Penn State University Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 35-----JANUARY 29, 2002-----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 2001-02.

 

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 which 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 29, 2002

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to

January 29, 2002

Attendance

III.  Tentative Agenda for February 26, 2002

FINAL AGENDA FOR JANUARY 29, 2002

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –

      Minutes of the December 4, 2001 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:3

 

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                        (Blue Sheets) of January 15, 2002

 

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 15, 2002

 

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

 

E.  COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS –

 

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

Committees and Rules

 

      Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II,

      Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

 

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

J.   INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

 

     Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

           Change in Campus Location to University Park

 

     Faculty Affairs

 

            Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women And Minority Faculty

 

     Libraries

 

            Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation

 

      Outreach Activities

 

      Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus

 

Senate Council

 

      University Faculty Census Report – 2002-03

 

      Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits

 

University Planning

 

      Update on Classroom Conditions

 

K.   NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.      COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE

      UNIVERSITY -

 

M.   ADJOURNMENT -

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

The Senate passed one legislative report:

 

Committees and Rules – “Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1.”  This legislative report changes the Constitution to allow for retired faculty Senators to serve on the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits.   (See Record, page(s) 11 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)

 

The Senate heard seven informational reports:

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Change of Campus Location to University Park.”  This report gives an overview of enrollment trends at the campus colleges.  With the creation of the campus college structure, new baccalaureate degree offerings at the campuses make it possible for students to pursue academic programs of their choice and to move among the campuses of the University.  (See Record, page(s) 12-13 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)

 

Faculty Affairs – “Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty.”  This is a summary of faculty by gender and rank and other demographic data.  Strategies for conducting effective searches, climate improvement for retention and administrative accountability are emphasized in this report.  (See Record, page(s) 13-18 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)

 

Libraries  – “Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation.”  This report contains information on electronic resource expenditures, endowments, service trends, staffing changes and the movement of research libraries to new models of information delivery.  (See Record, page(s) 18-20 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

 

Outreach Activities – “Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus.”  This is an overview of the growth of the World Campus, including new program/course development, considerations for faculty workload, new budget models, and collaboration with campus colleges.  (See Record, page(s) 20-27 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

 

Senate Council --   “University Faculty Census Report – 2002-03.”  This report is a breakdown of faculty at the units across the Penn State system for election purposes.  (See Record, page(s) 27 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)

 

Senate Council – “Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits.”  This report provides information on the Senate Officers Fall 2001 visits to 10 campuses identifying themes and areas of concern for the campuses visited.  (See Record, page(s) 27-31 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)

 

University Planning – “Update on Classroom Conditions.” The Senate heard a presentation by the Office of Physical Plant on maintenance, repair, and updating of general-purpose classrooms.  (See Record, page(s) 31-38 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and eighty-three Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Nichols:  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 4, 2001 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 Nichols:  Opposed?  The minutes are accepted.  Thank you.

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for January 15, 2002.  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 15, 2002.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Nichols:  Well, welcome back for the new year.  Although the majority of the time of this Senate year has elapsed the majority of the Senate meetings and, most of the workload is still in front of us.  The Senate Officers very much appreciate the hard work that you’ve done so far, but we really need your continued efforts for the good of the order as we head down the home stretch of the Senate year.

 

I call your attention to a number of announcements that I made to Senate Council including topics of recent meetings of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, but because they appear in Senate Council minutes and in the interest of time I will not repeat them here.  However, I do have a couple of quick additional announcements.

 

First of all, I’d like to introduce a new member of the Senate Office staff, Diane Mills.  Diane recently accepted the position previously held by Lori Campbell—Lori left us for the Schreyer Honors College.  Diane joins us from the School of Nursing and we might have to put a moratorium on new hires from the School of Nursing.  Diane is going to be working on the curriculum side of the Senate Office.  Would you please say hello to a new Senate Office colleague, Diane Mills.

 

Second, I would like to remind you of the Senate’s 1999 resolution in support of the Penn State IFC/Panellenic Dance Marathon.  That resolution remains in force, but the Senate Officers would like to reaffirm it today.  For the past 30 years the Marathon has raised more than $17 million in support of the Four Diamonds Fund benefiting families of children with cancer being treated at Penn State Children’s Hospital.  The Marathon, the world’s largest student-run philanthropy recently committed more than $5 million toward cancer research dedicated to finding a cure for pediatric cancer.  The Senate Officers applaud those achievements of the Dance Marathon, which has grown well beyond the fraternity and sorority system to include hundreds of other student organizations.  We encourage faculty at all locations to support its activities this year.  The Dance Marathon will be held February 22-24, 2002 in REC Hall.  For more information, the web site is www.thon.org.  Joining us today are two among the THON student leadership:  Lee Kimball (overall communications chair) and Geoff Grivner (University/Faculty Liaison and also student member of the Board of Trustees).  Will you please give them and their fellow organizers a round of applause to show support for this marvelous Penn State student-run philanthropy.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  We also have one more guest.  As you know, it is the practice of the Senate Officers to occasionally invite to the Senate those whose activities have brought credit to the university and remind us of our core mission and values.  With us today is Dr. Richard B. Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.  Professor Alley, internationally renown for his contributions to geology, hydrology, ice physics, paleoenvironmental sciences and climate change, has been busy this year.  Among many other things he chaired the National Research Council’s Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, which received a whole lot of national and international attention and he was good enough to informally describe for me the conclusions of the report for those of us who are unenlightened.  He described it as:  the world is weirder than we thought.  Also this year, Professor Alley’s book The Two-Mile Time Machine won the Phi Beta Kappa best book in science award.  Described by his colleagues and dean as a dynamic and engaged teacher, he won his college’s outstanding teaching award.  And if I’m not mistaken, he was in this room earlier today trying to enlighten a large number of undergraduates on science and he’s also found time to help the Senate in its General Education reform.  In short, Professor Alley is an excellent model although far from unique in what so many Penn State faculty do on a routine basis—the integration of high quality teaching, research and service.  Richard, would you please take a bow.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Nichols:  Agenda Item “E,” Comments By The President Of The University.  President Spanier is in attendance today and does have comments.  While he is making his way to the podium and as long as we’re passing out kudos, many of you might have noticed that President Spainer will receive in March a national award recognizing initiatives in student affairs.  He’ll receive the President’s Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators for his work in launching such programs as Late-Night Penn State, the Newspaper Readership Program and Schreyer Honors College among others.  Last semester, President Spanier invited me to join him on a whirlwind tour of Late-Night Penn State one Saturday night.  And I submit to you that one does not fully understand this university and the importance of student programming until you have had the opportunity to play bingo with a couple hundred undergraduates playing for heavy metal CDs at midnight or watching top-line movies in a packed house or dancing with many others in the Ballroom.  Although, I’m still upset by the fact that President Spanier got several requests to dance and I didn’t get any requests at all.  But no matter, congratulations on the award.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Thank you for those nice comments and we probably could find a dance partner for you.  I do appreciate those nice comments and I do want to commend you on being able to pronounce all of the words in Professor Alley’s vitae.  He is indeed very distinguished and I add my congratulations to you on your recent recognitions.  While I know some of you think it’s April, but the bad news is that you’ve got three more months of classes, not three weeks, and I do welcome you back to this new calendar year as well.

 

I’m going to just give an update on a few different topics and then try to leave plenty of time for questions.  I think you are all reasonably up to date, you read the Intercom and newspapers about our current budget situation.  We have had to return $10 million of this current year’s operating budget to the commonwealth.  I want to say that despite that, I think the state of the university is excellent.  We are not in the position that a lot of other universities are in, in many states.  They have announced mid-year tuition increases.  We did prepare for this possibility and the deans have worked very hard in their budget allocations internally during the year to prepare for this so we do not expect to pass this on to our students mid-year.  Moreover, we are not engaging in any system-wide hiring freezes.  In fact, we are going ahead with virtually all of our hiring.  We might see it slow down a little bit in some areas here and there, but for the most part we’re moving ahead.  So I think we’re in pretty good shape right now despite the fact that this is a big blow for us since we do operate so close to the margin.  We’re a little more concerned actually with what’s going to happen starting next Tuesday.  Next Tuesday is the day that the governor announces his budget for the coming year and we have no early indication of what that’s going to mean for Penn State.  We’re pretty sure they’re not going to grant us all the requests that we advanced to them in September, which were somewhat ambitious, very realistic, but ambitious to begin with.  We certainly do want to hold onto everything we had on July 1 and hope that they can provide some help in the direction of our priorities in faculty pay raises, keeping up with the cost of employee benefits and some of the most critical initiatives that we have at the university.  Our appropriation hearings are early this year.  Both of my appropriations hearings will be on the last Tuesday of February, so four weeks from today, I think.  The Senate Appropriations Hearing is going to be different this year than it has ever been, namely, it will be a panel discussion involving the president of all of the state related universities at one table, all at once.  I’m not sure what that means about how much money the Senate thinks it has to give out.  The fact that they put us all together in one group discussion might suggest that they don’t feel they need as much time talking to us this year individually as they have in the past.  My House Appropriations Hearing will be that afternoon and we do have an independent hearing there.  The General Assembly will then use the next two or three months to put together a budget for the state and over that same period of time we will continue our process of looking very carefully at tuition policy and tuition planning activities.  Our goal, of course will be to maintain the quality of our operations within the university.  It’s always been our first priority to maintain and enhance quality while keeping tuition as low as possible.  But of course, there will be a tuition increase.  It will be higher than anyone will like it to be.  We just hope it will be reasonable enough and at the same time we will continue in our efforts to make sure that no student is denied a quality Penn State education and that no student will be kept from attending this university.  That’s a pledge we’ve been able to keep over the years by being able to put a financial aide package together for 100 percent of our students through a combination of federal grants and loans, work-study, state grants and loans, scholarships, fellowships and internal support within the university.  In fact, about 55 percent if I recall the figure right—55 percent of all Penn State students do not actually pay the entire cost of tuition so, we’re much more generous here at Penn State than some people give us credit for.  Actually quite a significant percentage of students at this university pay no tuition at all or have waived the equivalent of full tuition because of grants, scholarships, and fellowships that they have and I’m saying that without respective loans, that’s before loans are even factored into the equation.  So that’s an area that we will continue to pay attention to and enhance.

 

We’re at the point in our admissions and enrollment cycle that we think we have a pretty reasonable idea of how things will unfold for next year.  Overall, if you look at the big picture, we’re actually ahead of last year in applications to the university.  The two areas of greatest increase are quite notable.  Graduate applications are way up from where they were in the past.  This will however, translate only into a modest increase in graduate enrollments.  It will mean more selectivity I’m sure because unlike undergraduate admissions, which are a bit more of a top down phenomenon where we set the enrollment plan and then ask the admissions office to follow it, graduate enrollments are completely bottom up.  Each department, each school sets its own graduate enrollment targets and then where the university ends up is the sum of the parts.  Because we are receiving so many applications and we did have a little bit of room in some of the programs as well as the quality of the applicants is likely to be exceptionally high, I do expect some modest increase at the graduate level in some of our departments.  At the undergraduate level there is a profound increase in applications at the Pennsylvania College of Technology, something else you also might expect because of the state of the economy.  University Park applications are very strong once again.  We are actually going to be admitting fewer freshmen to the University Park Campus this fall because we needed a larger than usual class of freshmen last year to balance the fact that so many more students were staying at our campuses for upper-division programs.  That’s now finally starting to settle down, but it will be very competitive to get into University Park Campus and we will fill all of our spots here.  At our other campuses, some campuses are even, some are a little up, and some are a little down.  There’s a little bit of softness in the flow to some of our campuses.  Those of you who are on those campuses that are in that situation are probably working on it to make sure we convert those who have been admitted to actual enrollments.  But overall at the university, I think we’re in a pretty healthy situation.

