits, and do all of the good things that we have been doing in recent years.

 

We do have some searches underway.  I will just give you a brief update.  We have now identified finalists for the vice president for outreach position.  Those individuals will be announced sometime soon to the few hundred people who will be involved in interviews and forums and that part of the search.  We are likely to bring in about three finalists, and we are just in the process now of getting that all organized, so that search is in pretty good shape right now.  We have a search underway as you know, for vice president for student affairs.  We have two vice presidents who are retiring at the end of June, and I believe that committee is in the semi-final stage.  So in the next couple of weeks they will go through a process of interviews and narrow their semi-final list down to a list of finalists, and probably we will have that search wrapped up maybe sometime in March.

 

We are in the very final stages of the search for a new executive director of the alumni association.  We have had three absolutely superb candidates in as finalists.  They just completed their interviews in the last couple of days or so, and that search will be brought to conclusion, we think, in the next two or three weeks.

 

We have finalists close to being identified for the dean at Penn State Erie, so that search is moving along well, and we are in the process of arranging for people to come in for interviews for that position.

 

We have been very successful in filling the vacancies that we had for leadership positions at some of the Commonwealth Campuses.  I think all but one of those has now been concluded, and I think the one that we still have ahead of us is New Kensington.  So we are very pleased how all of the various searches for administrative positions in the university are moving along.

 

The other topic that I would like to take a few minutes to say a few words about—and it was suggested to me by the Senate leadership that it was a good time to give a report on this—is a general assessment of how the reorganization of our Commonwealth Educational System, as it used to be known—our system of Commonwealth Campuses—how that reorganization has gone.  Many of you will recall, and the Senate was very involved in the discussion at that time, but some of you are newer and will not recall the background.  That in the 1995-1996 year among the major big organizational issues at the university that we looked at was the general welfare, and progress, and organization of our system of Commonwealth Campuses.  At that time, which was not really very long ago, it was the exception rather than the rule that campuses were allowed to have baccalaureate degree programs.  They existed only at a couple of campuses.  The mission of the campuses at that time was to provide associate degrees or the first two years of a baccalaureate degree for students.  Students were generally expected to transfer to the University Park Campus at the end of their sophomore year and in some cases to transfer to another university altogether.  There had been significant enrollment declines across the Commonwealth Campuses in the 1993 to 1995 period.

 

Within two or three weeks of the time I was named president in March 1995 I received letters from 200 to 300 faculty members on the campuses telling me what was wrong with their lives.  And things did not seem to be going real well at that time.  So we took a look at the situation, and you will recall what we did was to say that we should have the opportunity to develop a limited number of focused baccalaureate degrees at all of our campuses; that we should have a plan of increasing upper-division enrollments, thereby giving our faculty an opportunity to have upper-division students as well as lower-division students; that we would not change any of the rules about students moving from another campus to the University Park Campus if they wished.  We also said that, in order to properly recognize and reward faculty members and to have those who were most familiar with the work of the faculty evaluating them, deciding on pay raises and so on, faculty members should be encouraged or at least have the option of having their promotion and tenure, hiring, and evaluation done within the new academic units that were created.  Some of the larger campuses were not just campuses any more—they were colleges within the university.  Thereby they were academic units, not just administrative units, and a number of the smaller campuses would together become, with other campuses, colleges.  Faculty members who already had tenure homes were allowed to choose their tenure home, and only new faculty members would be required to be hired into the new colleges.

 

What do we make of all of this now a few years later?  We had great protests from other colleges and universities around Pennsylvania, you will recall, who were afraid that we were going to compete unfairly with them, steal all their students, put them out of business and do other evil things.  None of that has happened.  We projected at the time that we would maintain our market share of graduates coming out of Pennsylvania high schools.  Actually, we have decreased our market share of new freshmen:  we were at about 14.3 percent of all high school graduates coming to a Penn State campus; now it is about 12.7 percent.  This is one of the reasons why that noise in the system has seemed to disappear because other colleges and universities have attracted more of the high school graduates coming out of the schools—their enrollments are up.  Now our enrollments are up too, but they are up for very good reasons.  Namely, because we have still tried to maintain some reasonable share of the state’s high school graduates, but we have retained collectively at the campuses about 1,000 students who in the past were moving to the University Park Campus.  So those students who want to stay at the campus for their junior and senior years have been able to do so with the new baccalaureate degrees that have been developed there, and I think that has been very positive.  It has, by the way, also been good at the University Park Campus because my mail from angry alumni and parents who claim that we had too many students transferring from the campuses and therefore could not admit people as freshmen to the University Park Campus has decreased because now we are able to take a full complement of freshmen at the University Park Campus who would like to start here.  So almost everybody has been a winner in this process.  Overall, Penn State enrollments have gone up by several thousand students over this period of time but in no year have they gone up more than 1.5 or 2 percent, which was our projection.  Right now we have over 83,000 students enrolled at Penn State collectively at our campuses, so our growth has been very modest, very planned, and I think has worked very well.  The campuses have been allowed to become somewhat more independent, and I think that has been very positive.  I think students have been allowed to identify more fully with their campuses and the faculty there.

 

If there is one issue that I have not been happy about--and we knew at the time it was a risk…we knew that we would have to combat this, and we have tried very hard to combat it, but I am not pleased with where we are right now--it is in the nature of the relationships between faculty at the University Park Campus and faculty at the other campuses.  Now that was a big part of the problem before.  It was a worse problem before because faculty were being evaluated by department heads here.  There were these conferences in March, and you would spend 30 minutes a year with your department head, and then decisions were made about pay raises, promotion and tenure, and so on.  And faculty on the campuses were members of departments here on this campus but completely forgotten--not even on their listing, not on the web sites, they were not invited to seminars.  There are some notable exceptions to what I am saying but on the whole it was a pretty dismal picture.  Now, when we made the change we brought in all the department heads and the deans, and I badgered them unmercifully about this problem and pleaded with them and told them they must do something about it, and we have badgered them every year since.  When I am not badgering them, Rodney Erickson is badgering them.  Despite that, compliance has not been good.  In universities we do not operate where if you do not listen to the president we fire you—it might not be a bad way of operating the university—but it is not the way we do operate the university, so we still have difficulty on that regard.  It is not just about the department heads.  Really it is the faculty, and I would say it is not just the University Park faculty.  The faculty on the campuses need to have a stronger effort to remind their colleagues at other campuses, at all campuses including University Park, that you are in the same discipline, you work for the same university, and that this is one university geographically dispersed.  It is not a system, and you should all be connected in some way.

 

Certainly, those folks on the University Park Campus, where there tends to be a greater critical mass, have a special responsibility in this area.  And I wish that we would see our faculty communicating, corresponding, getting together, and attending things.  It is a sad commentary if you are in the languages and you have to go to an MLA meeting in December to see somebody for the first time who is a colleague on another campus.  Or if you are a sociologist, that you have to go to an ASA meeting to bump into a colleague and say, “I had no idea that you worked for Penn State.  Nice to meet you.”  Or whatever your discipline might be.  I bet there are few people in here who have never had that experience, right?  You go to meetings and you meet other Penn Staters.  It should be embarrassing to us that that would happen.  So that is an area we still have to work on, I think, but apart from that, and I do not want to harangue about that too much, I think that what we have done, all the new leadership that we brought at the dean’s level, and the new leaders we have in the campus executive officers, and the reorganization of this system has been a very positive development for Penn State.  Nothing is going to be locked in stone.  We still have to fine tune it and go with the flow and make improvements but that is my overall assessment of where we are on that topic.  So now we will open it up for your questions and comments on any of the topics or things I did not bring up that you would like me to comment on briefly.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  I, too, think that we have made some good strides in the reorganization of Penn State, and I encourage the administration to continue to seek ways to establish parity in terms of faculty work-load at commonwealth locations and University Park and parity in terms of salary at those different locations.

 

President Spanier:  Are you volunteering to have your course load increased?  Don’t answer that.

 

Christopher L. Johnstone, College of the Liberal Arts:  I am actually asking a question on behalf of my students.  At the end of last semester in a communication ethics course I was teaching a question arose that you are in a much better position to answer than I was at the time.  We were talking about the university’s decision in the mid-1980s to disinvest in companies that were doing business in South Africa and about the moral issues that surrounded that decision.  Out of that conversation grew a conversation about recent controversies about the university’s connections with companies that have been accused of engaging in exploitative labor practices overseas, and the question came up as to what moral principles presently guide the university’s development and investment activities.  So I was wondering if you could address that?

