Penn State University Home






Volume 33-----FEBRUARY 1, 2000-----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 1999-00.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, 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 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.


I. Final Agenda for February 1, 2000

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

  1. Documents Distributed Prior to February 1, 2000
  2. Attached

Door Handout - Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions


III. Tentative Agenda for February 29, 2000


Minutes of the December 7, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:3

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of January 11, 2000

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 18, 2000






Committees and Rules

Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)


Faculty Affairs

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in
Tenuring Decisions

Outreach Activities

Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities


Senate Council

University Faculty Senate Census Report - 2000-2001

University Planning

Transportation Services at University Park





The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)." This report changed the duties of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits to include liaison with the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies. (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

The Senate received two Informational Reports:

Senate Council - "University Faculty Census Report." This report lists the number of seats on the Senate allocated to each voting unit for the 2000-01 Senate year. (See Record, page(s) 29-30 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

University Planning - "Transportation Services at University Park." This report highlights the services available through Transportation Services. (See Record, page(s) 30-31 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate sent two reports back to committee:

Faculty Affairs - "Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions" (Advisory/Consultative). (See Record, page(s) 11-18 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Outreach Activities - "Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities" (Advisory/Consultative). (See Record, page(s) 18-29 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Murry R. Nelson, Chair, presiding. One hundred and fifty-three Senators signed the roster.

Chair Nelson: It is time to begin.


Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the December 7, 1999 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and 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 Nelson: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheet) for January 11, 2000. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

Chair Nelson: Another communication has come from John Nichols. I will read it.

At the December 7, 1999 meeting, the Senate voted to add the rank of Senior Instructor to HR-21. During the discussion on the floor about the proposal, questions were raised about the immigration and pay implications of hiring a foreign national at either that rank or the Senior Lecturer rank. The Faculty Affairs Committee had not explored that aspect when drafting the proposal and, therefore, consulted with Billie Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources, and her immigration specialist regarding these questions. They reported that adding the rank of Senior Instructor would not have any serious implications on non-immigrant visa matters. The university would be required to pay within 95 percent of the prevailing wage for the new title, as it would for any existing title, in the event a non-U.S. worker was selected and the university was seeking H-1B (specialty occupation visa) status for him or her. Those with further questions about this should contact Rosalie Bloom-Brooks, Manager of International Scholars and Faculty Visa Services in Rider Building.


Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of January 18, 2000. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.


Chair Nelson: I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council contained in the minutes attached to today's Agenda.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on Tuesday, January 18, 2000 and discussed the following agenda items: Update on Searches; Druce Commission and Appropriations Hearings; Update on Hershey/College of Medicine Faculty "split"; Faculty Handbook; Intellectual Property Update; Emeritus Faculty Teaching Fellows; a follow-up on Prerequisite Issues; Policies and Procedures for Immediate Tenure; and Single Portal Policy for Distance Education. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2000. So if anyone might have any items to be included on the FAC agenda, please contact any of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members: Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers have begun their visits to units at University Park for the spring. They visited the College of Health and Human Development on Thursday, January 13. The next visit is scheduled for Tuesday, February 8 to the College of the Liberal Arts. The dates of all the visits for spring semester are posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

The Senate received two memos from President Spanier regarding reports passed by the Senate. From the October 26, 1999 Senate meeting, a report from the Faculty Benefits Committee entitled "Recommendation Regarding Surcharges in the Penn State Dental Plan" was approved for implementation by the president. He is asking the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to implement the recommendation. From the December 7, 1999 Senate meeting from the Faculty Affairs Committee, a report entitled "Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks" was approved by the president. He is asking the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to implement that recommendation as well.


Chair Nelson: Before we have comments by the president let me just remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. We move next to comments by the president of the university. President Spanier is here today and does have comments and we welcome him.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much Murry, and good afternoon, everyone. Glad to be here as always. A lot of great things are happening around this university at our 24 locations. Far too many to mention in a short meeting like this, but I do want to just say to you how pleased I am with the hard work that's going on and how it's paying off. One indicator of that which really applies across the system is the continuing and growing interest prospective students have in the university. As you know, we've been breaking records every year in the number of students applying to Penn State, and it looks like we will almost certainly do that again this year. As of yesterday, we were something like 5,000 applications ahead of where we were at this time last year. Where's John? Is that about right?

John J. Romano, Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and Administration: Forty-nine hundred.

President Spanier: Forty-nine hundred. About 5,000 applications ahead of where we were last year. I think by the end of this week we'll probably pass 60,000. We're just approaching 60,000. Last year we finished a little over 70,000 and we'll certainly do better than that. I'm not sure if there is any other university in the country that receives as many applications as we do. More than 50,000 of those are undergraduate applications, and 20,000 at the graduate and professional school level. Graduate school applications are up. Dramatic increases at the Dickinson School of Law. That's occurred each year since they've become a part of Penn State. So I'm very pleased with that level of student interest. One of the consequences of course, is that I now receive more mail from students and their parents we have turned down. It is amazing how many people have grown up with their goal in life having been to come to Penn State. Those are very difficult letters to receive. But it is becoming a little more competitive to get in undoubtedly because of that and we are attracting better students.

Some of you had been anticipating I know, from comments I receive from you, my testimony before the Druce Commission, which is a commission of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives looking at accountability, performance standards and other issues relating to the future of higher education. As you probably know, and it may not surprise you, further hearings of that commission have been cancelled. The day before I was to go down and state some things on behalf of Penn State, I was notified that the commission would be cancelled. I'm sure it was because of some of the legal problems that Representative Druce is facing. The commission could be resurrected, but we've heard nothing about that at this point. Nevertheless, I do expect to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 14, and then nearly two weeks after that, at the House Appropriations Committee. Those hearings should take place as scheduled. We have absolutely no information whatsoever at this point, no clues as to what the governor's budget recommendation for Penn State might look like for this coming year. The governor will make his budget public a week from today. So next Tuesday we will find something out about that, and then my first hearing will be the following Tuesday, and we'll certainly try to put Penn State's best case forward.