 

I want to give you just a brief update on some of the searches.  Most people keep their eye on one search or two, but we actually have several going on at the university.  We are in the final stages of the search for a new director of the Office of Affirmative Action.  We are right in the middle of interviewing candidates for the provost and dean spot at Penn State Erie so that should come to a conclusion within a month or so.  We are just beginning the process of interviewing finalists for the deanship at The Dickinson School of Law.  That probably will be wrapped up within a month or so.  We are right in the middle of interviews for candidates for the Campus Executive Officer position at the Shenango Campus.  And I think we are getting close to being in a position to identify finalists for the deanship of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.  Did I forget any?  I think that’s about it.  So we hope to have a happy ending on all of those searches this spring.  The one other search which we will launch this spring is for John Cahir’s successor.  We were holding off on that because we didn’t think it would be possible to find a successor, but we realize we have to.  Actually, John is going through the summer so we have a little extra time on that and that’s the reason that we could wait a little longer to start that particular search.

 

I want to mention an initiative that I have been very interested in launching and David Monk has been helping me out here.  We put together a little group to explore the question of how this university can become much more fully engaged with the K-12 agenda in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  I know we have so many different initiatives and projects, but as each month has gone by for the last few years, I’ve been increasingly concerned with the state of K-12 education in the commonwealth.  As I’ve seen more and more data about the performance of some of the youth in our state, it worries me about the quality of education that’s out there.  There’s a tendency for us at Penn State not to notice it quite so much in this era as we might have 10 or 20 or 30 years ago because on the whole we have more selective admissions.  And we are admitting students that have college preparatory curricula and just at University Park for example, the average high school grade point average of the students we’re admitting now is about 3.8.  Is that about right, John, 3.7 or so, and the average SAT score is over 1200.  We are seeing the cream of the crop.  We are seeing students who negotiated that system very well and come here well prepared.  But if you look at the hundreds of thousands, millions of students who are in schools in Pennsylvania, I’m not so sure that they are learning what they ought to be learning, and are in quality environments.  Nor is it all falling into place for them.  And it just seems to me that there’s got to be a way in which this university can lend its expertise, resources, and become more engaged than we have in the past.  There are 501 school districts in the state.  A couple of the big ones already like Philadelphia and Harrisburg, I don’t know what the exact term is, are in some sort of receivership or something.  Special rules apply now because the problems are very, very big there.  We have school systems in the state, where while here we are at the university thinking wouldn’t it be terrible if 20 percent of the students were absent on a given day, we have some schools where 20 percent of the teachers are absent on a given day.  I’m not joking.  I have just been asking the question, what can we and should we be doing?  So I’ve asked David Monk to put together a group.  He’s involved some of our associate deans and others to begin talking about where there might be an agenda out there for us to pursue.  To seek some funding from the federal government, the state government and the cooperation of the state government to have us play a role in this regard.  Although, I’m not saying what will come from it, I don’t know, but it’s a question I have been asking.

 

The last thing I want to mention before I open it up to your questions is to second what John Nichols said about the Dance Marathon.  I think every year I say something about it and I go to the Dance Marathon activities hoping to see many of you there supporting them, walking around, and looking at what’s happening during this event.  And we really don’t get too many faculty there.  For those of you who have an opportunity to do so--and it can be any time from about 7:00 on Friday night to 7:00 on Sunday night--if you just went for a half an hour, I think you would be amazed.  You would be truly amazed at what you saw, it is the largest student run philanthropy in the United States.  But it’s not just about the money, it is about the spirit there.  And for any of you who come to class and sometimes think what’s wrong with students today and what about this I’m reading in the paper and so on, if you really want to get your spirits brightened up about today’s generation of college students, just stop in at the Dance Marathon because thousands, and I mean thousands, of our students are involved in this activity.  And it is really pretty amazing what they are able to do, so think about it.  It is in REC Hall and you’ll know where to find them, just follow the sound of the music.  Okay, questions?

 

Chair Nichols:  As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question of the president you need to be recognized by the chair, then you must stand, and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.  Thank you.

 

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg:  Dr. Spanier last week in the Patriot News there was an Associated Press article with Pittsburgh on the dateline headed, “Penn State pulls boxer clad riders diploma”.  I think you addressed this awhile back, but could you possibly put this into context for us in terms of the university policy on revoking diplomas as a result of reading here external to the university?

 

President Spanier:  The student has to wait a very brief period of time before receiving it and it is very rare that we would ever do that.  So the first thing I would tell you is, don’t believe everything you read in the papers.  That’s a case where a couple of newspapers had editorials, maybe more than a couple.  I saw a couple and the editorials were written with a tone of ridicule and all I can say about those editorial writers is what suckers they were.  They probably saw some of the news story and decided to write an editorial and if they had bothered to really find out what was behind the charges against the student for inciting a riot…these weren’t our charges.  This was a student who was adjudicated in the criminal courts and then we have our own parallel sanctions.  It is almost too juicy a story to pass up.  You know a student doesn’t get his diploma revoked because he pulled his pants down and skateboarded through a crowd.  There is a lot more to the story than that because if I didn’t know the inside story and I was just reading that, I would say you know, what are they doing at Penn State?  But you know the file is confidential so I can’t talk about what all is in it, but actually, I think there is a public video…is Bill Asbury here?  I think Bill has got a copy of the video, if any of you are really curious you can watch the video of the riot.  Then you could write your own editorial about what you think.  I think the Office of Judicial Affairs really handled this just as they would any other case.  They did what they had to do in relation to the criminal justice system.  That office really works very hard and does not get distracted by the media reports, by the PR campaigns of defense attorneys, and others who might want to take a different point of view.  They have hundreds, if not thousands of cases a year to deal with, so it is not to say that everybody would agree with how they handle every case.  But I think in that case as is true for virtually every other case they handled, they try to do it well and there is just a little more to the story on that one then is obvious from the write ups.

 

Joan S. Thomson, College of Agricultural Sciences:  Recently you sent an email at least to the University Park community about the potential of a relationship between Centre Community Hospital and Geisinger.  And within that email and I paraphrase it very severely as there was reference to the way in which Geisinger identifies those who become part of its provider network.  Could you further flesh out what the intended meaning of or our understanding of that statement should be?

 

President Spanier:  Well, okay let me just back up a little bit because I sent an email to University Park faculty and staff.  I didn’t send it to the rest of you because there is a particular Centre County issue right now that’s on the table.  Although, there will probably be a little smaller mention of it in Intercom for the broader community.  So half of you here probably are not aware what happened and in a nutshell we have a hospital in this community, Centre Community Hospital which is an independent hospital with an independent board of trustees selected from members of the community.  They have no formal governance tie to the university.  But the university donated the 30 or so acres of land that the hospital is on in 1968 and part of the understanding was that there would be an independent free-standing community hospital.  Discussions have been going on between one particular health care provider--the Geisinger Health System and Centre Community Hospital, which the Centre Community Hospital described in their documents as a preferred partner.  A preferred partner relationship.  There are many of us in the community, the majority of physicians in the community and certainly we at Penn State as an employer are very concerned about any preferred partnership with any one health organization that would involve building facilities, having certain medical services provided, and/or setting the prices for those services.  This would be some sort of profit sharing that would take some of the profits from that enterprise and move them out of the county to a health care provider that’s headquartered elsewhere.  So why are we concerned at Penn State?  Because in my budget, our collective budget, here we’re spending about $80 million a year in health care costs.  We are self-insured.  This is a nuance not everybody realizes.  We use health insurance companies to run the system as an intermediary, but we are actually self-insured.  We will pay the bills in the end for whatever the health care is.  And a very large share of that money of course is expended here in Centre County.  So to have a preferred relationship with any one health care provider is a little bit scary for us as an employer particularly in this area where health care costs are escalating so quickly.  And where we see the possibility and this maybe gets to the heart of your question…where we see the possibility from previous experience that a preferred provider can set certain rules around who has access to a facility or what the referral patterns are, what kind of procedures are performed by who, who owns it, where the profits go and so on.  That could potentially threaten the independence of the community hospital and so we just said we think that needs more discussion.  As a result of this recent attention, there is more discussion going on.  I’m very pleased with the direction that those discussions are taking at the moment.  Nothing has been decided.  I don’t really know how it will come out.  But we have pledged that Penn State, our Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, and our College of Medicine, we will do everything we can to make sure that whatever is in the best interest of the community in the end, is the way we go.  So that’s really how we feel about it.  It is not about anything else.  There’s no sour grapes, there’s no bitterness, nor is there going to be a great economic battle.  We really do care about what it means for the long-term health care of our employees and that’s what we are interested in.

 

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine:  We obviously had some first hand experience with the Geisinger Health System and it is important to bear in mind that Geisinger is an insurer primarily and a provider of care only secondarily.  And what that means is that for insurers, it is in their best interest for less care or as health care providers it is an interest to provide more.  Most times that works out into a balance when you’ve got an insurer as a disinterested party.  When that insurer is in fact running the care, it makes a big difference as we have experienced for two years in the College of Medicine, and we are very happy to be out of that situation.  As far as local providers are concerned, the Geisinger Health System does have a modus operandi of gathering up enough insured bodies in an area, contracting with local physicians and once they reach a critical mass they tend to open their own clinic.  Restrict the insured population in going to that clinic and shut out local providers.  If there are those of you who do value your local physicians, it is a strong consideration as far as this potential merger or preferred partnership is concerned, then I do have to advise from first hand experience extreme caution when it comes to that sort of thing.  Just to expand on your comments.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  We have a report today in front of us about the transfer of students to University Park Campus and that’s a change of campus location.  My question has to do with the targets that are established and the perception that a tax will be levied at some point in the future if those targets are exceeded.  I’d like to hear your response that that perception is false and that there will never be any tax levied for any location that exceeds a target.  Because I think it is a disservice.  I think it could very well interfere with the advising and academic relationship between students and faculty at a campus location.  I don’t think it takes into account classroom space needs as well as faculty at a location.  And I think it is very strange to lose tuition from a location, being taxed, and have to pay the tuition of students that you don’t have.  I think that, in fact, it probably should be the other way and funds should be provided for program development at those locations.  So will there ever be a tax?  I hope not.