 

President Spanier:  I have written on this subject before, and it is hard to capture in just a brief comment.  If we decided that we would make a judgment about the moral character of each company in order to make our investment decisions, we probably would not have any investments.  Because in a university like this, with all these brilliant minds here, I dare say that we would find somebody who had a problem with just about any company listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  Now I want to be very careful to say for a Collegian reporter who might not be hearing this very well that I am not saying all companies on the New York Stock Exchange have problems.  I am just saying that our faculty are so creative that surely they would find something wrong with every company.  Now I am being a little facetious here but not entirely.  The bottom line on our investments is that we must manage our endowment, which is very close to a billion dollars.  Our endowment has not come to us as some gift that was bequeathed with no strings attached at the founding of the university and that has grown over a couple hundred years like you might find at some other universities.  Our endowment exists because thousands of donors have made very specific donations for endowments to support faculty, professorships, or student scholarships, and frankly when they turn that money over to the university what they expect us to do with it is to exercise fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return on that endowment while minimizing risk and getting that all right in consultation with our investment counsel and making sure that we can support those scholarships and so on.  To get into decisions of the kind that your students were referring to, it sounds very easy to say, “of course we want to pay attention to that.”  You mentioned one example where the Board of Trustees chose to become deeply immersed in a particular issue and take a stand, but it is not customarily what we do.

 

Another thing that is different about Penn State, we do not manage any stocks ourselves.  We do not make any individual investment decisions.  Our endowment is not big enough.  We do not have the kind of high priced help that a place like Harvard might have with their $18 billion endowment, so we do not pick any stocks.  I could not tell you at this moment what companies we are invested in.  I could find out at the end of the month.  I could ask for a special report.  We could collect all the information.  What we do is we give chunks of money to a whole bunch of different money managers and we give them certain guidelines on that, and then they invest the money and we look at their return.

 

I do not want to minimize what is a very important question.  I would not want to minimize the importance of social responsibility and being aware of those kinds of matters.  But in the way in which Penn State manages its endowment and the way in which that money came to us and the understanding that we have with our donors, we just do not get into making individual decisions, not like that.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  President Spanier you are quite right in pointing out that a third leg of the operating budget is now generated by the faculty—about $500 million in research expenditures as you pointed out—which is considerably more than what we get from the state, now down around $300 million.  While not all of that $500 million comes with indirect costs associated with it, certainly about 65 to 70 percent does.  So I have two questions.  One perhaps you can share with the Senate Faculty members and with the Collegian reporters.  What is done with the 45 percent in indirect costs that those of us who are grant active pay on top of every dollar that we receive from outside funding?  What is done with that that really furthers the collective good of everybody?  And, secondly, what is the long-term strategic plan to make sure that the research enterprise, which is a growth part of Penn State, remains competitive and hopefully moves up from the number 16 rank that we have now to even being higher in United States academic institutions?

 

President Spanier:  I think we are higher than 16th right now.  I thought we were…11th, 12th, 13th were the last numbers I looked at, but it depends how you count.  There are a lot of different ways to count it.  Just to point one thing out in your preface, you are right on target, but in all fairness to point one thing out some of that $507 million does come from the state.  The entire agricultural research line item in our budget is from the state, as well as some of the research funding that comes from state agencies.  There are faculty members who are supported by the Department of Transportation or other state departments, for example.  So it is not quite as lopsided as one might think but your point is correct nonetheless.

 

What happens to the indirect costs?  Well, we do with indirect costs what a university is generally expected to do with indirect cost.  It is not entirely the most popular approach because at our university the lion’s share—or we could say the Nittany lion’s share—of the indirect costs are indeed used in the budget of the university to continue to support the research enterprise.  Indirect costs are by definition reimbursements to the university.  They are to reimburse the university for our investment in the costs of doing research, and so, in the conservative way in which we run this university financially, we take most of that money and it goes back into the budget of the university to pay for all the facilities, the physical plant, the library--all of that part of the budget which is apportioned out for the research infrastructure.

 

If anybody doubts that we look at this carefully or that there is not a careful accounting, you should understand that we have an entire group--I do not know how many it is right now.  It is at least a half dozen people, I think of full time federal auditors who live in State College, and they work on our campus and audit all of this on a daily basis.  It is a huge group of people who monitor that our research costs are being spent properly and that the indirect costs are calculated.  We have to go through a big study every so often to prove what we are doing with it.

 

Now we do take a minority of the budget, a smaller share, and do with it what some universities do in a more lopsided way, which is an incentive to return them to deans, and departments, and principle investigators in a sharing mode so that they can make local decisions about reinvesting them in research.  How that is handled varies a lot from one college to the other.  Some PIs may be quite aware of this way of doing business because it comes right to you, or you know it comes to your department.  In other colleges it may be used differently and you do not see it individually.  That is how we deal with it.

 

Penn State’s indirect cost rates are still among the lowest of any of the top research universities.  We are about at the bottom, and we actually try very hard to get that rate up whenever we can because we want our indirect costs reimbursements to go up.  But one of the reasons our rates are so low is that we are not able to invest quite as much money up front as some other institutions which may be getting more support from their state.

 

The second part of your question is what can we do to ensure that we really continue to make a commitment in this investment.  I think Eva Pell is providing marvelous leadership in this area right now, our deans are working very hard on this, as is the provost.  It is on our minds all the time.  We do everything we can when there is a requirement for matching funds.  We will take other money that is outside of the research budget and do what we can to make it possible to step up to the next level.  We have a great governmental affairs team, and, when they need to be involved, they go to work on our behalf in this area.  Some of you have seen these data; they are quite remarkable and frankly they have exceeded any expectations I ever had.  In about 1996-1997, we identified five areas for investment in the university.  We had already identified the life sciences consortium, but we also identified children, youth and families, and environmental sciences, materials sciences, and information sciences and technology, and we are now at the end of that cycle—it turned out to be a six year cycle—of investing.  I cannot remember--we would have to add it up now--but it might have been $15 million total of new permanent annual funding to go into those initiatives.  Eva Pell and her folks have been able to track what that investment has lead to in a return in new research grants and contracts, and it has come back many times over, and we need to look for areas of excellence to invest in that way.

 

We are also trying to keep up in the facilities area.  A lot of you probably lament all the construction that is going on around Penn State right now because you have parking detours and all of that.  The peak is not behind us yet.  I think this coming year will probably be the peak of construction, and a lot of that is designed of course to provide new facilities for student services and to enhance the quality of life on campus.  But a lot of it is also for new classrooms, instructional facilities, and also there is a whole bunch of research facilities involved in many of those new buildings, and that is an investment we have to make to attract and retain the best faculty and to keep a leg up on the research side as well.

 

Paul F. Clark, College of the Liberal Arts:  There was some mention of the proper role of university athletic programs earlier, and I had a question that was prompted by two news articles I saw recently.  The Harrisburg Patriot reported that the athletic department recently spent $125,000 on a consultant to increase crowd support at Penn State basketball games.  And also there was an article about our volleyball team going to Hawaii, something apparently it does every year or two.  While I know athletics is an auxiliary unit, I was wondering if, at a time when many of us on the academic side are being asked to do more with less, some thought is being given to a new approach to athletics in which the athletic department contributes some of this abundant revenue they apparently have to the academic side?