I want to say a few things about some things happening in the student affairs area. First of all I want to remind you that one of the great traditions at Penn State is the Dance Marathon, which will take place in a couple of weeks from now--February 18-20, 2000. Last year, our students collected $2.5 million for charity. It's the largest student run philanthropy in the United States, supporting the Four Diamonds Fund at Hershey. And I encourage your strong support in any way you can give it, whether it's financial, moral support for students of yours who are involved, or showing up at the Dance Marathon. How many of you have ever shown up to witness it in person? That is great! And I'd invite all of you to do it again and to bring somebody along with you. It's a very uplifting experience. Go easy on the quizzes on Monday. Well, you heard it from John Cahir. Thanks for mentioning that. It's a great thing to see, and if students come by and ask you for some money I hope you'll do that. Come by and take a look. Pretty interesting to watch. I also want to lend a special word of encouragement to those of you on campuses where we have sort of branch activities related to the Dance Marathon. On many of our campuses there are also Dance Marathons going on in separate fund raising activities which have been increasingly successful. In fact, some great things are emerging at the campuses in this regard as well. Last weekend we broke a record in the Penn State Late Night program. More than 4,300 students showed up for weekend social events, last weekend alone, at the HUB at the University Park Campus. That program is going very well. If you have not yet seen the HUB since it's been renovated, a great time to come and look would be on a Friday or Saturday night to see all of the things that are going on there. Our goal is to provide lots of different social activities at several different venues at any one time. It's becoming very popular. We have first run movies with great new sound system shows in the different auditoriums and venues. Arts and crafts up on the third floor. It's probably the most amazing thing of all. You have to go up and make a special visit up there but there are hundreds of students that come out on the weekends and they make stuff and take it back with them and have a lot of fun doing it. Comedians, magicians, game nights, all different kinds of things that go on throughout the building. Food services are now open until 3:00 a.m. there and we're very pleased with how that has evolved. I went a couple of weekends ago and brought the chair and the vice-chair of the Board of Trustees. They had a standing room only show in the auditorium (about 500 people) there for a hypnotist. Any of you catch that by any chance? Was that amazing or what? There was some crazy stuff going on there. It was unbelievable. It was one of the best. I don't think anybody who was there for that show would say that it wasn't one of the best times they had in their whole life. The audience went nuts. It was just great. You ought to go out and catch some of that. Don't come at 8:00 or 9:00 at night, it's a little early. Things get going a little later, that's the whole idea. Now you are all familiar with our newspaper readership program on our eight or nine campuses. Where we have students living in residence halls and now they have their choice of usually four newspapers in a given day. Here at the University Park Campus for example it's USA Today, The New York Times, The Centre Daily Times and the Daily Collegian. Thousands of students are taking these papers each day. Now we're experimenting this semester with a program that reaches out to the off campus students. It's an off campus newspaper readership program where there are machines like in the HUB and you put your card in and out comes a newspaper and we'll be doing a follow-up survey with these students. I think there's opportunity for 2,500 students in the initial pilot project. Bill Asbury is overseeing that, and we know that Penn State is leading the way there and we think it's a great program for students to be encouraged to read a newspaper every day. I've also been impressed with some statistics I've seen recently. I won't give the statistics to you. But just to mention the statistics I've seen recently with regard to student volunteer services and service learning activities across all of our campuses. I think it's great that we have so many students taking what they are doing in the classroom and applying it outside the classroom, and vice-versa. Volunteering, contributing, and being good citizens. That's very positive.

The last thing I'll mention before I take questions, I'd like to leave most of my time today for questions. I've prepared a letter today that is being sent to the regional director of the United States Postal Service concerning Mike "the mailman".

Senators: Applause.

President Spanier: Now I know some of you don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about, but most of the folks here do. I started off the letter saying I wish as President of Penn State, that I was the most popular person on campus, but alas I'm not, it's Mike "the mailman" and here's why. Then I proceeded to talk about that a little bit. As someone who runs a bureaucracy, I know there are rule books around, I also am the son of a postmaster, and I understand that the U.S. government's rule book is about as thick as they come. But you know, come on. Anyway, I have a letter on the way. I want to share that when people write me letters, they are not ignored. I hope that's the case with my letter too, that it won't be ignored, but we'll see. Anyway, with that let's open it up for questions.

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus: There's been a lot of discussion nationally about the unionization of graduate assistants. I wonder if you could address that issue from a Penn State perspective. Is anything happening here? What's your view?

President Spanier: Thank you for the question. Yes. Throughout the country on a number of campuses there is a growing discussion among graduate teaching assistants primarily about the possibility of unionization. And that discussion is occurring I understand, among some graduate students at Penn State. I am not supportive of the concept of graduate student unionization, even though I'm a pretty good supporter of unions generally. The reason I'm not supportive in the context of graduate teaching assistants is because I believe very fundamentally that graduate students are at the university, and should be at the university first and foremost as students. They are here because they are students, not as employees. I think without getting into a lot of detail about what is involved in that philosophy, I believe that most of our faculty feel the same way. That the graduate students with whom they are working with, they develop a very special relationship with in terms of their instruction, supervision, and working towards a degree. They are clearly here for a fixed period of time, principally for the purpose of advancing their knowledge, learning to become researchers, becoming scholars, and further developing their creative activities when they will then go out and seek employment on an ongoing basis. I think it results in an inherent conflict of interest in a number of concepts that are very fundamental to the university. In the context of the issue at Penn State, I think it's further troubling from the standpoint that we work so hard here and so many of our faculty work very hard to do the very best job they can with their graduate assistants. We seek to make our teaching and research assistant stipends as competitive as possible in the marketplace. Every year we look at the availability of our health benefits and what we can do to improve them, we've made some significant improvements along the way. As many of you know from when you were graduate students, there was a time when health benefits, you didn't get anything. Now we actually have a pretty good program available which was substantially improved recently and which is scheduled for even some further improvements, perhaps this coming year. We try to be competitive on stipends, we try to give the best kind of supervision and education we can, and we pay attention to health benefits and quality of life issues. And there's one irony I think that evolves and this may come about because perhaps some of the individuals most involved in the discussion now were not here three, four years ago when their predecessors spent a very substantial amount of time helping us to change the federal laws regarding whether or not graduate students were employees. And I know a lot of you here were intensely involved in helping us do that. As you might know going back to a federal law, I think it was in 1973, Pennsylvania got stuck in some state of purgatory, where the stipends of our graduate students were taxable and they had to pay certain taxes on them; the Social Security tax because they were thought to be employees. Whereas graduate students in most every other state of the United States were exempted from that. We then carried forward the argument because our students told us they wanted to carry forward this argument that they are students and not employees. Finally, working with counterparts in the state of Texas and in a rare successful political effort we were actually able to change this federal legislation. So actually, starting this July 1 our students will not have to pay those taxes which will put another 7.65 percent back in their pocket. I would hate to see that undone if somehow there was a ruling that declared that actually they were employees and so on. For a number of reasons I'm not very comfortable with the notion myself even though we will try very hard to do the right thing in dealing with this issue and following the letter and the spirit of the laws surrounding any unionization efforts of this kind.

Todd D. Ellis, Student Senator, College of Science: Recently the student government went on a lobbying trip down to Harrisburg to lobby for the possibility of more funding from the Senate Appropriations Committee, so that tuition may not have to go up as much as it does every year. I sat in on the meeting with Senator Tillman, who's the chair of the appropriations committee and he said one of the issues that he felt was a sticking point, was that the Senate wanted to appropriate more money in terms of line items. There was some opposition to that. I was wondering if you could shed some light on what he meant by that statement? What the sticking point might be there?

President Spanier: I'm not sure what he might be referring to.

Todd D. Ellis: He said that they wanted it earmarked. Certain funds for certain programs and that there may have been some kind of sticking point, as to where we wanted more control over that money, and where the Senate was having control.