 

President Spanier:  Well, never is a long time and I won’t be here that long.  But I don’t think we’ve ever levied a tax and I don’t predict that we ever will.  We did threaten it once, so I will admit to that, and it was frankly motivated by one campus that was kind of running wild in admitting too many students for the facilities and the faculty depth to accommodate.  And of course the consequence of admitting too many students to one of the commonwealth campuses is that two years later we’ll pay the price here at University Park.  We end up with 500 more students from a particular campus than were projected to come under our policy that anybody can move anywhere at the end of their sophomore year.  If we end up with 500 extra students that closes out 500 spots for someone else or puts a huge unexpected burden on the faculty at University Park.  So part of the whole enrollment management system is to get everybody to do their part.  So the threat of the tax and other things got that problem fixed.  We have never put any limits on someone being able to transfer to the University Park Campus.  So that was sort of an admission issue not a transfer issue.  Have we done anything with transfers with penalties or tax?

 

Rodney A. Erickson, Provost:  We haven’t imposed any tax and we have no intention of doing it.  All the campuses are really on target and there is no need to do that.  It was as Graham indicated, something that had its roots probably what, John said about four or five years ago when the reorganization took place.  It is a moot issue now, Jamie.

 

President Spanier:  You heard it from the source.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware County Campus:  Following up on Jamie’s question.  Do you envision that these targets will ever change?  That is, increase or will they just go away sometime if this problem…

 

President Spanier:  Targets is another thing.  To do good enrollment planning and management, you have to have targets.  Every year the Central Enrollment Management Group sits down and makes predictions and sets targets for…I mean hundreds of numbers.  How many students are coming in to any given campus.  How many are returning for each particular year.  Which cohorts followed through, how many transfer from one campus to another.  We have to have targets so that we can plan the whole flow of students.  So there will always be targets.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Do you envision the fact that we have a target goal right now of something like 4100 students…4193?  In 2001 we only had 3584.  The previous year 3670 so the number seems to be stabilizing below the target number.  I therefore ask, do you envision targets going down then…target levels going down?

 

President Spanier:  You’re referring to the number of students…

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Who actually transferred…

 

President Spanier:  Who transferred from one of the other campuses to University Park Campus?  I think that your observation that it is stabilizing is what we think is the best description right now.  What we’ve seen since we have reorganized the campuses has really exceeded our expectations.  We have seen collectively about 1,000 extra students staying on the campuses voluntarily to finish their baccalaureate degrees.  We ramped up to that level much more quickly than we anticipated.  But now that we are up at that level it really looks like it is starting to level off.  And unless we had a massive increase in the size of the campuses or hiring new faculty or the demographics of Pennsylvania changed in some peculiar way that we don’t now know about, I don’t expect that that is going to massively increase.  It is going to stabilize at some level and with that stabilization we will have a pretty good idea in a typical year how many students will move to the University Park Campus.  And because the University Park Campus is going to have a level enrollment that we’ve set that window of 40,000 to 42,000 and that in turn gives us a pretty good idea of how many new freshmen spots are available here on this campus.  I see stabilization in the years ahead.  What growth we will see at Penn State will be modest growth…some continued modest growth in upper-division programs at the commonwealth campuses.  That is where our growth will be.  But it is not going to be growth of thousands of students a year, like we were seeing for a while.  It will be much more smaller increments.

 

Chair Nichols:  Vice Provost Romano wanted to get a word in here and when this report is on the floor he has agreed to stand for questions.  So I think we could postpone some of this until the report is on the floor.

 

John J. Romano, Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and Administration:  I simply agree with everything that Graham has said but to answer your question specifically now regarding the change of location numbers that have fallen below the target, is there any expectation that the targets for the individual campuses would be lowered?  The answer to that question is no.  It has never been a consideration in the Central Enrollment Management Group.  Those targets were established at a time when we were making a fundamental change in the way students flow through the university.  And for a few years we really didn’t have a good idea of how quickly these changes would occur.  They have occurred.  They have been rather dramatic and they have been reciprocally of building enrollments at the upper-division level and frankly the number of students moving from the campuses to University Park are just falling simply because we think that is a stable factor.  But there is no plan to lower the targets for the campuses.

 

President Spanier:  Okay, thank you very much.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

None

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you.  Agenda Item “F,” Forensic Business there is none.  Agenda Item “G,” Unfinished Business.  This item was listed on the green sheet Senate Agenda for today under Legislative Reports.  It should have been posted here under Unfinished Business.  So we move to Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, changes in the Constitution as listed.  Jean Landa Pytel will present the report.  This report was introduced to the Senate at the December 4, 2001 meeting.  However, because the report is a change in our Constitution it had to lay on the table until this meeting.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1

 

Jean Landa Pytel, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any questions about this report?  If there are no questions on this report, are you ready for a vote?  It appears so.  All those in favor of the constitutional change as listed, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay"?

 

Senator:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  The aye’s have it.  The motion is carried and the constitutional amendment is adopted.  Just for the record, I can virtually guarantee that the action you just took is not going to make the front pages of the newspapers tomorrow.  But nonetheless, it is legislation that’s demonstration of the Senate doing unspectacular but significant work in an incremental fashion.  This was a recommendation that came out of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs through the hard work of Valerie Stratton and others in the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.  And now the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules has brought forward one of their good recommendations as a legislative item.  So again, congratulations on the good work of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

Chair Nichols:  The next Agenda Item is Legislative Reports “H,” there are none.  Item “I,” Advisory/Consultative Reports there are none.  Item “J,” Informational Reports there are a number of them.  As usual, the Senate produces more heat than light and it is pretty toasty in here but make yourself comfortable and we’ll move expeditiously as possible.  The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, “Change of Campus Location to University Park,” Appendix “C” and JoAnn Chirico will make the presentation.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Change of Campus Location to University Park

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus:  While we have had considerable discussion of this report already, are there any other questions?  I’m glad that you asked them to President Spanier and not to me.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  I was just wondering if there was any…they didn’t bring it down by college…if there was anything distinct by college that was noticeable?

 

JoAnn Chirico:  We do have the upper-division enrollment changes at campus colleges to show the growth.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  How does the College of Engineering, College of Science…

 

JoAnn Chirico:  The University Park locations, do you mean?  The University Park colleges?

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  Yes…

 

JoAnn Chirico:  I don’t think that we looked at change of enrollment…Table 2?  No, we didn’t look at that.

 

John J. Romano:  It was just a report to show the change in upper-division enrollments at the newly created campus colleges rather than to show any changes in upper-division enrollment at the earlier College of Engineering and so forth.  It was just simply looking at the change in upper-division enrollments at the newly formed campus colleges, essentially our campuses beyond University Park.

 

Joseph J. Cecere, Penn State Harrisburg:  Do you have a report of some type of data showing the changes at the newly formed colleges as well as the changes of the upper-divisions at all the colleges?  Be it Erie, Capital and/or others?

 

John J. Romano:  Absolutely, that information is available.  It is not in this particular report.

 

Joseph J. Cecere:  Would that be available if someone could send…

 

John J. Romano:  Absolutely.

 

Chair Nichols:  Other comments or questions?  Seeing none, thank you very much JoAnn and thanks to your committee.  Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, “Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty”.  It is Appendix “D” in the Agenda and Vasundara V. Varadan will make the presentation.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty

Vasundara V. Varadan, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Vasundara V. Varadan, College of Engineering:  Good afternoon.  This report has been included in the Senate Agenda for today and all I wanted to comment on today is that this report was as a result of work that originated in the three commissions.  The Commission for Women, the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CORED), and the Commission for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equity (LGBTE).  The reports of these three commissions and the best practices they recommended were then brought to the attention of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.  And the report that is included in your Agenda is one that was adopted by the committee, which is a consolidation of the recommendations from all of these commissions.

 

I just wanted to highlight a couple of things for you and then answer any questions that you might have.  One of the data screens that I would call your attention to is the growth of women faculty at Penn State relative to Ph.D production tracked over the last 20 years.  And I would just point out that the representation of women faculty at Penn State today is slightly less than the number of Ph.Ds that were given to women 20 years ago.  So there is sort of a lag of 20 years in the rate at which women faculty are increasing at Penn State.  I’d also like to call your attention to this particular data screen and this shows you the rate at which faculty are hired at Penn State and the rate at which faculty depart from Penn State, either voluntarily or involuntarily.  So I just call it departure.  Of particular concern to CORED, for example, is the rate of departures for minority faculty, which almost equals their rate of hiring.  So the number of minority faculty that are actually retained and grow at Penn State is very small.  For women faculty it is slightly higher than the male faculty, but it is not as poor as the minority faculty.  But nevertheless, since we are starting out with small numbers of these faculty to begin with and if we keep losing them at these rates, then we are not going to be able to grow a diverse faculty.

 

Finally, I just wanted to call your attention to where we stand with respect to women and minority faculty with respect to the Big Ten schools.  This shows you the senior faculty representation at the Big Ten schools.  You can see that Penn State is not doing so well in the number of women full professors here.  This data is not included in your Agenda report.  This is data that I was able to get recently and this shows you where we stand with respect to the Big Ten schools in terms of minority faculty.  You can see that most of the schools are sort of in the same boat except the very first column which is somewhat higher, that is University of Illinois at Chicago.  That is in a major urban area and that could be one of the reasons why the number of minority faculty is so high.  University of Michigan is doing well too, but that’s close to the Detroit area.

 

I just wanted to stress again why we believe that diversification of the university faculty for Penn State is so important.  We are always aspiring to be the premier research institution and a diverse faculty will lead to new research and scholarship that will enable us to reach this goal.  Diverse faculty will definitely attract a more diverse student body.  I will also call to your attention the fact that more than 50 percent of our student body in fact is composed of women and we don’t have sufficient role models for them.  A diverse faculty will reenergize our curriculum, will enable us to teach new subjects and perhaps teach old subjects in new ways, and educate the leaders of tomorrow.  And a diverse faculty will really ensure full utilization of our human capital with maximum efficiency.  And it definitely appeals to our sense of fairness and justice, and all these things are not going to happen unless all of us as faculty members participate in this effort.

 

And lastly, I want to say that often diversity is viewed as an add-on or as “in addition to”.  Diversity is not icing on the cake; it really should be an integral part of everything that we do and it should infuse into everything that we do:  in research, scholarship and teaching.  Every member of the faculty should actively promote and nurture the diversity of all the other faculty, staff and students.  And this sort of activism is something that we should value and reward within our system.  It is not simply something that we expect of our administrators or something that we try to fill a quota or a target number or something of that sort.  Definitely what is crucial to achieving all of these goals is leadership and accountability from department heads and deans, because they are the crucial players who make all this happen.  I’ll be happy to answer your questions now.

 

Dale A. Holen, Scranton Campus:  On the high departure rate, any information on that for minority faculty?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I would say that it also has a departure rate that is higher for women both in pre-tenure and post-tenure.  And it is really difficult to just anecdotally, I would say it is a climate issue.  It is where we are in Pennsylvania.  We are a rural community here far away from large pockets of minority populations and that may have something to do with it, but it is really very complex reasons.

 

Ingrid M. Blood, Undergraduate Education:  Vasu, is the Senate proportion or represented minorities comparable to what we have in the faculty?  Or has anyone ever really…if our body represents the faculty?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I really have to depend on…John do you know?

 

George W. Franz, Delaware County Campus:  The Self-Study Committee is looking into that.

 

Chair Nichols:  For those of you that didn’t hear, George Franz says the Self-Study Committee is actually looking to that very issue.