 

President Spanier:  Let me say a couple things.  In terms of the specific examples, I read that in the paper, and I am not aware of that expenditure.  I have no idea whether that is accurate or not.  It did not sound right to me.  We operate pretty frugally and generally do not make investments of that size and we have good people on campus who give marketing advice, and I just do not know if that was accurate or not.  I do not know about the volleyball thing.  It must have been referring to men’s volleyball because one of the top men’s volleyball teams is the University of Hawaii, and they come here and play occasionally.  I assume we have to go there and play, and we are ranked somewhere in the top five or so in men’s volleyball, so I assume at some point we have to go there.  I doubt it was a junket, “Hey, let’s go to Hawaii.”  But let me say this, that we are one of the only intercollegiate athletics programs in the country that operates on a completely self-support basis.  So there is no drain on the university budget from athletics.  There has not been since I have been here.  I do not think it was the case before, and we do not want to see that happening in the future.  Now a lot of other schools claim that they are self-supporting in athletics, but they are self-supporting because they have some budget from within the university:  they do not pay overhead, they do not pay tuition for their students or their out-of-state students do not pay full out-of-state tuition, or some of the student fee is siphoned off and goes to support athletics, or they have funny bookkeeping and they claim to be self-supporting.  In many of our peer institutions there is actually a legislative appropriation that was put into the budget to support intercollegiate athletics.  All of the ten things or so I just mentioned, we do not have any of that here.  Not only do we operate intercollegiate athletics on a completely self-support basis—unlike some of you on your research projects, who come in and plead with Eva Pell and your deans not to pay overhead on your grants because you do not want to pay overhead—our athletic department does pay overhead back to the university.  We do not cut the grass for them.  They either cut the grass themselves or they have to, in a sense, pay us to cut the grass, and they provide overhead to us to write their paychecks and everything else.  So our program is self-supporting, and we do not go out and spend money that we do not have.  We also try to be very frugal.  We do not—I do not care what you read in the newspapers or what people want to make up—we do not pay outlandish salaries to coaches at Penn State.  It is not the way we do business here.  It is just like the faculty.  We are very modest in what we do here.  We do not go off and do crazy stuff, so even though it is a big part of Penn State’s budget—it is $40+ million a year—it is done on a self-support basis and the revenues come in.

 

I think you know that I have the director of athletics as a member of the president’s cabinet.  He sits at the table every Monday afternoon with all the vice presidents because I want him to be a part of the university administration and to always be aware of what is going on and of his responsibility and that of all of his people to represent the university.  Similarly, when he hears about an issue at the university he is always thinking, is there someway in which athletics can help.  And that is why if you go to athletics at Penn State you will see them raising money for cancer out in the hallways.  You will see them trying to find some way to help Dance Marathon—to send athletes there in the middle of the night to entertain the dancers.  At Penn State, intercollegiate athletics is intimately connected with the rest of the university.  We have one fund raising organization for athletics—the Nittany Lion Club.  It is for all sports.  It is not like most schools where you have these booster organizations that are really arms length who are going out and doing things and speaking for the university.  The culture here is very different and that is why John Moore was saying that, while we do not have some of the issues that other schools do, we are very mindful of all of those things that are out there and that potentially could happen.  I am very proud of what we do in intercollegiate athletics.  There is no other university that does it the way we do here, and I really hope that we can continue to operate on a self-support basis because it is great for a president to be able to get up, and very few can do this, and say, “Do not worry about it too much because we are not taking any money that would otherwise go into academics and sending it over to athletics.”  If anything it tends to be in the other direction.

 

Joseph J. Cecere, Penn State Harrisburg:  You gave us an assessment of the reorganization.  Would you mind giving us an update on our relationship with Penn College?

 

President Spanier:  Frankly, as I look back at the history, my perception is that when Penn College via legislative act back in 1989—I could be off a little bit; it was when Bryce Jordan was still president—when Penn College was given to Penn State or folded into the Penn State family there was some concern about it, a feeling that they did not fit, and it really was not in Penn State’s best interest.  I have a completely different view than that from 1995 to now anyway.  I think Penn College is a tremendous asset to the Penn State family.  Now, structurally, it is different from our other campuses.  I think you know that I really have two jobs—I am president of Penn State, but I am also the president of the Corporation for Penn State.  The Corporation for Penn State is a legal entity that includes a lot of Penn State stuff that for various legal and tax and other reasons has to be administered separately.  Penn College is part of the corporation for Penn State, so Penn College actually has a separate governing board.  I do appoint a good number of the members of that governing board, and it includes some Penn State administrators, and that governing board reports to the Corporation for Penn State, which exists overall under the Board of Trustees of Penn State.  But what I am saying is that it is a little bit of a different kind of enterprise than the rest of Penn State.

 

Penn College may be the greatest success story we have at the university right now.  They have essentially a 100 percent placement rate of their graduates.  They have a very good mix—it is not quite 50/50, but it is getting close—of associate degrees and baccalaureate degrees.  Their programs are in fairly applied areas.  They have had significant application and enrollment increases each year.  They are doing very well financially.  There is a very high degree of student satisfaction and they are serving tremendous work force needs for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  And they have great leadership there right now, so Penn College is doing extremely well, and I am always very proud when I can talk about what they are doing there and how they relate to Penn State.

 

From the Faculty Senate standpoint they are the one campus that is not represented here and tied in.  They have a separate Faculty Senate, and I would love some day for there to be some closer working relationship.  Among our Senate leadership back in the mid-1990s there was some discussion.  They talked about cooperating, but I do not think much happened on that.  But I am very pleased with what has evolved there.

 

Chair Moore:  Thank you very much for spending so much time and answering our questions today.

 

 

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

None

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

None

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

None

           

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

Chair Moore:  Agenda Item J, Informational Reports.  Again, I remind you to stand and wait for the microphone before you give your name and unit.  We have five informational reports in today’s Agenda.  The first informational report comes to us from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid.  It appears in today’s Agenda as Appendix “B” and is titled, Reserved Spaces Programs Fall 2002.  Senate Council has set aside five minutes for this presentation and discussion.  If we run out of time, Mark Casteel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid, would be pleased to answer questions after the meeting formally adjourns.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID

 

Reserved Spaces Programs Fall 2002

 

Mark A. Casteel, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid

 

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus:  Thank you, John.  Good afternoon.  This is an annually mandated report that outlines the number of students admitted to the University Park Campus under the Reserved Spaces Program.  In the interest of time and because I think the report is fairly self-explanatory, let me just address two things.  These things have come up since this report has gone to Senate Council.  First of all, if you will look at the third table that outlines the numbers of students admitted under each of those evaluation indexes, these are numbers based on Fall 2002.  The second thing is we have been asked to address time to graduate for students admitted under reserved spaces, and let me assure you that the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid is looking at that data as we speak.  So I will take questions now.

 

Chair Moore:  Seeing no questions, thank you Mark and thanks to all members of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid.  The second informational report comes to us from Senate Council.  This report appears as Appendix “C” in today’s Agenda and is titled, University Faculty Census Report – 2003-2004.  Senate Council has set aside five minutes for this presentation and discussion.  If we run out of time Secretary Blumberg will be pleased to answer questions after the Senate formally adjourns.  Melvin Blumberg, Chair of the Election Commission and Secretary of the University Faculty Senate will present the report.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

 

University Faculty Census Report – 2003-2004

 

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg:  Thank you, John.  This is the annual census of faculty used to determine the number of Senators per academic unit and I will try to answer any questions.

 

Chair Moore:  Are there any questions in regard to the census report?  Seeing none, thank you and stay right where you are.  The third informational report comes to us from Senate Council and is titled, Report on Fall 2002 Campus Visits.  This report appears as Appendix “D” in today’s Agenda.  Senate Council has set aside 20 minutes for the presentation and discussion.  If we run out of time, Secretary Blumberg will be pleased to answer questions after the Senate formally adjourns.  Melvin Blumberg, Secretary of the Senate will present the report.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

 

Report on Fall 2002 Campus Visits

 

Melvin Blumberg:  This is a report of the Senate Officer visits to seven campuses of the Commonwealth College, four campus colleges and a visit to the Pennsylvania College of Technology.  I will try to respond to any questions.

 

Chair Moore:  Seeing no questions, thank you very much Mel for this report.  The fourth information report comes to us from the Senate Committee on University Planning and is titled, Status of University Park Construction Projects.  This report appears as Appendix “E” in today’s Agenda and will be presented by Associate Vice President for Physical Plant, William Anderson and Steve Maruszewski, Director of Design and Construction Services.  Senate Council has set aside ten minutes for the presentation and ten minutes for discussion.  If we run out of time, Associate Vice President Anderson will be pleased to answer questions after the Senate formally adjourns.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Status of University Park Construction Projects

 

Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

 

William J. Anderson, Associate Vice President for Physical Plant:  Thank you, John.  At the presentation today we are going to cover projects which are in construction, in design, and a couple of projects which have recently been completed.  We give two presentations a year.  This was designed to be in December, and I got here late because you finished so early.  We do one on University Park, so that is this one, and then later this spring we will give one on the construction projects on campuses outside University Park.  Steve Maruszewski, Director of Design and Construction Services as John mentioned, is going to present this.  Steve is a Penn State graduate.  He holds bachelors and masters degrees from Penn State, worked in industry until about seven years ago and then came to work for Penn State, so Steve if you would please.