President Spanier: First of all, let me say I'm very appreciative of that group of students who I think on a very snowy day, went to Harrisburg, risking their lives in the first big terrible snow storm of the season to carry that message forward. And it is an important one to carry forward. I think everybody figures the president is going to go down there and single handedly make our case and that's that. It's very helpful to have students being there as a part of that, and I'm glad you put it the way you did. There's always going to be a tuition increase. Two-thirds of our general funds budget comes from tuition and one-third, that's very round numbers, from legislative appropriation. So for there to be no tuition increase, we'd have to have a double digit whopping appropriation increase, and that's not going to happen. So there will always be a tuition increase, but our only hope of keeping those increases low is if we can get an appropriation increase that makes up for that difference, and that hasn't happened in a very long time at Penn State. So the message that you just summarized is very good and it's the right message. Now the way our budget comes to us now, most of our budget is in one line item, the general Penn State appropriation. We do have separate line items for the Cooperative Extension Service and for the agricultural research programs, and then there are a couple of small things relating to Hershey. Often when the legislature does give us new money, they put it in a separate line item as temporary funds appropriated for the first year, and then fold it into our budget later on, that's just something that they've tended to do over time. Our preference will always be to have all of the funds put into the main Penn State budget and not a long list of separate line item appropriations. Because when you do have a long list of separate line item appropriations, it leads to the possibility of micro-management, interference, and the funds in that line being held up until somebody in a particular office believes that it should be released. You can spend a lot of energy trying to deal with all the different constituencies attached to those line items. We operate so efficiently at Penn State as it is, that the best thing the state can do in terms of accountability, and in terms of the efficient use of their tax payer dollar, is to put them in the general appropriation and let us manage those directly from day one. So as a general rule setting things up in separate line item budgets where there are different people in Harrisburg who have an interest in each of those lines, it's not the way to go. When there are cases where that's the only way we can get the money, we usually are happy to have it that way.

Kevin Berland, Shenango Campus: During the recent reorganization of the university, a number of us were very gratified to hear your position on disciplinary coherence. And we were wondering whether you would care to report on the progress of implementing mechanisms to guarantee that disciplinary coherence continues or begins?

President Spanier: My honest assessment is that it is mixed and that in some disciplines, it is as strong as ever or stronger. Things have evolved in a way there very nicely. Often this is because there is somebody at University Park, or in the Commonwealth College, or both, who are making that happen. But in many fields and right now, I'd probably have to say honestly in the majority of fields, there isn't the level of disciplinary coherence I would like and it is one of my great disappointments. And I have mentioned it on many occasions to the deans and to department heads when we have them together for discussions. They all know how I feel about the issue. Now most of the department heads and deans would say that they are doing it and they would give you a different assessment than I just gave you. Because they can point to lots of specific things that happen. But in reality I don't feel like we are at the level, maybe my aspirations are too high and unrealistic but I don't feel we're at that level. We're still in this out of sight, out of mind mode in some departments and of course part of the issue is that this is most fundamentally something that has to occur at the departmental level. And department leadership positions do change over quite a bit. Each year when we do our seminar for new department heads there are a lot of new folks there and so you're kind of having to start all over again with that discussion. People are aware of it. It's on everybody's radar screen. Yes, it's going well in some areas, it's even better in some but we're certainly not there yet. That's my assessment of it. Would yours be any different?

Kevin Berland: No, but I did ask whether you had any programs in effect to strengthen the pressure on department chairs to do this?

President Spanier: Well, my program is to harangue people. It has to be done unit by unit. So I think once a year from now on you should ask this question in the Senate and sort of give me an opportunity to make my point again.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: I wanted to make a comment and I'm hoping it will be interpreted as constructive criticism...

President Spanier: Okay, I'm getting ready...

Wayne R. Curtis: The issue surrounds the academic integrity issue which is likely to be coming to Senate next time. Really the issue is not that, per se, it's the process. Some history. This year, I was asked to go to Student Life Committee and when I asked what would be brought up in that committee, one of the topics they said would be academic integrity. I thought that was a good topic for me personally, just because I was an undergraduate and also I've been dealing with that in courses very specifically. We went through and developed a report and the report was then passed by Senate Council and then it sort of disappeared before one of the previous Senate meetings. Subsequent to that, a joint committee was then put together which was a coalescence of the administrative committee and supposedly the Student Life Committee in which there was really only one active member of the current Student Life Committee. And at 3:30 p.m. on Friday I received an email stating that here is not only the report, but also a consultative report coming from this committee (which is about half faculty) and that it would be brought to our meeting essentially on Monday. And only by virtue of a snow storm and not being able to travel, was I able to work over the weekend to get some of the input into that actual academic integrity issue addressed this morning essentially in the Senate Committee on Student Life meeting. I guess what I'm getting at is that in reflecting on the process that happened, and as a faculty member that was number one interested in it, and specifically went to that committee, it was very difficult for me to get input into that committee. I think that I acknowledge there are committees that expedite the process of, for instance, creating policy/committees and so forth. But in something certainly like academic integrity where the interface is both the problem and potentially certainly I would say, the solution, is the faculty/student interface. There's a need to get by it somewhere along the road and I just felt that certainly in this instance I know there's been some other things, for instance the computer implementation and so forth, where the process has been expedited. But in the process of doing that, I know that if I'm supposed to be representing other faculty and I can barely get my input in being on the committee that's supposedly generating the report, I'm certainly not representing the faculty.

President Spanier: I think you're raising two issues, I'll comment briefly on both. One is the process issue, and the other is the substantive issue. I think nine out of ten times, the Senate and the administration get the process right. Things fly through or creep through but they go through. You know the process is okay and there's a happy outcome. And then there are cases where it didn't work quite so well, or there are too many cooks and too many committees or subcommittees or they aren't coordinated, or there's a communication issue. And I don't really know the nuances of this particular case, so if there was a problem I would regret that, as would some others. I know there are a couple times a year somebody comes into my office and says, "Graham, I'm sorry to tell you this but you were supposed to consult with some committee on that decision". And I said, "Oh I didn't know, I thought I could make that one on my own". And you know, I thought I knew what was going on, so there are hitches like that. We just have to be understanding. Because I think most people who work on these kinds of committees really are trying to do it right, really care and a lot of times they are just trying to keep everybody happy and have a happy outcome. If there was a hitch in this you know we've heard you and will try to do better. But on the particular issue of academic integrity and academic dishonesty, I think this is very important. I am very pleased that the Council of Academic Deans has been talking about this at some of their meetings and the Senate Committees and others have been talking about it. I think it is very important right now especially if you look at national surveys which show that students are showing up at our universities with I think some pretty different attitudes and expectations than many of us had when we were in school. We came to college knowing that cheating was wrong and we'd be in very big trouble and you'd better not do it. Now students come and there are a lot of them who somehow were told along the way, well if you can get away with it of course we should do it, that's life these days. It's very unfortunate. So we do need some policies which straighten this out. Now the one part of this that I was involved in, and this is on the substantive side, is I had a chance to see a couple of drafts along the way where I gave some input on the part of things where a student is caught cheating and the faculty member wants to deal with it and now what's the system. And the system we had before, I thought, was terrible. It was so bad that hardly any faculty member would be brave enough to go up against the system and impose a penalty or start the process. It was too legalistic. And many faculty members felt like they were the ones who did something wrong. They were on the defensive, so I did wade in on that and say that we have to make the process such that if faculty members encounter a case of academic dishonesty you have the authority to impose an "F" in the course. You don't have to go to all kinds of committees and levels of review. Now there's still some due process in the system, you know if a student feels they are wronged, there's someplace they can go to and have an objective hearing about it. But the whole thing was flipped around in a very cumbersome way and if you look at the cases that were being reported, there were hardly any. Amazing, in a university of 81,000 students there are like three academic dishonesty cases a year, come on. So something wasn't right about it and I hope whatever the process was I hope... Is it coming to the Senate at some point?

Chair Nelson: Next month.

President Spanier: I hope when it gets here you support what has emerged. Because I think it will be an important step forward and will help us really get a little more serious about this.