 

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine:  I certainly appreciate the report.  A couple questions.  One is, the university ought to demonstrate to its students in terms of who teaches them what our values are and I think that this issue ought to be brought forth for fostering our initiatives and efforts.  As I look at your list of best practices, what is your take on where we are with this list and how we are accomplishing some of the things that you would like to.  And also as important, how much support you feel that we are getting through the university for these efforts?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Am I speaking for the committee now or am I speaking…how should I answer that question?

 

Chair Nichols:  However you choose.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I would just answer you...I think there is an incredible amount of support from university administration.  From the president and the provost, for the work of all of these commissions with respect to the diversification of our university faculty.  The problem that I see is that all of those ideas don’t always translate into practice down in the trenches, which is where we are as faculty within our own departments interacting with our colleagues, recruiting, promoting, tenuring, recognizing and rewarding our fellow colleagues.  It is there that the system needs to really work.  It is not enough for the president and the provost to say that we support these things and that is why we have come to the University Faculty Senate.  Because you can make these things happen.  The president and the provost can support us and encourage us, but we have to make it happen.

 

Mila C. Su, Penn State Altoona:  Vasu, can you also mention about affirmative action incorporating this information?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Actually, I would say perhaps in some measure due to these recommendations of the two commissions, there has been a big reorganization within the Office of Affirmative Action.  I’m also looking forward to the arrival of the new director of the Office of Affirmative Action.  Unlike in the past, the strategy now is going to be that they are going to stay involved in the search process right from the very beginning.  It is not going to be in the past where you fill out some kind of a card after the search process is over and somebody has already been made the offer.  They are also developing a training presentation to share with faculty search committees and also training perhaps for departmental administrators.

 

Joshua D. Walker, Student Senator, Penn State Altoona:  There have been issues raised in the meetings in Altoona.  There is very large support from the students themselves.  They wish to see more diverse faculty and students alike within the population of Penn State.  Information and facts have been pointed out at the meetings that there is not a very large diverse population within the student body itself, let alone in the faculty.  There is very large support to have that increased.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  That is encouraging, very encouraging.  Relay that to your department heads and other senior faculty in your area.

 

John J. Romano:  Just to amplify that question just for a second.  I recently took a look at how enrollments of minority students have changed at Penn State over the last several years.  I took a look at 1993 and 2001 for which we have official data.  Over that period minority student enrollment overall at Penn State has increased 52 percent.  African American enrollments have increased 57 percent.  Hispanic enrollments have increased 75 percent and Asian Pacific American students have increased 40 percent.  Now that results from two things, the admission of students and the retention of students.  And on the admission of students just to look at that same two periods from 1993 to the year 2001, the minority admissions at Penn State have increased 95 percent.  African American admissions have increased 151 percent.  Hispanic admissions have increased 108 percent and finally, Asian Pacific American admissions have increased 54 percent.  So there is a pretty widespread and dramatic change over a seven-year period and today this represents the highest enrollments of students of color across the university that we have ever experienced.  Thank you.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Thank you.

 

Winston A. Richards, Penn State Harrisburg:  You know it would be nice if we heard this in actual numbers rather than in percents. 

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I’m sorry I didn’t hear you Winston.

 

Winston A. Richards:  What I would like to hear is the report that he just gave in actual numbers.  If we start off with 100 students did we increase to 150 students?

 

John J. Romano:  That information is available and I would be happy to prepare it and maybe submit it through a report through the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid.

 

Brian A. Curran, College of Arts and Architecture:  I just wanted to address the third commission on your list that doesn’t seem to be visible so far.  The lesbian, gay situation…I don’t see anything in the report that deals with this and I am wondering if obviously perhaps maybe there is not a way.  I am just relating the experience I’ve had that affirmative action as far as I understand it, the searches that I have been involved with it is not considered an actionable area for finding people, an affirmative action category.  Where does this fit in because this seems like it is somewhat…

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I’m glad you raised that question.  I want to say that right now we have no mechanism for gathering data for this segment of the faculty and that is why you don’t see data presented for this segment.  I believe the commission is working with university administration to see how this data could be gathered.  I suppose we are not allowed to ask this question.  Even the issue of race is something that we divulge voluntarily.  So I think the commission is trying to see how it can gather some data with respect to recruitment and retention of this segment of the faculty.  Nevertheless, we did consult with this commission in the generation of this “Best Practices” presentation.  At the minimum, I think we should make faculty candidates and other people who are being interviewed for positions at Penn State aware of the existence of the commission.  Provide them with any literature that we have available that caters to this segment of the faculty, staff body, and simply make them aware that support systems exist here.  But nevertheless, one of the issues that has been identified with respect to this segment of the population is the lack of domestic partner benefits, which of course the Senate supported and endorsed a couple of years ago.  This is definitely impeding our ability to attract some faculty to this system.

 

Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg:  I wonder if anybody has ever done a correlation with something that I find fascinating where you show an increase in the number of Ph.Ds by women and minorities, and correlate that with the demands in the different fields.  Are these increases in fields that are less in demand than others?  It is one feature I find interesting.  Are these more in English and where is the most demand in other areas?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I don’t know.  I am not aware of…I haven’t personally done a study nor any of the commissions here or our committee done this study.  But I would simply point out that that is perhaps a more relevant question.  If you think of the employment rates of Ph.Ds produced nationally in industry and in other places, if we look at their employment in universities I would say universities continue to teach all of these fields and that is why we are producing these Ph.Ds.  So we must be recruiting faculty in these areas.  Perhaps slightly more in some fields than in others, so even if you take a subject like English, I mean that is one of the biggest departments in the university and we do hire faculty in English.  I don’t know what type of employment.  I am not personally aware what they might find in the market outside of the university.  But since we are only looking at their employment within the university system, I would say that it is perhaps less relevant to make that study than if we were to think of their employment outside the university.  I think the more interesting question is what happens to these people who get the Ph.Ds, and where do they go?  Why are they less likely to show up in the university as university faculty?  That is perhaps a more interesting question to ask.

 

Chair Nichols:  One last question?  Seeing none, thank you very much Vasu and thanks to your committee.  Senate Committee on Libraries, “Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation,” Appendix “E” in your Agenda.  Mark Casteel will introduce Dean Eaton.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES

 

Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation

 

Mark A. Casteel, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries

 

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus:  During the December meeting of the Senate Committee on Libraries, our group heard a report from Dean Eaton regarding trends over the last 23 years in the allocation of funds in the libraries budget.  On a unanimous vote, our committee thought this information was important and pertinent enough to share with the entire Senate body.  As a result, I have asked Dean Eaton to present the brief report to this body.  I would therefore like to introduce Dean Nancy Eaton.  I’m sure she will be willing to entertain questions after her presentation.

 

Nancy Eaton, Dean, University Libraries:  I promise you I’m going to be brief.  Since you have this report in your packet I want to just highlight a few things and then I’ll take any questions.  The intent of this report was to show both the organizational structure of the libraries since its reorganization four years ago and to look at the patterns of expenditure given that there is always faculty concern for collections and services as compared to inflation impact on the libraries.

 

As you can see from this organizational structure, all of the libraries in the university system are part of University Libraries including Hershey, Dickinson and a dotted line to Penn College.  That is an arms-length relationship because it has its own Board of Trustees, but we in fact have over-sight and do strategic planning with all the libraries in the system.  In terms of services, we have clustered around the Commonwealth College as a special set of libraries.  The other college libraries that are independent, report in a variety of ways to me for planning purposes or directly and within University Park we have gone completely to a subject libraries breakdown, which you see on the left.

 

The budget in the last three years has increased some $3 million and over the entire period from 1978 through the current it has actually gone up by 400 percent from $7 million plus to $35 million plus.  The university certainly has put major emphasis on the libraries.  The issue is how are we spending that money wisely.  The trend that we want you to understand is that we have really made a major push to focus on the collections and to be as efficient as possible internally to reduce the amount of money being spent on salaries.  And you can see from 1978 through the latest figures for 1999 that we’ve reduced salaries as a total percentage of our budget from 59 percent to 53 percent in 1989 to 47 percent this last period which is 1999.  At the same time, we have increased the percentage going to collections and you will notice that operating has also gone up.  This primarily comes from information technology fees because we have moved into new modes of delivery of electronic information.  The other part of that comes from private giving which has supported technology too.  This is at the same time as the growth in student body has gone up unlike the rest of the country and services such as, interlibrary loan and a variety of other services, but illustrated here interlibrary loan has also increased.

 

So basically, we have focused on collections as opposed to staff even though service demand has gone up during that period.  The rest of the slides just illustrate the outcomes of this emphasis.  You can see that compared to the other Association of Research Libraries, the unit costs have gone up even faster at Penn State given our science-technology medical focus and yet we are actually buying more titles compared to 1986, whereas the rest of the country has actually seen a reduction in the number of titles collectively.  Similarly with books, our purchasing power has gone up, our total budgets have gone up and the number of titles we are purchasing annually has gone up compared to 1986.  The rest of the country has seen a major decline during that period.  Because of our focus on information technology, you will see that we have been going up at a much faster rate in the use of electronic collections than the other research libraries.  The major reason for that is that because so many of the campuses have started four-year programs, the strategy that we have followed in order to support those programs is to put up as much electronically over the Internet as possible so that all students and faculty at all campuses have maximum access to those titles.  There is simply no way we can grow the physical collections at the rate we need to support those changes in curriculum.

 

I also wanted to report to you what the capital campaign has been doing and fundraising generally has been doing for the libraries over this 20-odd years.  You can see we have gone from about 11 collection endowments to 77 in the current year.  The dollar value of that on an annual basis the interest off of these for collection development has gone from $20,000 to $713,000, and the last part of this campaign is focused on collection and program endowments for the libraries.  Because we have focused on collections and services, particularly collections, you will see that we are at the bottom of the list in terms of comparisons with CIC libraries in terms of professional staff.  We have about one librarian per every 466 students and things like support of electronic classrooms the staff has only grown by three while the demand, as you can see, of both carts and rooms has just soared.  This is an area of particular concern but just illustrates again that we really have focused over this period of time on collections.

 

As a result, we continue to focus on process improvement to try to be as efficient as we can to reduce the amount of staff that we need but I would say at this point in time that even using things such as self-service models, on-line text, various resource sharing models with the CIC as well as other research libraries and experimenting with new modes of scholarly communication, we probably are at the bottom of what we can squeeze out of the staff.  And there are some very selective areas that we will be looking at that in order to meet the demand, we will probably have to think about adding some staff, but on a very, very selective basis.  So that is my report and I’d be happy to take questions.

 

Dwight Davis:  Thank you for the update.  All of us at locations other than University Park are always very interested in how students and faculty are able to access resources that are housed and things centrally here.  And you mention electronic classrooms and things of that sort.  Where do you see us as a university geographically dispersed, if you will, in terms of the ability of students and faculty at distant sites to be able to access the system at the same ease and with the same availability as those here at University Park?