 

Steve Maruszewski, Director of Design and Construction Services:  Good afternoon.  I guess I am down to nine minutes.  I will try to make this quick and leave some time for questions.  The presentation today is going to take us pretty much across the campus from west to east, and we are going to highlight recently completed projects as well as projects that are currently under construction and touch very briefly on upcoming projects that we will be presenting at future meetings.

 

The first project we are going to talk about is West Campus Housing, which is on the western side of campus and is $31.6 million.  It developed housing for replacement of the barrack-style housing that is down across from College Avenue.  It enabled us to move forward on some junior/senior housing, which will be later in the presentation.  The project consisted of singles units and family units, and here are some renderings of what it was originally projected to look like.  Here is the final completed project starting with the student housing.  Unfortunately, the weather changed quickly, so we were not able to get the landscaping quite up to speed, but we will as soon as spring sets in.

 

The next slide shows the Community Center as well as some of the family housing.  Another slide of the student housing, another view, and one final view of the playground area behind the Community Center.

 

These are some slides of the internal finishes within the Community Center.  This is a meeting room within the Community Center.  This space here is what is called a Bounce Room.  It is an activity center for the children as part of the families that are living there.  This is the central lobby area...another view of the lobby area, and a more blown up view of the lobby that shows the use of natural light within the facility.

 

The next project I am going to be highlighting is the Information Sciences and Technology Building, which I am sure everyone has seen.  This is the one that spans Atherton Street, $58.5 million, approximately 200,000 gross square feet.  Signature architect Rafael Viñoly in joint venture with Perfido Weiskopt out of Pittsburgh.  Turner Construction is our construction manager, and this project is scheduled for completion in December of this year.  Here is the rendering that shows the building spanning across Atherton Street.  It is approximately three football fields in length.  If you count the ramp it makes a nice transition from the east side of campus to the west side of campus.  It gives a safe pedestrian passageway for students to get to the west side of campus and it incorporates it within the building structure.

 

These are some shots of the building as it was being constructed.  As you can see this was done when the weather was still nice.  This is the frame going up.  This shot shows a dramatic view of the curve of the facility.  It has a curvilinear shape as it crosses to allow the pedestrian ways to line up with the different pedestrian accesses on both sides of the campus.  This is a view of the facility where it crosses Atherton Street.  These shots I am going to go through rather quickly.  They are not as exciting because they are shown in the middle of winter, but this is showing the progress that has occurred since the last meeting.  The previous slides were the slides that were going to be presented at the last meeting, and this is the progress that has occurred since then.  It is now what I call the ugly stage of construction.  It is waiting for the exterior to be put on, and that will happen rather quickly.  There is a shot of the overpass across Atherton Street, and for those who have passed through there you can see the glass is starting to be applied to the exterior.  Another view showing the curvilinear shape.  Some shots of the interior give a sense of the large expanse and the length of this building.  Some more shots of the interior.

 

Here is the Cybertorium.  It is 500-seat auditorium which will be fully electronic and fit out for high-tech presentations.  This is the center of the facility.  To the left, where the construction workers are, will be a café which is actually right directly over the roadway.  This passageway is within the building, and this direction here will be the exterior actually.  It will be passing through the building.  It will be the walkway that goes from east to west.  This is a more dramatic view of that central core.  This side here will actually have a skylight over it, and this side here will be open to the sky.  These are some early views that show rather dramatically how large the facility is and how it sits on the campus.

 

The next project is the Nittany Parking Deck which is right out back here.  I am sure many of you have probably parked there today.  We have expanded the parking deck and added approximately 500 spaces and a new entrance.  This is a new addition in the back.  This is the back corner which some of you may have exited today, a new exit, and the new façade along the side.  Once again here is an aerial view showing how dramatic the addition is.

 

The next project I am going to highlight is the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center.  It is a $9 million facility which brought 32 different faith groups together in one location on campus.  This was a very challenging project and continues to be.  This is scheduled to be complete in early April, with the first scheduled event being Easter.  Here is the rendering that the architects prepared prior to our entering into construction.  Here is one of the more dramatic views.  Unfortunately, it is in the middle of winter, but it shows some of the unique shapes and configurations of the building.  This is the existing Eisenhower wing and the new building starts right where that new brick is and wraps around this way.

 

Going around the building, this is more the front, this is the front door, this is the exterior wall to the new worship space.  This is the connector between the existing Eisenhower Chapel and the new addition right here, and this indicates the upgrade of existing façade to the existing building.  Here is the light tower, which will be the most visible component.  Some shots of the interior.  You see we have a long way to go to be finished by April, but finishes are beginning to come together.  Dry wall is being installed, duct work, and this shows an interior shot of the worship space—the high bay area.  Once again we have aerial views to show how dramatic the addition is to the campus.  This is the existing Eisenhower Chapel and this is the new addition.

 

The next project I am going to highlight is one that is not under construction yet; it is currently under design.  It will house the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.  It is $27 million, 111,000 square feet.  We are scheduled to start construction this May and complete the building in September 2004.  All I have to show here are renderings.  Environmentally designed in accordance with the Leeds criteria, this is the first true green building.  Our current goal is that it will have a silver rating, and it may actually achieve a gold rating.  This shows the back exterior, which faces the water tower and Hort woods.  This building will actually be constructed of recycled copper, so it will have a green finish to it.

 

Moving further east is the Chemistry Building, $63.5 million dollars.  This will house primarily research facilities.  It is 183,000 square feet and is being constructed by Reynolds Construction.  This is a Department of General Services project, so it is being handled by the state, and is scheduled to be complete December of this year.

 

This rendering shows the effort put into maintaining the rear cottage area as well as the trees.  The trees on this site were considered to be very sensitive, so a lot of effort was put in to maintain the existing landscape.  These are some of the earlier construction photos.  Again, these were when the weather was pretty nice.  It shows the steel going up on the two different wings.  This is what is known as the stiff wing, where it will have vibration sensitive equipment.  The other wing is primarily wet labs.  Here are just some more recent photos of the different exposures.  Here is a photo showing the glass going on, and this is one of the trees that we pruned back early to make sure we protected it throughout the construction.

 

Some of the interior views give an indication of how large this building is.  This is an air-handling unit that is about 40 feet long.  This is a very large, technical facility.  Here again is an earlier overview shot showing the aerial view, and it also picks up an aerial view of the Life Sciences site, which will be the next project to talk about.

 

Life Science Building is $45.9 million, 154,000 square feet.  The designer is Bower Lewis Thrower and Payette joint venture.  Barclay White is the construction manager.   This is a university-managed project.  It is currently under construction and scheduled for completion in May 2004.  It is linked directly to the Chemistry Building with a bridge, and the intent is to encourage more collaboration between the two units and share some space in the two different buildings.

 

This shows a rendering which is almost identical to the Chemistry Building.  It has very much the same materials.  It utilizes the same brick and the same wall so they look as one unit.  And here you can see the two of them connected with the bridge over Shortlidge Road, which is intended to be more pedestrian friendly in the future at the end of this project.  Here are just some construction site photos of the Life Science project.  We are just currently putting in foundations and concrete work, and here again you can see the Chemistry Building in the background and the close proximity of the Life Sciences Building.

 

The next project I want to highlight is the MBNA Career Services Building.  This building was completed in July of this year.  The designer was Weber Murphy Fox.  It was $9.5 million, approximately 44,000 gross square feet.  It contains Career Services and Morgan Center Athletic Counseling Services.  Here are the renderings of the exterior prepared by the architect in advance, and here are two shots of the final product.  The following slides are just some shots of the interiors to give an idea of the level of quality of the finishes.  This is the lower level.  There is a café within the building on the lower floor.

 

The next two buildings are going to highlight what is to come.  We are discussing here the Business Building, $68 million, approximately 210,000 square feet.  Another signature architect, Robert Stern out of New York in joint venture with Bower Lewis Thrower.  Gilbane is being utilized for some construction management services, and this is scheduled to be occupied in July 2005 and is still under design.

 

It is part of what we call the Lot 80 East Subcampus Development which contains the Smeal College of Business Administration, the Forest Resources Building, the parking deck/chiller and a Food Science Building.  It is located directly across from the future site of the Arboretum.  Right now I am sure most of you are aware that this is a big sea of asphalt.