Wayne R. Curtis: What I was suggesting is in the desire to expedite the process we have to be real careful that we don't...we have to tolerate some inefficiency and fanatic process which is to the committees' benefit that we're doing here. And I just get the impression that it's possible to circumvent essentially, I know the computer one and also implementation. Yet another important issue is that we need to have it quickly and so it went out of Senate. And I think the message is that we're not quick enough to do important things. I'm worried you can undermine the reason why I'm here.

President Spanier: I see what you're saying. Some committees are Senate committees, and some are committees belonging to someone else and then there are some committees where there might be interest in two or more arenas. And the trick there I think is getting people coordinated and of course not wasting a lot of people's energy. So if there was a hitch, yes, we'd want to avoid that. Other questions, other topics? Okay, it's all yours Murry.

Chair Nelson: Thank you, President Spanier.

President Spanier: Thank you.






Chair Nelson: We will move to reports. First are legislative reports. First report is from Committees and Rules. It is revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f), it is in your Agenda as Appendix "B," Caroline Eckhardt will present the report from the committee.


Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)

Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: The purpose of this legislation is just to stipulate how the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies is supposed to connect to the Senate. Now the proposal states that the Joint Committee will report to the Senate's Faculty Benefits Committee, which already deals with travel. And I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Chair Nelson: No questions, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of the recommendation, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you, Caroline. Now we'll move to advisory/consultative reports. The first comes from Faculty Affairs Committee, it's a Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions, it is in your packet as Appendix "C". You also should have received a door handout on this report when you entered the room. John Nichols and Louis Milakofsky will present the report.



Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

John S. Nichols, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

John S. Nichols, College of Communication: Thank you, Murry. The intent of this proposal is to change the presumption regarding the relationship between tenure and promotion to associate professor. HR-23 would be changed so that a positive tenure recommendation for an assistant professor would be presumed to also be sufficient for promotion to associate professor. And if a committee or an administrator feels that it is an exceptional case in which promotion should not accompany tenure the burden shifts to the committee or the administrator to demonstrate why. Currently tenure and promotion at Penn State are separate yet simultaneous decisions. There is no formal presumption as to there relationship and the burden of proof rests entirely on the faculty member to demonstrate that he or she qualifies for both promotion and tenure. The Faculty Affairs Committee was concerned that an unwritten culture has developed in some units and at some locations regarding the requirements for promotion and tenure and the relationship between the two. That culture seems to be inconsistent with the agreed upon Penn State goal of integrating teaching, research and service and particularly ensuring that teaching is appropriately rewarded along with research. The result of the culture was a creation of a small but significant underclass of tenured assistant professors on the Penn State faculty. This culture historically has disproportionately disadvantaged our colleagues on the campuses where teaching responsibilities typically are the heaviest. The intent of this proposal is to change that culture and to codify what is increasingly the practice at Penn State, that an assistant professor who qualifies for tenure will also be presumed to enjoy the rank of associate professor unless it is demonstrated that the case is somehow exceptional. The Faculty Affairs Committee originally voted by a lopsided margin to approve the recommendation that appears in the Senate Agenda. During the last two weeks there has been a vigorous three-way negotiation among faculty who support this change, faculty who have or had grave reservations, and the administration. As the traffic cop for that discussion, I'd like to add a footnote that it is one of the most positive examples of shared governance and effectiveness of the Senate as a deliberative body that I have personally seen. The result of the negotiations were clarifications of the committee's intent, and a fine tuning of the language. Those changes appear in the door handout that you should all have. This substitute document was re-authorized by the Faculty Affairs Committee this morning without dissent. Again, Louis Milakofsky our Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee chair is here to answer questions. He, along with Robert Secor, Vice Provost, were the ones responsible for doing the heavy lifting on this report. We're open to your questions.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: I have a question on the first page of the door handout, paragraph three. In the middle of that paragraph it states "161 assistant professors were reviewed for tenure and promotion. Of those, all but six did not receive promotion". Are you sure that's what that means?

Chair Nelson: Robert Secor, do you want to make some clarification there?

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: It should read, "of those who were tenured without promotion". All but six were tenured without promotion.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: To read something like, "of those who receive tenure all but six also received promotion".

Chair Nelson: Is that correct, Robert? Yes it is.

Robert Secor: Of all those reviewed, only six cases were tenured without promotion.

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: John, help me understand these figures. What we're seeing here are end of the line figures, data on people who had already gotten up to the university level and whose cases were voted on. I'm interested in knowing whether the denial of tenure rate, that is the rate of the percentage of people denied tenure, is greater for those who are only recommended for tenure, rather than both. Or whether there is a higher rate of or a lower rate of rejection among those who are recommended for both. Did I say that well?

John S. Nichols: I understand your question. I think the answer is that there is no evidence that sending a case forward only with the recommendation for tenure but not for promotion, will enhance or increase the probabilities of a successful, positive decision on tenure. Indeed there is some anecdotal evidence to indicate that the reverse may be true. A case going forward without an associated recommendation for promotion is less likely to be successful.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: I think the changes you've made make this much clearer as the intent. I know the faculty at my campus would have wanted me to vote against the original proposal because when you simply say there's a disconnect between promotion decisions on one hand, and tenure on the other, the way to fix that disconnect if it should be fixed, allows an open interpretation as to what you change. And I think that the current proposal makes it much clearer and if I understand things correctly what you're saying is decide tenure and we're doing that okay now and then once you decide positively, if you decide positively for tenure that should pretty much make the promotion decision positive as well. And I didn't read that the first time through. Have I heard that correctly?

John S. Nichols: That is the intent of the committee.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: That will make my faculty much happier than the other way.

Louis Milakofsky, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley: Glad to make you happy.

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: John, looking at the recommendation that last change that appeared in the handout. It reads, "However, the burden would be to show why promotion is not warranted". May I ask you on whom that burden rests?

John S. Nichols: If there is a positive recommendation for tenure but an administrator or a committee at any level feels that it's an exceptional case and it should not be accompanied by promotion, then the burden is on that administrator or that committee at whatever level to demonstrate why. We had a long discussion about this in Faculty Affairs today and I think the majority of the committee feels that this is an additional, perhaps redundant, but an additional safeguard to protect faculty interest.

P. Peter Rebane: I understand what you're saying. This would mean for instance, that a head of a division may or may not recommend promotion. Does that send a kind of a signal or could somebody reverse it and say, "Well I think that in spite of what you said promotion is warranted". It seems to me that we are again in a position where unfortunately as these debates fade and five years down the line if when people read this interpret this slightly differently. Because the way you put it, relieves some of the burden issue to make the exceptional case open. I'm not happy with it. You know the history of this thing five years down the line as President Spanier indicated, that we have a turnover in department heads and deans. And I've seen in my years five years down the line, legislation that we wrote here has been interpreted different by different department heads and different deans. I was wondering if this could be somehow tightened up so we are clear as to what we're voting on. Thank you.