 

Nancy Eaton:  A very good question.  The definition of the University Libraries collections is that we are one collection geographically dispersed.  We view the collection as available regardless of where the item or the information is, is accessible to any student, faculty or staff in the system.  In addition to electronic delivery, and we are now experimenting with desktop delivery to speed even that process up because we have so many commuter students.  We also have a very active Interlibrary Loan Office as you saw in the statistics.  That use continues to go up.  We now make interlibrary loan available to undergraduates as well as graduates.  We do as much loaning of our own material within Penn State as we do nationally to all other research libraries so it is very intensively used.  The Hershey Medical Library has chosen to move onto the new library software platform.  As of January we are now doing joint licensing with Hershey selectively in order to maximize access for all of the students, particularly since there are nursing students going back and forth, and increasingly there is interdisciplinary work across campuses.  The law library is the last one that has its own independent system partly because of the phasing in process of Dickinson and we will be looking at that in terms of future decisions, but we will wait obviously until they have a new dean.  So our intent is to make this as fluid as possible.  Right now I think our turnaround time for most interlibrary loan is one to two days within the system.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, thank you very much Dean Eaton and thank you to the Senate Committee on Libraries.  Senate Committee on Outreach Activities, “Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus,” that is Appendix “F” in the Agenda and Chris Bise will introduce Gary Miller.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

 

Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus

 

Christopher J. Bise, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities

 

Christopher J. Bise, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  Thank you very much, John and good afternoon everyone.  You have before you Appendix “F” which is an update of the status of Penn State’s World Campus.  If you will notice by its organization it addresses seven of the Faculty Senate recommendations to the World Campus and it is my pleasure to introduce to you Dr. Gary Miller, Associate Vice President for Distance Education who will make a brief summary of the report and answer any of your questions.

 

Gary Miller, Associate Vice President for Distance Education:  Thank you, Chris.  I am going to try to keep this brief in light of the hour.  You all have the report in your packets.  I won’t try to go through it in detail but just to start with the basics.  This is President Spanier’s charge to us back in 1996 when he first charged the World Campus, it lays out I think the criteria that we have been trying to live by for the past few years.  Our goals are very straightforward to increase access to the university by people who don’t otherwise have access.  To focus on what the university does best and not try to be all things to all people but to focus on developing programs where the university has real academic strength.  In the process of doing that, to not just use technology to push content out, but to use technology to gather people together around ideas into learning communities.  I think that is an area where we have been especially successful.  Our goal is also to be part of a university-wide web of innovation when it comes to the use of instructional technologies.  We work very closely with other units like the Center for Educational Technology Services and other units involved in technology to learn from them and also to contribute to learning here at the university about how to use technology.  We do operate as a cost center so that means that in order to do those things at the top of the list we also have to become financially sustainable over time and we are working very hard on that.

 

The Faculty Senate’s first recommendation was a general encouragement for us to move ahead and try out the World Campus, so let me use my update on that to tell you where we are.  Our student profile is this.  We are in fact serving the adult learner and we are serving students who otherwise don’t have access to Penn State, and in some cases, don’t have access to the kinds of programs…the kind of content that Penn State is delivering through the World Campus.  Most of our students are from outside the state.  They live in all 50 of the United States.  They live in more than 40 countries around the world.  The number of international students is small but the breadth and distribution of them is really amazing.  We have grown very well over the last three years.  Last year ending with a little over 5,000 course enrollments and a student head count of around 2,700.  Twenty-two programs last year.  We are up to around 28 this year and the number of courses is growing as the number of programs grows.

 

The second recommendation of the Senate had to do with ensuring that faculty who taught on the World Campus, who taught through the campus were doing so as part of their regular teaching environment…as part of their regular teaching load.  Now I just want to emphasize here that over the last year we have really charged the World Campus Steering Committee to deal with those kinds of issues.

 

The steering committee last year was enhanced and I think there are now nine deans serving on it as well as representatives of this body and the graduate council and a number of other academic administrative support units.  One of the things that they did last year was to address the whole issue of compensation standards.  What does it mean to develop a course on-load?  What does it mean to teach a course on-load?  When we are not doing it on-load but doing it as extra compensation, what does that mean?  And out of that have come standards that we are now trying to apply consistently across all colleges as we develop and deliver programs on behalf of those colleges.  The steering committee also contributed to the decision by the provost to charge John Harwood and myself to chair a committee to recommend a common e-learning platform for Penn State and that e-learning platform is now being put into place.  It is called A New Global Environment for Learning (ANGEL) and I believe it will be a real catalyst to making it much easier for faculty who are teaching courses on the World Campus.  They can use the same media, the same technology, the same content to teach their courses on campus, and to teach courses across campuses and so forth.  So I think that is a big step forward.

 

Just a note on faculty development.  We do take faculty development as a serious need and commitment.  This year we have funds from the Sloan Foundation to bring faculty together from Penn State and from some of our peer institutions around the country to work on the question of the performance standards.  What do faculty want to set as the standards by which they will evaluate themselves when they teach on-line?  We are organizing that now and early next fall we will have a two or three-day workshop bringing faculty from different sites around the country together to deal with those kinds of issues so that they are driven really out of the faculty’s experience in teaching on-line. 

 

The third Faculty Senate recommendation dealt with academic authority and academic control.  I think the big message that I need to get across to you today is that we are an academic support unit not an academic unit.  And all of the programs that are offered by colleges over the World Campus go through the same academic approval processes as any other programs offered at any other locations.  This year we worked very closely again, with the steering committee to develop what we are calling a menu of services.  The college said to us that we are able to do now internally within our own ranks some of the things that you have organized yourself to do.  We don’t always need instructional designers.  We don’t always need certain kinds of technical support, advising support so we have kind of broken up our services.  So now the college that knows how to do that and has the faculty support that they need to do their own instructional design or to do their own advising for programs can do it.  So we are trying to adjust our services to meet the changing capabilities of the academic units.  I mentioned e-Army University and the graduate council just to reinforce the idea that as we not only develop new programs but extend existing programs to new audiences that we do work through the usual channels to get that done.

 

Senate recommendation four was addressing a concern about non-credit course processes.  Wanting to make sure that there were quality control measures in place as we extend non-credit courses as well as credit courses.  This is a general issue for outreach.  It is not just a World Campus issue.  The Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension which consists of associate deans in each of the colleges of the university as well as representatives of Faculty Senate, graduate council and other academic support units has addressed that issue.  And out of that discussion has come a series of principles for the approval of non-credit programs that will apply across the board to World Campus as well as to other outreach activities.  They are described in the piece and I don’t want to go into too much detail.  I will say that we think a very important criteria here is that the decision to offer a non-credit program is based on academic quality and the approval of appropriate faculty and the questions of income, budget and all that should come after that basic quality decision is made.

 

The Senate recommended that we take a close look at university-wide definitions of degree programs and certificates.  Since all the programs are programs of an academic unit the associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees and graduate degrees that are offered are in fact approved academic degrees that have gone through those processes.  The unique thing that we have been dealing with not just in World Campus but in outreach, has to do with the post-baccalaureate certificate.  This is really a big issue.  It is a brand new credential that is really becoming popular around the country and there has been a group looking at that issue…I’m sorry I thought I had more detail on it…looking at that issue and coming up with standards.  There is a discussion of that in the paper that I would be happy to elaborate on.  The Senate was also interested in the issue of student classification.  This really came up as a problem last year when a number of university employees tried to take associate degrees and discovered that they were not classified as “UP” students but as World Campus students.  That is an issue that was a decision made at the college level about the support for those associate degrees.  Since then, enrollment management has put together a task force to make sure that the student data is correct and that there are no problems for students who need financial aid and so forth.  The long-term answer to that problem will be the full integration of World Campus into the student data base and that is a project that has got a very high priority at the university level and we are very eager to see it resolved.  We have made some good progress on it.

 

The Senate recommended that we take a look at the total student experience and that is something that we again, are very proud of the work we have done in student services.  We have a technical support area that runs until 11:00 at night and works on weekends because that is when our students study.  If we are not on-line to help them with their technical problems, the students are effectively locked off campus.  So we have extended hours for that plus extended registration and records hours and again, we are using some of our Sloan Foundation money this year to extend student services, to start looking at co-curricular issues that are especially relevant to distance adult students as well.

 

There was also a concern addressed in Senate recommendation number seven about avoiding competition with the other campuses of the university.  And this is an issue we have been working on over the last couple of years.  We started out with a workout group with Commonwealth College and out of that came a set of recommendations with regard to use of the campus course exchange policy to extend World Campus delivered courses to other locations.  Arrangements that allowed campuses to market World Campus courses and programs to clients in their local service area enabling students to choose the location where they wanted to get student services, and then clarification that campus colleges may also originate their programs through the World Campus.  We’ve been piloting that relationship with Commonwealth College.  Jim Ryan has met with the Council of Campus Administrators to talk about that and as we refine that, the services are being made available to all of the colleges as we pilot and move them forward.  So that is a very quick summary and I’m sorry to be so quick but I do want to leave time for questions and answers.

 

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg:  Can I ask you Gary, to give us just a little more update on the graduate programs?  I realize that you have only got one that is fully operational and two that are in development but can you give a sense of how that is going?

 

Gary Miller:  The first graduate degree that was approved by the graduate council was the Master of Education and Adult Education.  It has been offered now for about a year and a half maybe two years.  We might be into our second full year of that program.  This year we anticipate that it will generate about 500 course enrollments.  There are a number of students from around the country…I don’t have the number of students who are matriculated into it, but it is going very, very well in my view.  That is one of the most popular programs that we have.  Last July, the Board of Trustees approved graduate council’s recommendation to offer an intercollegiate MBA program.  That program is now in development.  It is intercollegiate in that four colleges that offer their own MBAs are all contributing to this inter-college MBA and the first two courses are being developed by Jacob De Rooy at Harrisburg and by Bob Crum in the Smeal College of Business Administration.  But each of the colleges will be developing courses for that program.  John Fizel at Behrend College has been identified as the program chair for that inter-college program and is now on board managing that program.  The Eberly College of Science has received approval to offer a Master of Applied Statistics that will be offered partly through the World Campus and as well as in other environments.  I believe it is the first applied masters programs in the Eberly College of Science and that we hope will be the first of several that they develop.  We’ve been talking with other colleges who offer post-baccalaureate certificates.  Some of those are interested in sort of moving those post-baccalaureate certificates up to be professional masters degrees as well.  We hope that over the next few years that every year there will be one maybe two, or even a small number of new graduate programs entering the lists available to students in the World Campus.

 

Winston A. Richards:  Do students in other countries pay the same tuition as American students?

 

Gary Miller:  Yes, the World Campus does not differentiate based on locations.  We don’t have in-state versus out of state and we don’t have international tuition rates.  Partly because these students are not taking seats away from anybody else so we have a single tuition that applies to all students regardless of location.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  What proportion of the 37 percent of the students in the World Campus who are from Pennsylvania are also already enrolled students at Penn State?  And to what extent are the courses that they take indeed transferred to their transcripts for graduation in their respective units?