 

The Forest Resources Building that will be located on that site is approximately $27 million intended to be 92,000 gross square feet.  It is currently under design with a start very close to the Smeal College of Business Building and scheduled occupancy in April 2005.  The state is currently managing this project, and they are in the process of discussing moving up the schedule on it.

 

The next building I am going to highlight is the Parking Deck/Chiller Building.  Approximately, $31 million, and it will add 1244 parking spaces to campus to replace the spaces we are losing in Lot 80 in order to construct these facilities.  Robert Stern is also the architect on this one.  This is a university run project and Bower Lewis Thrower is in joint venture and once again we will be utilizing Gilbane to assist us.  Our goal is to start construction this summer and finish in August 2004.

 

The next building on this block is the Food Science Building.  This is another state run project.  It is located on Lot 80 block.  Estimated to be $32.2 million, 105,000 gross square feet, and it will be the home of the new Creamery.  Design is currently ongoing.  Once again the start date is of this year almost simultaneously with the Forest Resources Building, Smeal College of Business Administration Building, Parking Deck, and completion scheduled for June 2005.  Again, the state is planning to move this up, and this is primarily the reason why Dr. Spanier said we have not hit the peak yet.  I think this year we are going to hit the peak of construction mainly because of the addition of these projects.

 

The last project I am going to highlight is Eastview Terrace Housing.  This is the junior/senior housing that is going on the site where the graduate housing used to be located.  They were demolished as soon as we moved into West Campus Housing.  This project has a price tag of about $78 million.  It has 800 new beds.  Hayes Large, a local firm, is working on this in joint venture with Child, Bertman and Tseckares, and Turner Construction is our construction manager.  It is currently under construction as I am sure you can see, and it is a very attractive upscale housing complex which will be a nice entrance into Penn State.

 

Right now it is just a lot of foundation work.  Again, we are in the ugly stages of construction—just a lot of holes in the ground, but it is moving along quite well and scheduled occupancy is July 2004.

 

Mark A. Levin, Student Senator, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  I just have a question about the East Parking Deck/Chiller Plant Building.  You said there were going to be 1244 new spaces in that, are those mostly for commuting students or are those on campus students spaces to replace the ones that will be lost from Lot 80?

 

William J. Anderson:  I will address that.  These are faculty/staff spaces, not student spaces.  The student spaces for the students who were parked there—the student storage parking—those are being located other places on campus.  There is a one-for-one replacement for those student storage parking spaces, but they are going to be distributed among the dormitory areas.

 

Stephen M. Smith, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I have a particular question about landscaping for the IST Building and west campus in general.  I have a vested interest because I live on Park Avenue and we have lost the view of the Tussey ridge.  I was wondering if there were any plans to plant any tree barriers to mitigate the visual impact of those buildings, particularly along the east edge of the golf course.

 

William J. Anderson:  We do have an extensive landscaping and sort of civic space design.  I would be glad to share that with you.  I do not have the specifics right off the top of my head but if you are interested when the meeting is over I will give you my card and you can get in touch with me and I would be glad to share them with you.

 

Stephen M. Smith:  Yes, I am very interested because about four years ago we talked with somebody from there, and they were going to plant a row of trees along the south side of that golf course to sort of provide a barrier and it did not happen.

 

William J. Anderson:  I will give you my card when we are done.

 

Mila C. Su, Penn State Altoona:  I have a further question regarding the IST Building.  One of the questions immediately in my mind was where are the banks of elevators for ADA accessibility?   And how many elevators do you have?  What other types of access are you providing in that building since that is a heavily used area not only by the university community but by the State College community as well.

 

Steve Maruszewski:  There are elevators on both wings on both sides of the road and the ramp itself is designed to be ADA accessible, so it has a slope that meets the requirements for ADA access, and there is access throughout the building.

 

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture:  Bill, I am not going to pick on you about parking.  I know I have done that enough already.  I am not sure who I get to complain to because, if my rough calculations are correct, we are spending $112 million on the sciences.  We are spending $77 million on business and $31 million on a parking deck and the new Landscape Architecture Building only gets $27 million.  So do I get to pick on the dean or is there somebody else I get to pick on?

 

William J. Anderson:  Well, you could probably start with me if you want to pick on someone.  Your question really gets to how do we develop a capital plan and what the needs are.  A lot of the needs are based upon the strategic needs of the institution, so we develop a need for Chemistry, Life Sciences and the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.  Once we develop the need then we form a program committee to determine what that need is and how it translates into square feet.  Then for example, the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture is about 115,000 square foot building, I think, and that came to $26.5 million as to what it cost.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  The point is that the library for the new building is no larger than the library for the old building, so there is no room for growth.

 

William J. Anderson:  I do not know that for a fact.  You may know that better than I.  I know that we based the overall program around what the needs were.  There was a little bit of give and take at the end.  I know the library was in discussion but I thought that we were expanding the library somewhat over what the existing library is.  I can look into that.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  If I am interpreting correctly is the Smeal College of Business Building on top of current buildings?

 

William J. Anderson:  Yes, that is a good question, and we forgot to properly point that out.  It is on top of the Mitchell Building site.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  Does the cost include the demolishing of a building?  Considering there are a lot of ugly buildings, Mitchell is not at the top of that list, and I would not look at that as depreciated cost because a lot of us are in buildings that have no depreciated value.

 

William J. Anderson:  We have a separate line item for the cost of demolition of the Mitchell Building, and it is about $1 million to demolish the Mitchell Building.  But there is a carry-on question as to what do we do with the people that are in the Mitchell Building and how have we provided for them.  Part of it is another project which we did not show; we are building a building out in Innovation Park.  It is called the Outreach and Continuing Education Building, and World Campus, WPSX, and WPSU are going into it.  We are getting close to completion of the design of that now, and that will be under construction during this next year.  That takes care of part of them.

 

Another part is there are some people from the College of Arts and Architecture there, that is, the digital photography studio.  They will ultimately move into Borland Laboratory.  Now we told you about the Food Sciences that is in Borland Laboratory.  Borland Laboratory will then when we build the new Food Sciences Building will be turned over to the College of Arts and Architecture and it will be completely renovated.  So digital photography, for example and other parts of visual arts will go into that.

 

Another thing that is in Mitchell Building is the College of Communications television studio and television training.  That is going out into the Innovation Park in which there is a leased building out there that we are retrofitting for the television studio for the College of Communications.

 

Now let me just address one other thing about the Mitchell Building.  The Mitchell Building does not look too bad from the outside, but it is not a very functional building.  It has some significant asbestos issues to deal with.  They are not environmental problems, but, if we go and do any renovations to it, there are very costly things to do renovation.  We actually did take a look at trying to adaptively reuse the Mitchell Building in order to be able make it be part of the Smeal College of Business complex, and it did not make economic sense.

 

Chair Moore:  Thank you very much for this informative and long awaited report.  The fifth and final informational report comes to us from the Senate Committee on University Planning and is titled, Proposed Sale of Circleville Farm.  This report appears as Appendix “F” in today’s Agenda and will be presented by Daniel Sieminski, Assistant Vice President for Finance and Business.

 

Before we begin our discussion, I must note that this topic has attracted a great deal of attention within both the University Park and State College communities.  For that reason, the report we are about to hear is an important one.  In addition, I want to remind everyone that in accordance with Senate Policy – Standing Rules 1. 7.c (page 17 of the Constitution)—discussion will be limited to members of the Senate and to those members of the university—staff, students, and faculty—who have requested permission to speak in accordance with Senate rules.  Two faculty members have received such permission—Professor Eisenstein of the College of the Liberal Arts and Professor Wangsness of the College of Agricultural Sciences.

 

Senate Council has set aside ten minutes for the presentation and thirty minutes for discussion.  If we run out of time, Assistant Vice President Sieminski will be pleased to answer questions after the Senate formally adjourns.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Proposed Sale of Circleville Farm

 

Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

 

Daniel W. Sieminski, Assistant Vice President for Finance and Business:  Thank you very much.  I have to admit that when President Spanier was speaking about searches—and maybe it is not the right venue to talk about this type of a search—I was nonetheless pleased that he did not talk about a search for an Assistant Vice President for Finance and Business. 

 

I would like to thank the Faculty Senate for inviting me to make this presentation regarding Circleville Farm.  We spent a lot of time on this property over the years, literally over the years.  I would like to share some of the overall thinking that has gone into it.  Additionally, I expect there is much work that we still need to do to properly address all the concerns that have come with this property.