John S. Nichols: You raise a very good point and it's a point that the committee is very sensitive to. You've been in the Senate a lot longer than I have but I've been around long enough to recognize that things that are passed by the Senate with certain intent end up several years down the line being applied in ways that we didn't intend. And usually it happens in areas that we don't expect. All I can say is that the Senate and particularly the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, has to be vigilant to make sure how this is implemented. For example, last year we passed HR-40. A lot of the faculty had grave reservations about that and fears that it could be misused in some way and we are aggressively trying to monitor HR-40 to ensure that the Senate's intent is being implemented. I think that's all I could really promise you at this stage.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: Are you changing the definition of what it takes to get tenured as demonstrated potential? Because it sounds to me that all you're saying, "you no longer have to judge potential acceptance by recognizing that it has always been demonstrated by achievement".

Louis Milakofsky: Phil we found that looking at the data, and I hate to look at data because that makes it very impersonal. But being a member of several review committees both in my college and for the university, I feel that the faculty has grown tremendously from the time I started with the idea of one day receiving a letter from the dean saying I've received tenure. We've come a long way baby, so to speak. So I feel that it would be, to make a long story short, a faculty member who has come to that point of making a decision on tenure, whatever that criteria has that should be sufficient for promotion and the reward of being an associate professor. That's the way I look at it from the data and I think the committee...

Philip A. Klein: Forgive me for saying this but you make the definition of what's tenurable sound very fuzzy to me.

Louis Milakofsky: It's fuzzy because each college, I mean it's clear in HR-23 that each colleges' guidelines are different. I could state it from my own personal view as a scientist, but each college has their own criteria to define what the criteria are for tenure and...

Philip A. Klein: Well in the old fashioned way we would have said, "how you demonstrate potential varies from discipline to discipline," and I understand that. But that's not what your saying?

John S. Nichols: We're saying that the criteria for tenure and promotion will be the same. Whatever balance and level the college defines for tenure, it is presumed that that is sufficient to warrant promotion as well.

Louis Milakofsky: There was a case Philip, a specific case that I'm aware of where a faculty member was only put up for tenure but in reality at the university level it appeared to me and to other members of that committee that that faculty member should have also been recommended for promotion. There's nothing we could have done about it at that point under the present rules.

Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education: I have a wording change that might answer Dr. Rebane's question, with your permission?

Chair Nelson: With John and Louis if you want to offer it, then you can offer it as just an editorial change.

Alison Carr-Chellman: Yes. Do you want to try this? The last sentence then would read, "However, the burden would be on the shoulders of the committees or administrators who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted". Dr. Rebane, does that help your problem?

Chair Nelson: Do you want to accept that as editorial or do you want to have it as a friendly amendment?

John S. Nichols: Would you read it back one more time?

Alison Carr-Chellman: Yes. "However, the burden would be on the shoulders of the committees or administrators who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted."

John S. Nichols: That certainly is consistent with the committee's intent.

Chair Nelson: Do you want to accept it as a friendly amendment if that's the case, John? Okay, so that will be given to the Senate Office to make sure we have that properly recorded.

Kevin Berland: I just have a comment to Phil's comment that since the two separate criteria are being collapsed, there's no reason why potential cannot continue to be considered for associate professors. Several associate professors to my knowledge still have potential.

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: In the Commonwealth Campus Caucus I offered two votes to try to get a sense of caucus in terms of how they felt about this. The first was to approve the recommendation of the committee. That was soundly defeated. The second was to postpone a vote on this until the next regular Senate meeting to allow folks at the campuses to take this back to their constituency and get a sense of how they might react to that. I just want to call your attention to that. I'm not sure that you wish at this point to proceed. I don't want to slow up debate in the discussion and I think it's important to get as much input on this as possible. But I do think that it's appropriate for me to say that the caucus did overwhelmingly suggest that we delay the vote on this until the next regular meeting.

John S. Nichols: May I ask you a question? Was the first vote based on the revised version or the original version?

Brian B. Tormey: Yes, on the door handout. The door handout was read to us at that meeting. And the overwhelming response was that there was a strong desire to discuss this back at the campuses with the constituency.

John S. Nichols: Thank you for the forewarning. I certainly don't want to cut off any discussion now as well, to the extent that people are still eager to comment. And Faculty Affairs Committee is sensitive to the second part. Because there is a door handout and they are substantive changes, they're not just editorial changes that some Senators may not feel sufficiently comfortable to vote at this stage. What that would require is a majority vote of this body and I won't presume to decide how the body will vote on that.

Sandra R. Smith, Fayette Campus: I was coming here today to vote against the proposal based on the faculty representation at Fayette. However, given the substantive changes I'd like to take this back to my campus. Therefore, I would like to make a motion that we postpone the vote.

Chair Nelson: Could you give a date that you want to do that?

Sandra R. Smith: Until the next meeting.

Chair Nelson: Thank you. Is there a second to that?

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: Second.

Chair Nelson: Thank you. We will have discussion on the motion to postpone.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I see absolutely no purpose that would be served by postponing this to the next meeting. This is one of the clearest pieces of legislation to come before the Senate. It says only that henceforth, a positive tenure action brings a positive promotion action. And that under the circumstances which someone feels that promotion is not warranted, the burden of proof falls on that individual or that body to demonstrate how the case was supportive of tenure if not supportive of promotion. That party or those parties can go over it then it could go forward in a positive direction. I don't see that there's anything to discuss. I would also characterize this legislation as one of the more constructive pieces, and as doing good and not having very much chance of doing harm as many other pieces of legislation in the past.

Edward W. Bittner, McKeesport Campus: Would I be permitted to tell my faculty at my campus that the criteria for tenure as an important criteria for associate professors may no longer be? Is that correct?

John S. Nichols: It will depend upon your college document. HR-23 is silent on that issue. All we are saying is that if somebody reaches the level according to the criteria defined by the various college documents for tenure, it is presumed that that is a sufficient level for promotion as well.

Chair Nelson: Okay, I allowed that although that was an out of order question. We are speaking just to the motion to postpone so please make your comments directly to that. Thank you.

Dorothy H. Evensen, College of Education: I would just request that if we do decide to postpone this that it be presented with the language that was forged by the committee at this point.

John S. Nichols: We of course will have a Faculty Affairs Committee meeting to discuss that.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: As much as I hate disagreeing with my good friend and colleague Dennis Gouran, there is a reason to postpone it and that is that many of us at the campuses were asked by our colleagues to vote against the proposal. And we feel that the new language may cause them to change their minds. To postpone it may give this change which, I'm going to shock you now Dennis, I agree with you is probably a good thing, it gives it a much better chance at passage and that to me is the best of all possible reasons to postpone.

Dennis S. Gouran: The hallmark of the democratic tradition is that we are elected by our constituents to exercise judgement.

Joseph C. Strasser, Dean, Commonwealth College: This is an issue obviously that has a great deal of interest on the campuses. And it seems to me that since there has been a substantive change it would be in the interest of all to allow the Senators to return to their campuses and to gather support with their constituents in order to be able to come back and cast their vote.

Chair Nelson: Any other comments on the postponement? Okay, seeing none we are voting now. A positive vote will be to postpone this to the next meeting, a negative vote will mean we will continue to discuss the motion that is on the floor and that is this particular report and passage of it. All those in favor of postponement, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Nelson: Aye's have it. This will be postponed until the next meeting. We thank John and Louis and the committee. One note John and Louis, the clarification which was offered by Alison Carr-Chellman in terms of the change, that will be put in somewhere so it can be noted to people on campuses. Can we put that on the web? So if Senators want to get a hold of that they can see it. Next is Outreach Activities. This is Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities. It's Appendix "D" in your packet. Jacob De Rooy will present the report as a multi-media show.


Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities

Jacob De Rooy, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities

Jacob De Rooy: Ladies and gentleman good afternoon. We are pleased to present to you a document that's been a long time in preparation. An engaged university is an institution of higher learning that uses its scholarly resources to address the needs of society including the various constituencies it serves. Your Senate Committee on Outreach Activities was charged to recommend ways to enhance the activity of Penn State Faculty in outreach. This report is the summary of the committee's findings and presents recommendations for promoting the engagement of faculty in outreach. Before proceeding any further in the document which you've all read and have before you, let me just pause to mention that occasionally the question arises, "what is outreach and who does it and how is it done?" Outreach is practiced by faculty members who are on the tenured track and who are off the tenured track. It's practiced by junior faculty and senior faculty in a variety of ways. We have two publications we would like to bring to your attention which are cited in this report but I'd like to show them to you. And I have a colleague in the audience with them and Dave if you would please show this. The first is a voluminous book entitled, "Making Life Better". It's an inventory of outreach activities which indicates the engagement of faculty in outreach and the second one is a magazine called, "Outreach Magazine". It comes out regularly and it contains in the last several issues vignettes that I draw to your attention if you have a chance to examine them. Each one highlighting a different member of our faculty, different ranks and different colleges and the kind of outreach expertise that they bring to making Penn State an engaged university. Basically, the outreach mission that we are addressing here is the attempt to expand the audiences that we serve in the commonwealth and in the nation. Penn State wishes to become, and is becoming, an engaged university and we're delighted to say that many of our senior administrators, our president being one of them, have been engaged in national efforts to promote outreach leadership among universities. Section four of our report indicates that outreach leadership is indeed a concern of many of our peer institutions including the Big Ten, and they are addressing this issue just as we are. What are the benefits to the faculty of engagement in outreach activities? They are indicated in section six of our report and as I conclude this introduction, let me draw your attention to some of them which are on page eight of the report. Outreach activity enriches teaching and learning. It opens new lines of inquiry for research. It enriches understanding of the implications of individual scholarship on our society. It expands possibilities for faculty visibility, research opportunities, support from other constituencies and consulting. It opens new lines of inquiry and support for research. It creates new friends for the university for fund-raising and friend-raising. It provides opportunity for undergraduate and graduate students to gain practical experience and apply newly acquired knowledge and skills. Section seven indicates that one of the barriers that we are trying to overcome in engagement of faculty in research is that we need to develop better methods for evaluation and documentation of faculty outreach activities and to better measure the impact which these programs have on both colleagues and on various constituencies in our society. In one of the recommendations that we will present to you later on after you see the video we're going to try to enhance our concern with that issue. So we wish to conclude this introduction by pointing out that to enhance Penn State's contribution to outreach in our commonwealth, and to help junior faculty to become more involved in outreach, the Outreach Activities Committee is proposing several recommendations to the Faculty Senate. The committee will hope that tenured faculty will take a leadership role in directing more of their scholarly activities toward outreach. And they would do so if accurate, reliable, professional and practical processes for documentation and assessment were available. We are now going to pause before presenting our recommendations, which call for a vote of the Senate, to show you a brief video which we have prepared. This video contains vignettes to illustrate in a very limited way, as it's only part of a huge variety of outreach activities at Penn State, vignettes to illustrate the kind of outreach roles that have been played in the areas of health, ceramics technology, dairy herding and education. So with your indulgence, please enjoy this video and then we'll return with our recommendations. Thank you.

Turn if you will to section nine of Appendix "D" and that begins on page ten and let me summarize very briefly. I'm not going to read all the text, but let me summarize the seven recommendations we are putting forward for your consideration. Recommendation one. The office of the president and provost shall continue to provide leadership for communicating the value of outreach at The Pennsylvania State University to the college deans and other academic leaders. It is important that direction and leadership be given by those administrators who are directly responsible for providing that recognition. Specifically the dean, department heads and school directors. Recommendation two. The committee recommends that outreach objectives and activities be included in the strategic plans and mission statements of all colleges and departments. It has become common to use the word "outreach" in many mission statements of colleges and we've examined all the colleges' mission statements. But the nature and objectives of outreach activities are generally vague. We are therefore, suggesting that outreach objectives be articulated in these statements to show how these objectives are to be achieved. Recommendation three is a very important one for us. We encourage all faculty, junior and senior, to seek opportunities for outreach activities appropriate to their individual scholarly activities and missions. Each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach of all faculty. The rationale is that outreach activities may not be appropriate for every member of the faculty. However, outreach activities may in fact be quite suitable to replace some current activities in resident instruction and peer focused research and service. The most effective process for increasing faculty engagement is to design statements of professional responsibilities that include outreach activities. Recommendation four. Establish an annual faculty outreach award in each college and an annual outreach award in departments where appropriate to recognize outstanding research. This award should include a monetary honorarium and should be well-publicized within the academic units and the university. And of course the model that this would pattern against is the current university-wide Faculty Outreach Award. Recommendation five. Administrators are urged to provide opportunities for faculty members to develop outreach projects as part of their assigned professional duties and to enhance their ability to work with stakeholders outside the university. This may be accomplished by providing sabbatical leaves to engage in outreach. This may also be accomplished by providing seed funding for outreach projects that might generate external financing. Recommendation six. The university and individual colleges should establish faculty development workshops or other opportunities for faculty members to enhance skills in outreach. In other words workshops, conferences or other activities should be provided that are guided by experienced outreach faculty both within and outside the university to help us develop clearer outreach objectives. Finally, faculty leaders who are currently engaged in outreach should strive to develop procedures for both the documentation and rigorous assessment of outreach activities. The officers of the University Faculty Senate should charge the Outreach Activities and the Faculty Affairs Committees to develop guidelines for documenting and assessing outreach for use in annual and extended reviews of tenured faculty, such as in HR-40. We point out, by the way, in our rationale statement that outreach is already provided in each section of the promotion and tenure dossier. What we're striving for is a greater utilization of the current wording of HR-23 by providing documentation and assessment standards. That, Mr. Chair, is our recommendation and what we request to go to the Senate.

Chair Nelson: Thank you Jacob. The intention is to vote on this as a package rather than seriatim unless I hear otherwise that is what we will do. Comments or questions for Professor De Rooy?

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: Jacob, I'm asking a question of an alternative mode that maybe the faculty did not consider. A hundred years ago when this issue came up, land grant institutions chose to engage in outreach by having a totally separate funding bureaucracy to help in outreach (i.e., extension services). People who were specialists in dealing between the researchers, the producers of knowledge and the clients, translators. Three years ago I was a representative of this university to the CIC committee that dealt with multi-dimensional excellence and one of the key aspects there was also outreach. I can tell you of the other CIC universities, a number of them said, "We are not downloading that on to our faculty as a major responsibility. We want them to be active teachers, scholars in their research. Outreach is something that we do not see as something that we should also require them to do in terms of an extra activity." Now your committee chose not to go that route. You chose not to have a recommendation that says, "We recommend to the university that outreach be augmented by having an expanded group of people who work with faculty in translating their ideas and in being the key workers such as the extension service and assisting this university in outreach." Why did you choose not to do this and choose to make this a much more salient responsibility of the faculty in tenure and promotion?