 

Gary Miller:  The number of that 37 percent I’d say somewhere between five and seven percent of all of our students in World Campus programs are matriculated at another campus of the university.  Whether it be University Park or one of the other campuses.  I would say almost all of those…I am not going to say all of them because I can’t say that for certain, but almost all of those are students who are participating in our courses through the campus course exchange.  And what that means is they actually register through the campus in which they are matriculated, they then join the World Campus section of the course and participate in the course.  But their location code and all of that, and the income flowing in is flowing in through that campus.  So that tends to be how we do things.  There are obviously other students who have just come in and registered for courses, if we know they are from another campus we require them to have advisors’ permission before they sign up for a World Campus course.

 

Winston A. Richards:  Is it possible for an American student who finds a program acceptable and he’d like a much more accommodating climate, say to go to the Caribbean and enrolls as a student in the Master in Applied Statistics?

 

Gary Miller:  A student who wants a more…just to repeat your question if a student wanted to take a degree at Penn State but wanted to do it from a more amenable climate.  The answer is yes.  The intercollegiate MBA requires two very brief two-week residencies.  Master’s degree in Adult Education requires no residencies.  So yes, it does allow students the choice of where to live.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Of the 160 faculty teaching your courses enrollments, what percentage or what number are tenured faculty?

 

Gary Miller:  I don’t know that specific number, Jamie.  We did an analysis for the Sloan Foundation.  They were asking us how the profile of faculty who teach courses on the World Campus compare to the profile of faculty generally at the university.  And we found it to be pretty much the same.  What we are finding is that especially…the World Campus has allowed distance education to focus more attention on the upper-division graduate level.  And as a result, courses at the upper-division graduate level are taught by faculty who for the most part are full time faculty.  Graduate course faculty obviously are graduate faculty and so we look a lot more like the rest of the university in that respect than maybe we did back in the days of independent learning.  But I don’t know what the percentages are per se. 

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Can I follow-up quickly with…it might be also important to look at the number of faculty who are teaching over-load at an intersection of tenure and I think that the non-tenured faculty teaching over-load might be a cause for concern.

 

Gary Miller:  I think it is worth looking at and keeping track of.  Since our inception, we have been encouraged by the provost’s office.  We felt it was also just a good idea that as we move to upper-division graduate programs and as we move more towards cohort based courses that are paced as opposed to the rolling enrollment kind of independent learning courses, that those courses be taught on-load rather than over-load.  There is no structure about it, but we encourage the academic units as they assign faculty to think about on-load as the first priority for those kinds of courses.  It is not always possible to do and sometimes it is the faculty member’s choice, but we think it is the best thing.  It is something that we can be looking at and I would be glad to get back to you on it.

 

Chair Nichols:  Last question for Gary?

 

Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley:  Gary, is the campus course exchange fully functioning?  We’ve had problems getting on-campus courses listed on our web page.

 

Gary Miller:  The campus course exchange is still something that we consider to be at a pilot level.  There are a couple of issues.  One of them is the course…we don’t make the decision about which courses are offered through the campus course exchange.  It is the academic unit that offers that course that has to make that decision so we can only do it that way.  Timing is another issue.  Sometimes our schedules and decision- making, the campuses schedules, and decision-making haven’t been matching.  But Peter Rubba, who is our Director of Academic Programs, has been working with the DAAs at the other locations to try to get that all ironed out.  There is a paper that he and Nancy Herron have put forward that makes some recommendations for how to refine it for next year.  One of the things that ANGEL will give us ultimately is the ability not just to open the courses up to students at other locations, but to actually allow the other locations to create a duplicate version of that course and then have it taught locally where there is enough students to do so.  I think it is one of the great advantages of ANGEL.  So in the future we will be able to say if you have a few students who want to join the course they can come into the regular World Campus section of that course, but if you have enough students to support a regular section and you have faculty who want to teach it on-line, then they would be able to just use those materials to teach the course locally.  And that is a new wrinkle we are trying to iron out as well.  But no, it is not a perfect system yet, but we are still working on it.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you very much, Gary.  And thank you to the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities.  We have two reports from Senate Council.  Secretary Jago will present both reports.  The first one is Appendix “G” in the green sheets, “University Faculty Census Report—2002-2003”.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

University Faculty Census Report –2002-2003

Deidre E. Jago, Hazleton Campus:  Thank you for staying.  I’d like to turn your attention to Appendix “G” in your Agenda.  There is a listing on the Appendix which shows the Faculty Census and the increase or the changes in the number of University Faculty Senators for next year.  We will have a total of 11 new Faculty Senate seats based on the increase in the numbers of full time faculty at various locations and colleges.  If your units have not yet elected your Faculty Senators, please get with it because the deadline has now passed and I know some units still have not held their elections so we would encourage you to do that quickly.

 

Lonnie M. Golden, Delaware County Campus:  Deidre, can you speak to the instructor/lecturer ranks a little more?  Where did you get those numbers?  Does that include adjunct, part time?  It is suspiciously low at some of the campuses.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  The numbers are low, Lonnie?

 

Lonnie M. Golden:  Yes, for Great Valley there are only eight adjunct people and I think there was more than that.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  The numbers are generated from the database out of the Office of Administrative Systems and these are the numbers that come to us.  The lists are sent onto the campuses or to the colleges for verification and that is where we get those pieces of data.

 

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington:  Just a point of clarification to Lonnie’s question.  I remember having been elections commissioner once upon a time and the numbers are only full time.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, shall we move on to the next Senate Council report which is Appendix “H,” report on our fall visits.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits

Deidre E. Jago:  May I preface my next remarks by stating that the Senate leadership has and will continue to direct any action items that were raised by our visits to the appropriate Senate committees or to the university administrators who are appropriate for receiving those pieces of information.  The Senate Officers met separately with Dr. Diane Disney, Dean of the Commonwealth College, and Executive Vice President and Provost Dr. Rodney Erickson following our fall visits to ten campus locations.  We presented each of them with a detailed written report in addition to giving an oral summary of our visits.  At this time, I would just like to make a few comments and elaborate on the bullet items that appear in Appendix “H” in your Agenda.

 

We found mixed views on the proposed changes to the calendar.  Many students seemed to be very adamant about keeping a fall break.  They felt they needed that time to rest and get caught up for the rest of the semester.  Some mentioned that they work all summer without any time off and they really look forward to having a couple of days off in October.  Faculty felt that a shorter calendar would have a negative effect on instruction.  We even heard some faculty suggest that the calendar should be lengthened, not shortened.

 

We heard some excellent reports on the effectiveness of First Year Seminars at some locations, but the most predominant student view was that a lot of teachers are using the extra class period attached to the three plus one model to teach more subject matter.  Students felt that the class sizes were small to begin with and they didn’t feel they didn’t need a first year seminar the way it is presently being delivered.  Dean Disney and her staff informed us that a college-wide evaluation of First Year Seminars had been developed and that each First Year Seminar class within the Commonwealth College would be surveyed at the end of the semester.  And having taught one of those FYS classes in the fall, my students did complete the evaluation form.

 

The increases in the numbers of students who are completing their education at campus locations has resulted in a critical shortage of classroom space.  This creates scheduling nightmares for campus registrars who have to juggle available rooms with the times when faculty are available to teach the classes.  Some students find themselves staying all day and well into the evening hours to attend classes, especially in cases when there is only one available section of a required course.  The scheduling problems impact on their jobs, and many students told us that they need to work in order to pay for their tuition costs.

 

One of the major concerns students had was the lack of appropriate orientation when they transfer to University Park from another location.  They felt that they were getting a good freshmen orientation at their location where they started, but they were being ignored when it was time to transfer to University Park.  And this is something that I know the Commonwealth College has begun to work on.

 

We were somewhat surprised to learn that many students understood the need for the increase in student tuition and fees.  We expected to hear a lot of complaints about the recent tuition hike, but we didn’t hear it.  President Spanier and Student Trustee Geoff Grivner, who was with us a little earlier today spent a day discussing the tuition hikes with students in leadership positions, and these student leaders in turn relayed their knowledge to other students.  Many students feel that their best chance of lobbying for additional state support rested with their local congressional representatives.  And I know some of the students have already started an initiative to do some lobbying activities on their own behalf.

 

Repeatedly, we listened to students praise the quality of their Penn State experience.  They like the small campus atmosphere.  They like the closeness of the faculty and staff.  We heard students describe teachers like members of their family.  Some students felt that this closeness and this smallness could be perceived as being bad, but others felt that the students had to work even harder when they knew that the faculty member would be disappointed in poor quality work.

 

There were some complaints that the technology needs at their campuses were falling behind where they should be.  Internet connections are sometimes very slow, and some of the labs are being scheduled for classes and they are not available when students need to access computers.  This was a problem related to the space issue as well.

 

Reorganization topics were abundant.  There is a need for a seamless change of assignment for students who are going to other locations as the number of these pathways to a Penn State degree increases.  The need for increased disciplinary unity is essential.  There was some evidence at some locations that faculty feel more disciplinary unity now than they had experienced before the restructuring of the former Commonwealth Educational System.  Educational quality control was another issue that must be maintained.  There was a fear that hiring too many part time faculty members will hurt the image of the campuses.  Students cited ads for the local state related and private schools in their areas which boasted having “full time faculty” to teach the courses at their institutions.  They are using this against Penn State.

 

As the number of four-year programs grow at campus locations, there is internal competition for students.  The traditional boundaries for recruiting students need to change in order to open markets for the new four-year programs that are being developed.

 

Non-traditional students are increasing in numbers at many of the campus locations.  Many of these students are location-bound and cannot finish their degrees at University Park.  They are thrilled that a Penn State degree program is now available to them.  Some of these students indicated that their special needs for services are not being addressed at all locations.  More emphasis needs to be given to improve educational opportunities for this group of students.

 

International program offerings were viewed as being highly desirable for students at the campuses we visited.  The students who have had these opportunities were highly pleased with their experiences, but they feel the need for more international experiences.  Programs with international components should be more readily available to students at campus locations.

 

This has been a brief overview of the general themes, and some of the topics that were discussed by the students, the faculty and the administrators at the ten locations we visited during the fall.  The Senate Officers are going to be visiting with half of the University Park colleges throughout the spring semester.  Yesterday we met with the Smeal College of Business Administration and this Thursday we will be meeting with the School of Information Sciences and Technology.  We invite all of you to join us and to encourage your colleagues in your respective colleges to participate in these important discussions.

 

I thank you for your patience and for sitting in a very warm room.  If you have any questions Chair Nichols, Chair-Elect Moore and I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have about our fall visits.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I’m glad that you expanded on your bullets.  I was a little disappointed at the written report and thought we wouldn’t learn much so I’m glad that you took that time.  I’d like to also again recommend that you consider this very important function of these visits and implementing some reporting by unit.  I realize that there are sensitive conversations you have, but I think a summary posted to the Senate web site on what you found at each unit is very important information.  I think the more we spread our ideas the better off we are.