 

After I cover the highlights of the property, I would like to go through the RFP process and then I would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments that you might have.

 

To begin I would like to address the following areas—the strategic assessment of this property; responsible development on the property; some of the environmental concerns that we addressed; then the RFP and the proposal review process.

 

Circleville Farm is located in this yellow area on the far western reaches of University Park Campus.  Let me note that the moss-shaded areas are all areas currently being used in some fashion by the College of Agricultural Sciences.  Our orientation has been to acquire properties in adjoining areas of the university land.

 

What is highlighted in blue here are lands that we have either recently acquired for the College of Agricultural Sciences or are in discussions in acquiring.  Again, with the size of Circleville Farm it does not contribute well to the equipment needs or to the efficient scale of operations for efficient farming.  So our orientation has been to focus more around the airport in acquisition of property.  By the way, the properties highlighted in blue exceed two thousand acres, so our plans and property acquisition for the college for agricultural use has been pretty aggressive.

 

Given the relative value of Circleville land compared to other lands of interest we expect to acquire two to three acres of more effective farmland for every acre of Circleville Farm.  That is an important point:  that the proceeds from the sale of the Circleville Farm will be used to acquire other farm lands for the university.

 

I ran it two slides, and I have to apologize for this.  It was not in the presentation that I sent over, but I think these two slides may help.  They are basically two slides of the same area taken at different times.  This area that I am highlighting is Circleville Farm.  This is a high altitude image taken in 1995.  I would ask you to focus your attention either in this area—this is Greenleaf Manor—or in this area that is Teaberry Ridge.  Six years later, 2001, Greenleaf Manor is almost fully developed.  Teaberry Ridge I think at this point has two or three vacant lots and is almost fully developed.  Again Circleville Farm lies here.  I am going to talk a little more about the Western Inner Loop but this shows in 2001 the removal of trees to get started on construction for the Western Inner Loop.

 

Now despite this development we considered other uses for the property.  We considered that Circleville Farm could be used to relocate golf holes for either the Blue or the White Courses.  Of course, the notion here would be that we could construct academic buildings on the White Golf Course between current development and Park Avenue.  Of course, we abandoned that concept pretty quickly.  The borough was very opposed to that.  We know that the neighbors on Park Avenue are opposed to that idea.  But, with the notion of developing academic buildings on the White Golf Course in that location, we could relocate the golf holes to Circleville Farm.  In fact, the borough has this property now rezoned as a no build zone and that is fine with the university.  It is a good location for a golf course and it works very well.

 

Moving on to the Blue Course we had also gone down the path that said we could relocate holes on the Blue Golf Course to expand this area for other types of development, even third-party type office buildings.  When we went through that analysis, we realized that the cost of putting holes on Circleville Farm far exceeded the increased value that we might realize from using this property differently in the existing Blue Golf Course.  Another area of concern here is storm water, and we have to get those issues resolved also.  A final point regarding the golf holes being erected on Circleville Farm:  the Western Inner Loop really creates a significant barrier in a four-lane road with a median.  If anybody golfs, you get from one green to tee, and you have to cross a road in a golf cart.  It can be pretty exciting.  This is a four-lane with a median, to give you an idea of how this might really turn out as we looked at the idea of finishing up on a green in this area then going across to play in Circleville Farm and then coming back.  There is a right-of-way of 100 feet on the Western Inner Loop, and all the numbers indicate that we are going to see as much traffic on the Western Inner Loop as we currently see on Atherton Street.  And Atherton Street is only a right-of-way of 60 feet, and I just think that the notion of crossing a street like that could be pretty troublesome.

 

We took it a step further in looking at Circleville Farm and talked about the notion of water well fields for the university.  Our water production capacity is excellent, but strategically if we could justify keeping this property for water wells and well fields it could work very well.  The problem was that, when we went through the feasibility, the geology of the site just does not contribute to that type of use.

 

While I have this map up, there has also been discussion about community fields, and I have got to say that we broached the subject.  We were in separate discussions with the local municipalities regarding active play fields on university land.  We currently have a proposal from the local governments on property that is on Whitehall Road and actually along the 322 Bypass.  This property was suggested as one of the areas for active play fields for the communities, and they opted not to use Circleville Farm for this type of purpose.  Instead they chose other plans.

 

Related to responsible development, the university took the lead with the Hamer Center.  We provided financial assistance to do a pretty significant study.  Michael Rios took the lead on this and did a wonderful job with community involvement, tremendous analysis and came up with a recommendation.  Within the recommendation and the report is an excellent report, but these are just some of the highlights of what the Circleville Farm property could have been developed as.  It was proposed to Ferguson Township.  It maintained the 50 percent open space—77 ½ acres was open space—4.2 miles of trails.  Now within that acreage it is kind of surprising to me to imagine that they could fit 4.2 miles of trails into that space, but that is what the report indicated.  Open space would have been publicly owned.  It would have been a municipal obligation and there was a strong move to preserve the agricultural character of that property.  We took that to Ferguson Township.  Michael did a wonderful job, but Ferguson Township rejected that development model, and I will say that was about two years ago now.

 

We were really concerned with the environmental conditions on any university land.  This is actually taken from the RFP, the request for proposal that was released in November.  In this exhibit what we are telling developers is that the area—the red hatch—this area is a 200 foot easement on either side of a natural drainage leg.  And we would want as part of the process to establish an easement on the property; this is roughly 36 acres by-the-way for natural drainage with the exception of crossing these areas in certain places to get from one part of the development to the other.  This was to remain all undeveloped.  Of course, the university is very interested in maintaining this because of our well fields that are down from this.

 

Let me talk a little bit more about Circleville, and I have to really take a look at my notes here.  We acquired Circleville Farm in the 60s and the 70s.  This is actually comprised of two or three properties.  At that time, the area along Circleville Road was largely undeveloped.  For anybody who has been here a long time, you get back to the mid-60s, early 70s and Greenbriar was not there, not to mention all the development along Atherton Street.  Since then, there has been much development.  The farm is now surrounded on three sides by housing developments and the fourth side is zoned industrial.  We have a consultant from Pittsburgh involved in this because this is not a simple property, and his report indicated that there was not short-term or long-term argument that supports the university’s continued ownership of this property.  The value to the university is using the proceeds from the sale for the acquisition of other more strategically located agricultural property.  One other point there is a positive window of opportunity that currently exists to sell the property and the value will not increase faster than the opportunity cost of capital.

 

Considering all these issues surrounding this property, we decided that Circleville’s value to the university is to sell it and to use the proceeds to acquire other lands of more strategic importance.

 

Let me talk about the RFP process.  With property, you would expect that we may say the highest price is what gets the property.  The university does not operate like that.   We have four criteria that we use.  There was a financial one.  There was a rezoning experience, environmental considerations and finally any other contingencies.  Let me talk a little bit about the rezoning.  Rezoning is a very important factor since Circleville Farm is currently zoned rural agricultural.  Having the property rezoned to single family residential significantly increases its value.  While having the property rezoned would significantly enhance its value, the rezoning process is quite complex and not a sure thing.  In fact, our belief is that there is a real possibility the rezoning would not be approved.  A key element of the proposal review process therefore, was to consider a developers experience in Ferguson Township with regard to the successful rezoning activities.  The process of rezoning is also very public, so my suspicion is that a lot of concerns that are being raised about Circleville Farm at this stage are really issues that should be raised during the rezoning process.  That is very much in the hands of Ferguson Township.

 

We did receive five proposals that we evaluated with the internal review committee as well as with the consultant from Pittsburgh.  We received feedback that the RFP process was good but that the time frame was too short.  And that is where we abandoned the process, so we have to start again.  We had received a number of complaints from the proposers as well as from a number of others who did not propose or indicated that they needed more time to address this.  Now that concludes my presentation, and I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

 

Jacqueline R. Esposito, University Libraries:  On November 26, 2002, President Spanier was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “Broad vision is needed if we are to retain the environmental quality and beauty for which this area (speaking of State College) is known.  We must vow to pay attention to aesthetics, avoid unsightly sprawl and combat the ugliness and embarrassment that often plagues these areas.”  How is selling Circleville Farm, which is already surrounded by ugly, unsightful sprawl, going to meet that goal?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  In my mind, what we do is acquire other lands with the funds that we receive from that sale, and, while Circleville Farm is being developed, there are other properties that we will hold for a much longer period of time for the purpose of agriculture and to maintain that open property.