Jacob De Rooy: Gordon, let me point out that we looked to Cooperative Extension Service at Penn State as providing a very interesting and very fascinating model. We have faculty members in cooperative extension who are on tenure track, who go through the tenure review process and the promotion process and are very successful. In using the current language of HR-23 in succeeding in getting the kind of professional recognition at Penn State they deserve, pointing to their outreach scholarship, their outreach teaching and their outreach service, those are three activities defined in our document and getting that kind of recognition from the promotion and tenure review process. We are also aware that there are some universities that have a large group of people who are devoted 100 percent to outreach activities. Quite apart from the normal activities and assignments and responsibilities of the resident instruction faculty. We feel in our deliberations that, in fact, that outreach model provided by cooperative extension should be, where appropriate, extended to other activities of the university. There is a great deal of scholarly talent, energy, ability and expertise in fields outside of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State, which offers a tremendous opportunity for Penn State to become engaged in solving many of the problems of our society. And what we're trying to do is see whether we could look beyond Agricultural Sciences and tap some of those energies, some of that intellectual resource in other areas and apply those to societies problems we become truly an engaged university. Now it's not exclusively in HR-23 but we're heading in that direction.

Gordon F. De Jong: Then you should have a recommendation that recommends that 10, 15 whatever is appropriate the way your committee sees it, percent of all standing appointments be budgeting outreach. And your proposal has marked budgetary consequences in it at the teaching level.

Jacob De Rooy: Well, we did review the budgetary implications. What we're saying, Gordon, is not adding a layer of responsibility to an already heavily burdened faculty. That would certainly not be a justifiable recommendation to put before this body. What we're saying is that perhaps we should examine what we all currently do in teaching, research and service and see whether some of our current activities can be substituted for more outreach oriented activities. For example, in study of demographics which I know is an area of great interest to you, perhaps there is an area of demographic research which immediately addresses the interest of some non-university constituency and you may have to translate your expertise and knowledge to apply to their needs. And take some of your time to do that type of work. For example, and I don't want to be too personal about it, Gordon, I know that you have produced white papers, and position papers for The Institute of State and Regional Studies at Capital College applying your expertise to individual issues that were relevant to our legislators, for example. It's that kind of work that you have done that we'd like to draw, again, we're not adding a layer of responsibility we're saying can we in fact substitute some outreach activities for the more traditional forms of scholarship that most of us are involved with.

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: I would like to bring to your attention my department's experience with what we historically have considered outreach. The department has had German/Slavic day for the past seven or eight years. It has always been held in the HUB and this is where financial strictures are beginning to come in. The HUB this year for the 2000 activity tripled, basically the rental charges from $250 for the old ballroom to $800. At that point it became difficult for a small unit such as ours to finance that because it would have more than doubled the budget. I was going to contact the outreach office, we do have a major office and I felt that this indeed brings in about 250-270 high school students from central Pennsylvania. None other than Joe Paterno gave the keynote address this past spring; that's how serious some people actually consider that. And that before we even reached that level, administrators very kindly asked me the following questions and gave me the following piece of advice. I was told that outreach really is to create in-reach and if I need to cover such budgetary shortfalls why wouldn't I ask the high school students to pay admission? Couldn't we ask admission, that would be one way of making up the shortfall. How about this, that and the other and I had to admit that our kind of outreach which apparently is almost 100 years old as Gordon says, because it's so historical and not in line with what this document may say, does not create immediate image but five years later these high school students may attend Penn State and 30 years later these high school students may actually donate funds. We have supplementary funding for this year but the case is basically ended because we are not creating enough image.

Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture: As I look at this document, I'm looking at page two. I come from a college that probably engages in as much outreach if not more than any college probably per person more. Much of our outreach is research. Somehow I'm concerned that it doesn't quite get into this document and I'm looking at the bottom of the page there where it talks about outreach research and defines what it is. As I see it this definition is essentially the collaborative scientific model--such as you have scientist between the academy and industry and things like that. I see under outreach teaching you have exhibits and performances listed. When one of our faculty members gives a concert at Carnegie Hall, this is very much research. We define research and I thought Penn State culture had come to the point and I think that it has in general, where research and creative activity is considered very much part of that blue print. But here it seems to be considered part of teaching. I would like at the very least if this document is passed see something that acknowledges this kind of research under outreach research. I have quickly put together a sentence; it's not as eloquent as I would like but I would like to offer it as a suggestion. At the bottom of page two--"outreach research involves a two-way interaction," and then going to the end of that sentence, "each contributing to the research". I would like to see added something along the line, "it also involves research and creative activity in which public presentation is inherent". I use the word inherent there because you could say, "well public presentation is also part of when someone writes a book or something like that". But I mean something where the actual research could be an artistic exhibition, creative performance or whatever it is, essential to the activity itself.

Chair Nelson: Are you offering that as a friendly amendment and if so Jacob are you willing to accept that?

Jacob De Rooy: We will accept that as a friendly amendment. Let me point out that these definitions on page two are not part of the legislation we're putting in front of you but I think that's perfectly valid. And the point has been made before and it's our oversight not to have done that. We were perhaps too concerned with brevity than we were with some of the substance we should have included. Thank you.

Chair Nelson: As Jacob noted that is not part of the legislation. It can be noted in the introduction here. But we are voting only on and would amend only the legislative parts which are the recommendations.

Arthur W. Carter, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs: This is such an excellent document, it's so compelling I just had to make a comment. Looking at recommendation six--The university and individual colleges should establish faculty development workshops or other opportunities for faculty members to enhance skills in outreach. I just think it's really important here to say something about students and community. Rodney Erickson cited earlier in this document talking about the value for student learning through outreach. But I think it sort of gets lost in the larger context of this document. And it would really be wonderful if you talk about not only enhancing their skills in outreach but also embracing professional staff and community through collaboration and coalition building. I think there is another model even beyond the agricultural model as one comes from our old activist days of the 70's and 60's. And it is about this partnering with community and partnering with students because they are indeed when they get involved in outreach learning they are equal partners with the faculty. So I just hope there's some way to say that any kind of faculty development effort would embrace professional staff who may be deeply immersed in the communities that you work with. And some kind of collaborative efforts and coalition building efforts as part of the faculty development.

Terry J. Peavler, College of the Liberal Arts: I would hope that if we pass this, it would be with the understanding that it would be fairly liberally ignored. I think the outreach statements must be vague in many instances because of the variety at this university. I think that they should be optional. More exactly, the part on strategic planning. All of us have to do that in every department. We have very few words, very few pages, very little space that we're allowed and I would hate to think that I'm supposed to give a paragraph of my space to planning specific outreach activities for my Portuguese faculty in State College where they really have no community. And I think that all of us are engaged in outreach, but I think the kind of specific things in the way that you're doing them, is to me what is kept minimal in the judgement of department heads, deans, etc.

Adrian J. Wanner, College of the Liberal Arts: I was intrigued in this document by the sharp divide you're making between tenured and non-tenured faculty and their role in outreach. And what you seem to be saying also, that you're not quite spelling out, is that non-tenured faculty have got to be careful not to get into too much outreach because it could endanger their tenure case. And once you are safely tenured so to speak, then you can indulge in this activity without further damage to your career. One issue you're not addressing is promotion from an associate to full professor. You mention annual reviews, you mentioned the mandatory post-tenure faculty review, but obviously promotion really is something rather different. Are you also suggesting that the criteria for promotion to full professorship get changed? You've got research you get de-emphasized and or outreach emphasized. Because otherwise it seems to me as an associate professor I would not do a lot, spend a lot of my time in outreach if that would delay or jeopardize my promotion to full professor.