 

Eric B. Cowden, Student Senator, College of Agricultural Sciences:  One of the things that you pointed out was orientation from the commonwealth campuses to University Park Campus.  The Academic Assembly addressed this issue at one point in time in the fall semester and you can agree or disagree but your opinion on it would be kind of nice.  But what we came up with was a system that would be the best is someone to orient would be somebody who already went through that process, this would be your best bet on learning the ropes.  Who better else to orient the person than someone who went through the system themselves.  So try to make some sort of a contact from somebody who has already transferred from a commonwealth campus to the University Park Campus.  Have a match system somehow.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  I know at my campus we have college meetings with students who are going to be transferring prior to their transfer.  We talk about finding different buildings, where are the advising centers located, and who are the contacts they can go to when they come to University Park.  But I don’t think this is a process that is across all locations so what I was trying to bring to the floor of the Senate is the fact that the students feel a need.  They felt that when they were trying to make contacts with individuals at University Park, they sent emails and the reality in a couple of cases was they weren’t getting any responses.  And they felt that, wow, is this the way it is going to be when I get to University Park.  It was an eye opening awakening for many of these students.  They felt like they were being ignored or forgotten and that transition is scary.  They are coming from a small location where teachers know them, they know everybody else, and they feel a certain comfort level.  But when they transfer into a course where they have got 500 or 1,000 in a class, they really need to have some kind of a transition.  But your comment about bringing a student back in to tell them about some of the expectations that they can meet was very good and could be helpful.

 

Chair Nichols:  Anything else?  Okay, thank you, Deidre.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  You are welcome.

 

Chair Nichols:  The last informational report, Senate Committee on University Planning, Appendix “I,” “Update on Classroom Conditions”.  You folks will notice that Professor Alley is not here so we’ve got Bill Anderson and his team to explain abrupt climate change in this room.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Update on Classroom Conditions

 

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

 

William A. Rowe:  I’m Vice-Chair for the committee.  Tony Baratta has a course to teach.  This is an informational update just on classroom conditions.  You got the management team from the Office of Physical Plant here to talk to us on that and give us a very brief presentation.  I do have to say that the subcommittee on turning on the air conditioning in the heat wave in January is still in subcommittee and should be ready for the July Senate meeting.  Anyway, as I ask Bill and his crew to come up, there are some things that we as faculty can do and that is to ask our students to help in terms of maintaining classroom conditions and I’ll ask you just to consider those as the presentation is going on.  I’d like to introduce William Anderson, who is the Assistant Vice-President for Physical Plant.  Ford Stryker, who is the Deputy Assistant Vice-President for Physical Plant.  We also have with us Mark Bodenschatz, who is the Director of Commonwealth Services.  He takes care of the non-University Park Campuses.  We also have Phillip Melnick, who is the Assistant Director of Operations and Robert Myrick, who is the Architect and Facilities Coordinator for the UCIF Committee.  Thank you.

 

Ford Stryker, Deputy Assistant Vice-President for Physical Plant:  Good afternoon.  Hello, my name is Ford Stryker, I’m going to just briefly introduce today’s presentation and then I’m going to let the guys who really know what is going on do most of the talking.  We made a presentation to the Senate Committee on University Planning back in the fall and in response to some questions they had about classroom conditions, noise issues, the way we manage classrooms, and take care of classrooms.  The group at the time we made the presentation asked us to present to you all pretty much the same thing that we presented in the fall.  Subsequent to that we had a request that we talk a little bit about classroom conditions at campuses other than University Park.  So we’ve added that to our presentation as well.  So today we’re going to have a program as outlined here.  Phillip Melnick is going to talk about cleanliness, noise, and focus here at University Park.  Following that Bob Myrick who is a member of the UCIF Committee will talk some about some enhancement projects and the process that we go through to select those projects and then accomplish them.  Then that will be followed by a very brief discussion by Mark Bodenschatz who will talk about locations other than University Park.  So with that, I’d like to invite Phillip to come back up here and talk about cleanliness.

 

Phillip Melnick, Assistant Director of Operations for Physical Plant:  Thank you, Ford and good afternoon.  I want to talk about cleanliness in the classrooms at first and I wanted to start by explaining what we do in terms of cleaning in the classrooms.  For departmental classrooms, those classrooms that are assigned to a department, we do a routine cleaning one time per week.  And in general purpose classrooms that are available through the Registrars Office, we clean those classrooms five times per week and that generally consists of three routine cleanings and two police cleanings per week.  This is what we call our 3/2 program which was instituted in the fall of 1999.  What is a routine cleaning?  It consists of cleaning the chalkboards, cleaning the desks, any tables or furnishing in the room.  We clean the floors, whether that be mopping a hard floor surface or vacuuming carpeted classrooms.  We remove the waste from the room, clean the window sills, and secure any open windows.  Police cleaning duties are less intensive cleaning and when we do a police cleaning we always clean the chalkboards, we straighten the furniture and we remove waste from the room.  If needed, we will remove litter, we will spot clean floors, again that may be cleaning the carpet or a hard floor, and then we would clean chairs.

 

Some of the impact of the 3/2 program is it has helped us meet our janitorial budget reductions.  In the last seven years the janitorial budget has seen about $1 million in budget recycling and so we have had to find ways to continue to clean with fewer budget dollars.  However, our employees are finding it hard for them to clean up to their own standards.  We have received very little complaints from the users of the classrooms, whether it be faculty or students.   If we were to increase service, it would require additional funding to do that.  We have a wonderful Newspaper Readership Program but that has also contributed to cleanliness problems in the classrooms.  And many of you have probably experienced these especially late in the day, you will find the classroom conditions are usually unsatisfactory.  It has resulted in us spending more time on litter pick-up and it has impacted the time that we have had to devote to other cleaning activities.  And as I said, the primary impact is from the Newspaper Readership Program and from inserts that are in the papers.  Much of the problem is also outside of the classrooms in the hallways and entrances to classroom buildings that are primary distribution points for newspapers.  The Willard Building is obviously the best example of that.

 

We also have problems related to food and drink.  Our staffing levels and cleaning schedules do not support food and drink in classrooms so what happens because food and drink is allowed in classrooms, you will wind up seeing spills and stains on carpeting, and litter in the classrooms as a result of students leaving behind what they brought in.  If we were going to change the status quo, we would need faculty support to do that.  That is something that we are asking you to consider, is whether or not you consider this to be a problem and whether or not it would be appropriate to enlist the support of faculty to help rectify this situation.

 

Over the last year and a half there has been some concerns about noise affecting the classroom environment.  So we have formed an informal CQI team to look into the issue.  This team defined the sources of the noise and categorized those sources.  They met with scheduling office representatives and they brainstormed some ways to control noise.  These are the sources of noise and I won’t read them to you, but they include basically all the work that we do or that others on campus do, including landscape work and construction activities that go on just about everyday of the year.  Some of the realities that this team arrived at is that many classrooms are utilized from early in the morning until very late at night.  For the most part, hand tools are not feasible do to the volume of work that needs to be accomplished and the team basically recognized that this work needs to happen to maintain the quality and aesthetics that the university community has come to expect.  So they developed a plan of action and the first main recommendation is to increase community awareness through improved communication.  That would involve alerting the campus community to upcoming events and seasons that would result in additional noise.  That could mean using the Intercom, our Physical Plant web site, and bulletin boards that are available in most of the general-purpose classroom buildings.  And then our facility coordinator network that we have already established to communicate this information.

 

They also felt that a process needed to be established to address noise concerns.  Most all general-purpose classrooms have a sticker or should have a sticker on the door.  It is called a classroom hotline sticker and it is a number to our main help desk if you have problems with the classroom.  We would add a statement on those stickers to suggest that if there is a problem with noise, that you call the hotline to have that addressed.  We would train our work reception personnel on the proper response to noise complaints.  We also would encourage anyone on campus to directly contact the person creating the noisy situation when appropriate.  Often time that is the most effective way to deal with it if someone is in the room next to you banging on a pipe.  That way you can let them know that is disturbing your classroom and I’m sure they would make arrangements to do that work at another time.  We would also increase the awareness of this issue within the Office of Physical Plant.  We would stress noise awareness with all our personnel during customer service training, which is in the process of being developed and implemented throughout Physical Plant.  We would increase the awareness of possible noise concerns with those personnel within Physical Plant that are responsible for design and construction and scheduling.  We would increase awareness of possible noise concerns with our technical service and supervisory personnel and then we would also discuss alternatives for working after a noise complaint is received.

 

So once we get a complaint, what do we do?  Do we do the work at another time, change our shift, whatever the case may be.  In conclusion, awareness training for our personnel and better communication with the campus community with a defined process to follow when noise problems do occur was determined by the team to be the best approach to help resolve noise concerns.  That is the end of my part of the presentation and I am going to turn it over to Bob Myrick who is going to talk about the classroom improvement process.  I believe we will just take all the questions at the end of the presentation.

 

Robert Myrick, Architect and Facilities Coordinator for Physical Plant:  Thank you, Phillip.  I’m not going to read a lot of what you are going to see on the screen.  I think you can probably read a lot faster than I can talk, unless you want me to talk real fast and then it gets a little bit confusing but we will go ahead.  We have basically two committees I’m involved with.  We have the University Committee on Instructional Facilities (UCIF) about 17 members and chaired by John Cahir.  A lot of good representation from the different aspects of this campus and other campuses, so you can just kind of see some of who they are.  That is the main committee, then we have a subcommittee which is kind of the operational aspect of what is happening with the UCIF.  The main committee does a lot of the policies, selection of the projects, and this kind of thing whereas the subcommittee does the implementation at this campus.  So there is quite a few people on the subcommittee also.  The next thing I will present are some of the projects.  This is a listing of all the projects that were funded by the UCIF this last year and I say the UCIF, at least the capital allocations that came to the UCIF, allowed these to happen.  So there are quite a few projects at University Park Campus.  There are 28 total classrooms that were involved and then we have the classes at the other campuses, again with the different campuses and the buildings at those campuses--quite a few of them again, covering a lot of territory with a total of 28 classrooms.  I thought this was really interesting when I totaled these up because when we make a selection we really don’t do it room by room, but I went back and did a little analysis for the last several years and it is surprising how close the numbers occurred on the University Park Campus as compared with the other campuses.

 

Giving you an idea of some of the projects that we have done, we have some here at the University Park Campus I’m going to show you.  We have some at the other campuses.  There are two slides relative to each of these projects.  The first slide explains some of the major things that were done to that particular classroom and then the next slide will show you before and after shots.  So with that, this will give you an example of what happened with room 106.  These are some of the items that were done in a major remodel.  We try to do this work holistically, so when we go into the classroom the work is done and we don’t have to come back in for several years, hopefully.  You will get an idea of what the before pictures looked like for Agricultural Engineering, the number of seats that were involved and an idea what it looked like afterwards.

 

This is an example of some of the new seating we are trying to put into the classroom to address some of the issues we have heard from you that you would like to have more flexibility in the classrooms, but yet because of so much of the stuff that the students are bringing you need to have something with a little bit more table surface.  Also, these stacking student tables as we call them, are good because they are easy to adapt to wheelchair users.  We’ve talked to several people that have used it and they have chairs and they accommodate a lot of different sizes, which we are finding wider and broader diversification.  A size that is not just the standard five foot nine for a female and a five foot eleven for a male.  So this is one of the real great aspects of having these stacking student tables.  Chambers Building 208, 209, 210 are examples of some of the changes that were done here.  Jamie Myers, your representative back there was involved with some of the decisions that went on in a lot of our meetings, and what we did planning for the space.  You get an idea of the examples before tables and afterwards, again with the stacking student tables.  When we do a lot of these remodels we are adding instructional technology as you see one of those type podiums here.