 

Unidentified Speaker:  I think it is so critical when we are looking at a unique parcel of land, unique to its context, that we not settle for mediocre design and that is often if the property is rezoned for residential than that is often the results.  What the Hamer Center, and it is important for the crowd to know what the Hamer Center was suggesting, is a divergent way of thinking about multi-density housing in a creative way, in a sustainable way, and I would hope that the university would embrace those values as they continue to look for developers.  As a matter of fact, I think it is the university’s responsibility to take a higher standard than is exhibited around us.

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  I could not agree with you more.  The process of rezoning on this property is going to be interesting because I suspect that with most rezoning it is rezoned R-1 and then the township and the people around it have to take what comes.  Because this property is located where it is and it is zoned agricultural, I am positive that Ferguson Township—and the university—will require much more detail with regard to how this property is specifically developed within the proposals and certainly as we go through the rezoning process.

 

Christopher L. Johnstone:  Have you had a chance to look then at the faculty statement that was distributed prior to this?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  Yes.

 

Christopher L. Johnstone:  This document seems to envision the possibilities of proposals coming forward from within the university in a way that might not entail the selling of the property and I am wondering if that is an option from the university’s point of view?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  Keep in mind that I am an assistant vice president and hoping to at least stay there.  When I reviewed the statement, one of the things that came to mind for me, being as close as I have been to Circleville Farm over the years, is that that procedure has always been there as we go through different processes, as we come up with new programs whether they be academic require land use.  The university goes through that process so I would say that is always on the table.  To make a special procedure for Circleville Farm seems to eliminate the possibility for proposals that we would expect and hope for with any land development.

 

Christopher L. Johnstone:  I am not sure this is calling for a special procedure, I guess what I am wondering is, if the end result of this process is necessarily purely a business/financial decision or are there other factors that could play into it so that, in fact, one could justify accepting a proposal that does not involve the university disposing of the property?

           

Daniel W. Sieminski:  If the proposal is brought forward, and I think that I would say that I have been with many of the university properties, shopping those properties internally.  Circleville Farm is no exception.  In fact, it may have gotten the most attention of any of the individual properties in term of what can we do with this property.  Certainly, we would encourage proposals that could be financially supported to keep the property.  I could not imagine that we would not.

 

Christopher L. Johnstone:  Thank you for your clarification because, as I say, that is envisioned here, but we have not heard yet until now that one possibility is not selling the farm but doing something with it from within the university that meets the educational and other missions of the university.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Following on that I have a couple of questions.  First of all, it says there are five proposals received and evaluated.  I am assuming that those then are from external to the university and they were submitted under the premise of the property being sold?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  Correct.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  And I can assume that if the property is sold, the university is not going to enter into any work with Ferguson Township on rezoning?  That is just going to have to be up to whoever happens to purchase the property, so if the university selects a proposal and sells it to the developer, the developer still has to work with Ferguson Township on the rezoning?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  Right.  I would think that it would be the university working with Ferguson Township and the developer on the zoning activity.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I would encourage the university not to give up if Ferguson Township says one thing in particular.  I would say, you can go back and say things again and again in terms of stating a position of sound use of that Circleville Farm.  The second question I have is what is one acre of Circleville Farm in terms of the acreage that you showed in the blue areas out there in the airport?  Are we talking a one to one swap here?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  It is about one acre of Circleville to two to three acres of other property.  Easily, upwards of three acres on some of those parcels.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I suspected as much; I just was curious.  The last thing is why doesn’t the university just hold onto this stuff for awhile?  Because if you look at the university growth and you project that over the next five or ten years that property is fairly close, whereas this other property that is out past the stadium and on past the airport is getting quite a ways away.  Why don’t they just sit tight with it?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  We could do that, just sit on the property.  The College of Agricultural Sciences could continue to do their cropping on it.  It is limited, really to that type of activity.  There is a tremendous inconvenience though for the college.  While it is adjoining land technically, the Western Inner Loop creates a barrier.  The golf course, in essence creates a barrier also so when we talk about 150 acres of tillable land or land out near the airport where they can till or graze in that area it works out very well.  So really, it is a decision I think, that the College of Agricultural Sciences has made to say, “Look, if we have an option here, Circleville Farm or 400 acres of adjoining land at the airport where we already have a pretty aggressive program going, let’s try to get that land at the airport.”

 

Stephen M. Smith:  I would like to return to one of the environmental issues, and you touched on my question, but they seem to be left hanging.  I remember a few years ago in another iteration of what to do with Circleville Farm it was stated, I believe, that nothing will be done to that land because it is a recharge area for wells and so forth.  And you said geologically that does not work anymore.  I would like to have you elaborate on that a bit and second, you showed another slide in there showing those conservation easements, which were waterways in there.  Now, if the land is sold and built on, are those conservation easements still in there for water recharge runoff and so forth?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  Yes.  I cannot speak as an expert about this being a water recharge area.  It is important in that slide that I did show in the red area those areas will be completely undeveloped with the exception of having roadways that might have to cross those areas to get into the development.  The questions from developers have been, “Are there things that we can do to this that do not affect the drainage that might enhance the property.”  So I can imagine some really nice things being done in these easement areas.  If you can imagine 36 acres of the 155 acres being 200 feet wide in the shape of a Y being pretty much natural area.  The bigger problem might be how would this be maintained to keep the aesthetics in place, rather than just having scrub brush research going on.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  I just want to echo the concern that we should, as a body, have some concern over our community and how it looks.  Having just recently become a Bellefotion and living out in Bellefonte, they built Highway 220, which kind of goes by it now, and the developers are throwing up in my neighborhood about 144 different houses.  So I think that is a concern and I think what is missing here for me is somebody from agriculture saying what it is.  I do not think it is fair for me as a Senator to get in the business of how agriculture chooses to run its school and what we are not hearing is from them and why the other property is more important.  I do not think it is fair to put you up here to answer questions that they should probably come in and answer.  So if we are going to revisit this, aside from the politics, I do not certainly want another student housing project to go up in State College.  But I think, in terms of priorities, we need to know what the school’s priorities are and somehow let them have their own manifest destiny in this.

 

Peter B. Everett, Smeal College of Business Administration:  I think we cannot deny that is a beautiful piece of land basically in the middle of a very fast growing area, and in my mind it would be sad to have it be cookie-cutter houses.  If we could do something different and innovative it might be looked at like a Central Park a hundred years from now, “Wow, that was pretty neat that they saved this nice piece of land in a fast growing urban area.”  I do not know why we say the university is going to be a great developer and someone else is going to be a bad developer.  The university could do bad things there, too.  They could make it a sewage treatment plant or something, I do not know.  So it does not bother me, I clearly want a better vision, something different than cookie-cutter houses, some community-wide benefit, meeting environmental standards.  It is on a bike trail; maybe there is some housing that it could promote.  Commuting to the university via bicycle instead of automobile, etc. etc., so I think it could be dealt with much better than standard development.  But I am not worried about who does it, who owns it, a private developer might be innovative, the university might be innovative.  I think the key here is to have a very carefully written RFP so it is very articulate what you have to do to be able to buy this land.  Then if someone gets to buy it then there are some covenants attached to the sale.  That is part of the deed.  If you own it you have to do these things so the sale goes with the covenants.  So in that mind let us not worry about who owns it, let us worry about how the RFP is written and what kind of covenants go with the sale of the land.

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  That is the intent, thank you.  Within the RFP there are certain requirements and if they are not satisfied the bidder can be disqualified and certainly within the agreement of sale there are deed restrictions, the easements.

 

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg:  I must have missed something in your presentation, or I got it and there is a piece missing.  The Hamer Center seems to have developed a reasonable plan that brings to bear all of the concerns about the environment, etc.  If there was a line up there that said Ferguson Township rejected that plan, now could you explain that?  Why are they objecting to what seems to be a reasonable land development plan?

 

Daniel W. Sieminski:  When a municipality rejects a plan and says it will no longer consider it, it is really difficult to identify—and they would not identify—the five reasons.  If we take care of these five things, then by definition they would have to accept it, so you never get a clear response.  But my guess is, that there were some people who were very concerned with the density of the development on the land that was being developed.  There is a sensitivity there.  Although townhomes and townhouses are well received and they can be wonderful developments, there was another area of the Hamer report that I thought was really interesting and that was the way that this would be developed over time in phases in full cooperation with the university, a developer for that phase, and with Ferguson Township.  In some way, that is a very complicated process and very time consuming.  And finally, Ferguson Township has the prerogative to say, “We are not going to rezone this.”  So it was much easier in my mind and I am not saying they took the easy way out but it was much easier just to say, “No, we reject this.  Thank you very much for the presentation and the work that you did, Michael, (because Michael really had a stake in this), we just do not want to do this.”

 

            Chair Moore:  Are you a Senator?  I am sorry you cannot speak.  I think we are going to have to stick to the rules.  Maybe you can come up afterwards and people could address you, but I think we had better stick to the rules.  Are there any other observations that anyone would like to make?

 

James Eisenstein, Non-Senator, College of the Liberal Arts:  I will try to keep this short.  I was in the Faculty Senate when I had more hair and it was not so gray and I know how much you like to listen to long speeches from outsiders.

           

You have a copy of the Penn State faculty statement on Circleville Farm, which I was involved in drafting.  We got a remarkable response, 344 people whom I count here.  Somebody told me that is the largest group of faculty who have ever done anything in concert besides going to a football game, and I think there might be some truth to that.

 

I think that the reason that there was such a response is that Circleville Farm is special.  I think faculty sense that.  This is not just another land transfer in the eyes of many people.  The Faculty Senate passed a statement saying that Penn State should have a land ethic.  It should be concerned about how our land is used and President Spanier adopted that.  This land also is close to us, so it can be used for other kinds of purposes.  I think the second reason is that faculty have a lot of ideas for seizing the opportunity that this land presents.  I was on the task force on education when we came up with the active and collaborative learning, and it just takes a little bit of imagination to think of the kinds of things that could be done in landscape architecture, biology, or agriculture to take students out there and to actually do things.

 

So our basic position is that, we should use this land for the highest and best purpose.  But in doing that I think our criterion should be the mission of the university—teaching, service, and research.  So that the best and highest use of that land is whatever best promotes that.  That may be selling it to a developer and taking the money and buying land out by the airport, that might be the best use, but there might be other good uses as well, and I do not get the sense that these other uses were ever really put on the table.  As they say in Chicago politics, you cannot beat somebody with nobody.  So there is a sense that if we had a process where we could get some alternatives generated it might be very productive.

 

What we are asking for is a mechanism to produce an RFP, following up on a comment that was just said, that will result in achieving this purpose and that would involve broad participation in the committee that sets up the RFP, so that could include faculty as well as students.  And it should encourage internal proposals.  If we just wait for internal proposals to come, they are not going to come, but if we invite them then we may get people in agriculture and engineering and other places who come up with very innovative uses for this land.

 

The second part of our position is that we need time to allow these ideas to percolate and to be organized and to result in actual proposals.  Faculty do not do this sort of thing.  We are not geared up like developers are to do this.  We think that delay costs relatively little.  The land is not going to go away.  Once we sell it, it is gone forever, so we would like a long time frame for these proposals that would be developed by a committee that is broadly based.  So that is the essence of what our proposal suggests.

 

Chair Moore:  Thank you very much.  Any other observations?  Seeing no other desire to speak, thank you very much for your presentation.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The January 28, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:51 PM.

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 28, 2003

 

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Reserved Spaces Program Fall 2002 (Informational)

 

Senate Council - University Faculty Census Report – 2003-04 (Informational)

 

 Senate Council -Report on Fall 2002 Campus Visits (Informational)

 

University Planning - Status of University Park Construction Projects (Informational)

 

University Planning - Proposed Sale of Circleville Farm (Informational)

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

JANUARY 28, 2003, SENATE MEETING

 

Abmayr, Susan
Achterberg, Cheryl
Adlon, Jeremy
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard
Ansari, Mohamad
Arnold, Judd
Atchley, Anthony
Atwater, Deborah
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie
Baker, Christopher
Baratta, Anthony
Barbato, Guy
Barney, Paul
Barshinger, Richard
Beck, Laura
Berkowitz, Leonard
Bhargava, Hemant
Berner, Thomas
Bise, Christopher
Bittner, Edward
Blasko, Dawn
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John
Bollard, Edward
Bonneau, Robert
Breakey, Laurie
Breslin, David
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan
Browning, Barton
Brunsden, Victor
Burchard, Charles
Burgess, Robert
Burkhart, Keith
Calvert, Clay
Cancro, John
Cardamone, Michael
Carpenter, Lynn
Carter, Arthur
Casteel, Mark
Catchen, Gary
Cecere, Joseph
Cheney, Debora
Chorney, Michael
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Clariana, Roy
Clark, Paul
Cohen, Jeremy
Coraor, Lee
Corwin, Elizabeth
Cranage, David
Crum, Robert
Curran, Brian
Curtis, Wayne
Davis, Dwight
De Jong, Gordon
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
Disney, Diane
Donovan, James
Eckhardt, Caroline
Egolf, Roger
Elder, James
Engelder, Terry
Erickson, Rodney
Esposito, Jackie
Evans, Christine
Evensen, Dorothy
Everett, Peter
Falzone, Christopher
Fisher, Charles
Floros, Joanna
Fortese, Ryan
Fosmire, Gary
Frank, William
Franz, George
Freeman, Sean
Gapinski, Andrzej
Geiger, Roger
Georgopulos, Peter
Gilmour, David
Glumac, Thomas
Goldman, Margaret
Gouran, Dennis
Gray, Robert
Gray, Timothy
Green, David
Greene, Wallace
Hagen, Daniel
Hanley, Elizabeth
Heinsohn, Robert
Hewitt, Julia
High, Kane
Hilton, James
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale
Horwitz, Alan
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hurson, Ali
Irwin, Zachary
Jacobs, Janis
Jago, Deidre
Jensen, Leif
Johnson, Ernest
Johnstone, Christopher
Jones, Billie Jo
Jonson, Michael
Jurs, Peter
Kane, Eileen
Kennedy, Richard
Kephart, Kenneth
Khalilollahi, Amir
Koul, Ravinder
Kramer, John
Levin, Mark
Lodwick, Kathleen
Love, Nancy
MacCarthy, Stephen
Mara, Cynthia
Mattila, Anna
McCarty, Ronald
McCorkle, Sallie
Mengisteab, Kidane
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur
Miller-Hooks, Elise
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John
Moses, Wilson
Mueller, Al
Myers, Jamie
Nichols, John
Oliver, Mary Beth
Osagie, Sylvester
Pangborn, Robert
Pauley, Laura
Payne, Judy
Pearson, Katherine
Perrine, Joy
Petriello, Gene
Pietrucha, Martin
Poole, Thomas
Pytel, Jean
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David
Richards, Winston
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Bob
Ritter, Michael
Romano, John
Romberger, Andrew
Rupp, Dawn
Russell, David
Sachs, Howard
Sandmeyer, Louise
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scanlon, Dennis
Scaroni, Alan
Schaeffer, Stephen
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Seabright, Kristen
Secor, Robert
Semali, Ladislaus
Shea, Dennis
Simon, Julia
Simpson, Timothy
Smith, Edward
Smith, James
Smith, Stephen
Sommese, Kristin
Spanier, Graham
Stace, Stephen
Steiner, Kim
Stoffels, Shelley
Stratton, Valerie
Strauss, James
Su, Mila
Szczygiel, Bonj
Tempelman, Arkady
Thomchick, Evelyn
Thomson, Joan
Tormey, Brian
Troester, Rodney
Turner, Tramble
Urenko, John
Wager, James
Wagner, Kristy
Walters, Robert
Watkins, Marley
Welch, Susan
White, Eric
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara
Wijekumar, Kay
Willits, Billie
Zervanos, Stamatis
Ziegler, Gregory

183 Total Elected
    5 Total Ex Officio
  11 Total Appointed
199 TOTAL ATTENDING

 

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003

 

 

Committees and Rules – Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9:  The Senate Record (Legislative)

 

 

Libraries – Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees (Advisory/Consultative)

 

 

Computing and Information Systems – ANGEL Course Management System (Informational)

 

 

Outreach Activities – Penn State’s World Campus (Informational)

 

 

Student Life – Intergroup Dialogue:  A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community (Informational)

 

 

Student Life – Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking (Informational)

 

 

Undergraduate Education – Academic Integrity Case Date (Informational)