 

The education department had kind of an interesting requirement which is different from everything else, in that they had their own local network and they wanted to be able to tie into the podiums and not have that cross contaminated…if you want to call it that…with the backbone of the campus.  So this has special patch panels on the sides so that Jamie and his people are able to do what they need within their department, which is different from the general-purpose classroom usage.

 

Ferguson Building 205 and 210 again these are departmental classrooms that came into the general-purpose classroom as part of the initiative of the provost of the university a few years back.  As you are well aware, we’ve had some problems with general-purpose classrooms, a shortage and this is one way to help the situation.  Again, you will see some before and after shots.  In this case the department…it was real interesting in this particular room because agriculture has a lot of animal heads and they use those with the studies that they do.  When it went to a general-purpose classroom environment, the concern was that these heads would walk probably to fraternities or other places, so we had to get those out of the room and they will be put into the new building.  But that left a terrible echo in the room, so we had to come back and treat the rooms with special acoustical panels.  In this case, you will see that the tables are all the same as they were before and it is because the people that use the room did not want to change the way the tables were because they said they lay a lot of things out on the tables.

 

Sparks Building 309, was another one of the departmental classrooms that came into the general-purpose pool this year.  It is on the third floor.  It is a room that you will see on the very left here, what it was like when we started phasing in the changes, because we had a large purchase we were able to make.  So you see the first slide the way it looked originally.  Then the next slide showing the way it was with the student stacking desks in the room and the bottom two slides show the way it is when it was remodeled with the instructional technology in place.

 

Going to Altoona, the Holzinger Building 202, you get an idea of what it was like in these particular classrooms and these are just representative again, these are not all the classrooms at all the campuses or at this campus.  Anyway, this was a room that had 80 student positions in it to start with but they wanted to get into more of a lab-type environment and so it really reduced the number of seats but it allowed them to do things they wanted to do instructionally and technology-wise and group-wise.

 

At Hazleton Campus Graham Building, is another example of one of the many classrooms out there in the other campuses, and what they have done to help their educational environments.  Again, there are 64 old chairs, a rather inflexible environment, and in this case, they wanted to have a student lab.  So these are laptop desk environments, so that when the laptops are in use the desktop can be folded back.  When they are not using them, the desktop can be down and used like a regular table.  If you are interested in examples of this, you can see them in Boucke Building, and in a few other places on campus.  At Scranton Campus, Dawson Building is an example of spaces that were no longer able to be used very well.  It was a prep room.  Things have changed in the way that they were being used and so the prep room was converted and became an instructional technology classroom and lab—quite a drastic difference.

 

Briefly, I’ll get into a few of the questions that have been posed to us as a committee and I think I’ll just kind of go through these.  Sometimes departments have labs or classrooms that have a lot of computers, and they are finding out that it is better to have somebody like the Center for Academic Computing operate these labs so a few have become general-purpose classrooms.  Examples of these are listed here so you can see within the last year what has happened.  Engineering Unit D, was a departmental lab and they wanted to put in a lab that they could work with.  It is a MAC lab and not a whole lot was done in remodeling the space because the building is projected to be off-line eventually when it is part of the Master Plan of the university.  Here you see Patterson Building room 304.  It used to be a graduate student area.  This is what it looks like now, a general-purpose lab that can be used by anybody and also for class purposes. 

 

Sometimes questions arise relative to classroom conditions and how are they tracked.  Again, as you can see here, you know we get a lot of feedback from you, and some of your students.  We have a student representative to the UCIF, we get some feedback from him, and certainly the most feedback by visiting the rooms.  If there are complaints or calls, usually I go and check it out.  I obtain feedback from our university subcommittee members and certainly from maintenance people at Office of Physical Plant.  I get quite a few calls an hour—what is this, what is that, how do we take care of it.  So I think we get pretty good coverage of what is happening in rooms.  How are classroom deficiencies addressed?  Well, there is a whole lot of different avenues.  If it is an existing problem and it is something that is obviously maintenance related, I will go to the web page that Office of Physical Plant has and I put in the request for the work to be taken care of.

 

Sometimes there is something new requested in a classroom that is not there now.  If that is the case and it is something small, I’ll usually check with my supervisor and then we will go ahead, fund it, and take care of it.  Some of these are things like screens, maybe there needs to be another screen in the room or maybe there needs to be something in the way of window covering, that kind of thing.  If something is missing, a lot of times chairs seem to walk from the rooms.  It is just amazing how much chairs do walk away but anyway, if I am contacted or if I find that to be the case, I’ll contact the area services or evening maintenance crew that takes care of our general-purpose classrooms. 

 

If you talk about initiatives and how our selection of projects are determined, that is a very broad topic because there is so many different things that are taken into consideration.  We have had several initiatives in the past years--studio physics, instructional technology in the rooms because there just was none both at this campus and the other campuses.  At University Park, we have certainly had the drive to convert a lot of the departmental classrooms to general-purpose classrooms.  Matching dollars are given consideration.  Those that are willing to match dollars and contribute dollars to classrooms, that weighs more heavily on the decision to fund those and to help.  Classroom sizes, we have tried to place technology in the larger rooms at this point because it seems to be more helpful in the way of instruction.  And as those are taken care of, then we will start going down to some more of the smaller ones.  And it is driven by user feedback from people such as yourselves.  How are the improvements driven?  Certainly the holistic approach you heard me mention before.  Certainly we have code issues we have to deal with:  lighting, window, instructional flexibility issues, all of you may have some special needs in a particular classroom.  We talk with you, try to get you involved on the design committees early so that we are able to get the scoping and work done considering several things down through the projects.  Okay, with that I’ll turn it over to Mark and wait for your questions until the end.

 

Mark Bodenschatz, Director of Commonwealth Services for Physical Plant:  Good afternoon, I’m Mark Bodenschatz and you will be happy to know that I only have three slides to present today and I understand we are way over time.  I wanted to talk briefly about locations away from University Park and the way that classrooms and classroom improvements are addressed.  Essentially, although the UCIF provides guidelines for new construction, there are not necessarily standards that are created or audits that help us prioritize all of the classrooms throughout the system and to my knowledge they are not prioritized.  Each campus initiates the classroom projects that are done and this typically is instituted through the Campus Executive Officer and Director of Business Services and Director of Academic Affairs and others.  The physical plant committee of the campus often times gets involved with this and gets faculty input.  They are funded through various and combined sources typically.  Often times there are capital improvement projects that address whole buildings or new construction.  Those are often times a combination of funding between the campus college development funds, sometimes DCS related funds.  UCIF provides support and even those are combined funding with funds from the campus.

 

There are campuses taking care of some of their own needs as well and fund classroom upgrades, technology upgrades on their own.  Sometimes through purchase orders, sometimes through their own physical plant staff and our major maintenance provides support as well to classrooms throughout the campuses.  How UCIF works at other campuses?  The proposals are requested and received and then it is a prioritized list from each campus and out of that the UCIF develops a list of annual programmatic based on the following needs.  The degree to which the instructional technology exists within the campus, the programs that are offered by the campuses, and the availability of matching campus funds, which again, sometimes is a combined funding source.  The equitable distribution of UCIF funding, meaning that if a campus has received funding in the past that may be considered if there is a campus that has not received funding in the past as well as what educational initiatives occur for the university.  Now I’d like to turn it over to Ford Stryker to address any questions.

 

Chair Nichols:  Given the lateness of the hour and we are way over the time limit allotted for this report and because Bill Anderson has escaped to avoid answering tough questions about the temperature in the room at 1:30, what we’ll do is ask people with questions to come down and ask questions after the Senate meeting.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The January 29, 2002 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:57 PM.

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 29, 2002

 

Committees and Rules Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1 (Legislative)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Change of Campus Location to University Park  (Informational)

 

Faculty Affairs – Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty (Informational)

 

Libraries – Trends in the University’ Budget Allocation (Informational)

           

Outreach Activities – Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus (Informational)

 

Senate Council – University Faculty Census Report – 2002-03  (Informational)

 

Senate Council – Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits (Informational)

 

University Planning – Update on Classroom Conditions (Informational)

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

JANUARY 29, 2002 SENATE MEETING

 

Abmayr, Susan M.
Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard L.
Andaleeb, Syed S.
Atwater, Deborah F.
Aydin, Kultegin
Balog, Theresa A.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barnes, David E.
Barney, Paul E., Jr.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Bazirjian, Rosann
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berner, R. Thomas
Bernhard, Michael H.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John P.
Bollard, Edward R., Jr.
Book, Patricia A.
Breakey, Laurie Powers
Bridges, K. Robert
Brown, Douglas K.
Browning, Barton W.
Brunsden, Victor W.
Burchard, Charles L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Calvert, Clay
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carlson, Richard A.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chirico, JoAnn
Clariana, Roy B.
Coraor, Lee D.
Cowden, Eric B.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
Dawson, John W.
DeCastro, W. Travis
DeJong, Gordon F.
DeVos, Mackenzie L.
Diehl, Renee D.
Disney, Diane M.
Eaton, Nancy L.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Egolf, Roger A.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Erickson, Rodney A.
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Evans, Christine C.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fisher, Charles R.
Floros, Joanna
Flowers, Sally L.
Fosmire, Gary J.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Frecker, Mary I.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Geiger, Roger L.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Glumac, Thomas E.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gray, Timothy N.
Green, David J.
Greene, Wallace H.
Gutgold, Nichola D.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harvey, Irene E.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hunt, Brandon B.
Hurson, Ali R.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Johnson, Karen E.
Jones, Billie J.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kennedy, Richard R.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Koul, Ravinder
Kunze, Donald E.
Lakoski, Joan M.
MacDonald, Digby D.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Masters, Andrew K.
Maxwell, Kevin R.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarney, Michelle H.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McCollum, Gwenn E.
McDonel, James L.
Medoff, Howard P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Moore, John W.
Mueller, Alfred
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Noga, Dawn M.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pazdziorko, Nicholas J.
Pearson, Katherine C.
Perrine, Joy M.
Pezzuti, Dana R.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Powell, Molly A.
Probst, Ronald W.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ritter, Michael C.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Rowe, William A.
Russell, David W.
Sachs, Howard G.
Sandler, Karen W.
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Shea, Dennis G.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Smith, Carol
Smith, James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Staneva, Marieta
Steiner, Kim C.
Sternad, Dagmar
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, James A.
Strickman, Mark
Su, Mila C.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tingo, Jennifer
Tormey, Brian B.
Troester, Rodney L.
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Walker, Joshua D.
Walters, Robert
Wanner, Adrian J.
Webb, Sunny M.
White, Eric R.
Willis, Daniel
Willits, Billie S.
Ziegler, Gregory R.

 

OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Mills, Diane G.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
Youtz, Susan C.

 

168  Total Elected
    5  Total Ex Officio
  10  Total Appointed
183  Total Attending

 

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2002

 

Committees and Rules - Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the

Senate – Excessive Absences (Legislative)

 

University Planning/Undergraduate Education -University Calendar (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Affairs – Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-01 (Informational)

 

Student Life - Interim Expulsion (Informational)

 

Student Life - Student Perceptions of Safety (Informational)