Jacob De Rooy: First of all, let me point out that we did not intend to create a document that says what you said. And that is that non-tenured faculty should not engage in outreach or rather should do so with only a great deal of care. We did have a sentence in which we did specifically state and I can't locate it right now, that junior faculty should balance their outreach activity with their more traditional duties.

Adrian J. Wanner: By implication then, senior faculty don't have to worry about this topic?

Jacob De Rooy: No, not at all. What we're trying to say is that senior faculty are people who have gone through the promotion and tenure process, their expertise and their intellectual and scholarly abilities are well documented and well respected. And therefore, they may be in a better position than any one else to lead the way to open up new ways of outreach activity. Now there is also a hidden agenda here, and the hidden agenda is that if we can get senior faculty to take on more of a leadership role in showing us how to do outreach activity, they will be in a position to mold, to shape and create better mechanisms for assessing and documenting outreach activities of their junior ranking colleagues and they will be on the same promotion and tenure committees that will review these colleagues. And therefore, they are going to be in a better position to implement a good rigorous review of those junior colleagues outreach activities. HR-23 allows for that. What we're saying is that perhaps the only reservation we have about the current HR-23 is nothing wrong with the wording of it, we have outreach teaching, we have outreach service, outreach teaching and service and research. But we don't have a paella-rigger the way we do for traditional activities in assessing and documenting these things. Perhaps if these people who have gone through the promotion and tenure process, the senior tenured faculty, could show us how to do that, we'd feel more comfortable in utilizing HR-23 as it's currently worded. But certainly we're not telling junior faculty that they could not do outreach.

Wayne R. Curtis: An example that relates both to the funding issues and some others. I was on the sabbatical review committee in Engineering. We had a dozen which we eventually had positive. One of them clearly, he read the sabbatical guidelines and that's supposed to improve your teaching and improve your research. One was what we called benevolent sabbatical. Where we couldn't clearly identify it as being improving either their teaching or their research but it looked like something that had tremendous potential for outside brownie points. It wasn't written in that document. I see this as an ability to permeate this language in other places where it might be appropriate to have the word outreach and then interpreted in that way.

Paul F. Clark, College of the Liberal Arts: If I heard you correctly you suggested that these activities might occur not in place of teaching and research but suggested that there be a shifting of responsibility. This would be added to current expectations and I'd just like to suggest that I think that's a little naive. I've been here 21 years and I've never seen expectations in teaching and research go down. They just continue to go up. My fear is that this is only going to add to what are already increasing teaching and research expectations. I think we have to be careful of that.

Jacob De Rooy: My response to that is that if that's the way that recommendations have been read then we haven't articulated them as well as we should have. Because that's certainly not our intent. Let me return to my response to Professor De Jong that we're not proposing adding another layer of expectation responsibility. We're asking for you in discussion with your academic leaders, during your annual reviews or your post-tenure review, discuss ways of perhaps redesigning your mission to include more distinct outreach orientated activities in place of some of your traditional activities. But not to replace them entirely but to rather get a blend of such activities. That's our goal.

Ingrid M. Blood, Associate Vice Provost & Associate Director, Undergraduate Education: You mention that we should really pay attention to recommendation three. There's so many mixed messages I'm hearing. If you read the very first line, "Each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach of all faculty." Then you go down and read the last line, "Any extra assignments should be tied to specific additional rewards." Confusing, is this supplemental salary? I'm cautioning us about putting too much emphasis on service area which was really an area that I'm seeing this, in a response to what some of the others have said. There needs some clarification.

Jacob De Rooy: If you want to suggest additional wording feel free to do so but let me quickly point out Ingrid, that the extra assignments and extra rewards sentence had quite a different motive. What we're suggesting is that we try to make outreach activity part of our on-load activity, not extra supplement. But in those cases where the outreach would be extra to our current assignments and not substitute for those assignments. In those cases it would seem equitable that additional compensation be provided. But certainly it's not the only way in which we should do outreach.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: I'm finding similarly that the report is vague and confusing. It's almost hard to say let's vote against it because it sounds like we're against outreach. The way the report is written I can't see making much of a positive difference. Very close to the section that Ingrid was just commenting on the first sentence of recommendation three reads, "Each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach of all faculty." The first sentence of the rationale for that very same recommendation reads, "Outreach activities may not be appropriate for every member of the faculty." I honestly cannot think that this is ready and I'm not sure what is the proper parliamentary procedure for sending it back to committee or postponing it or whatever. But I don't think it's clearly enough written that it would make the positive difference that you'd like it to make.

Jacob De Rooy: Well Caroline, would it perhaps make recommendation three more operational for you right now if we take some of that first sentence in the rationale and add it to the first sentence of recommendation three. Perhaps by saying each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach activity of all faculty where appropriate to the faculty members mission, because that's basically what we're saying. Would that in fact, make recommendation three more meaningful?

Caroline D. Eckhardt: I'm not sure I want to re-write this bit by bit throughout. That might help in that instance but then the rationale without that sentence also starts to fall apart. I genuinely don't think that it's clear enough. I think that outreach has to be tied more closely to this idea of specific additional rewards, that ought to be clarified. The comment my colleague made--are we eliminating something? I don't see that? It says we're not adding anything but if we're doing something additional we're not eliminating anything else. This is a pervasive lack of clarity in the document so that I would hesitate to say, let's just move part of one sentence here and then just say that it's ready.

Patricia A. Book, Outreach and Cooperative Extension: I don't know if I understood completely the last two comments but I thought I heard the Senators say that in one case they were equating outreach with service. Which is not how outreach is decided at Penn State. It's not how the definition of the equation has been made. It's a measure of teaching, research and service. The second question seems to try to tie outreach to extra compensation as if this is only an extra assignment. I think the clarification has been made and it's not part of the recommendations. Since I serve on this committee, I was involved in the deliberations of the committee and the intent is for the faculty to perhaps, as Dr. De Rooy indicated, move more of this to an on-load activity. And there are examples of this in fact, it's happening. The faculty are developing new courses and certificates and delivering them through the World Campus to external audiences that are largely outside the State of Pennsylvania from all over the country. They are teaching those courses as part of their teaching load. It's not an additional assignment it's part of their teaching load. And the development of those are being equated to development of their teaching new courses, to developing a course on-load.

Terry J. Peavler: I think what most of and many of you are saying is that "where appropriate" would be appropriate to include in this recommendation. I agree with all the comments. It is so often appropriate but this treats it as if it's always appropriate for every faculty member in every department in every circumstance. That's why I said I hope that it would be wisely and widely ignored. I certainly didn't mean to attack the legislation. It's not always appropriate and in my own department in many instances it is and in many instances it is not, and I think we need that flexibility in here so that we're not writing strategic plans that are just fantasies so we can satisfy this extra burden.

Chair Nelson: Are you prepared to vote on this?

Jacob De Rooy: Just a comment on the last item. Again, what we're trying to do is eliminate the concept of outreach as in your words an extra burden. We're trying to make it as Dr. Book pointed out a part of on-load activities in those cases where it might be quote "an extra burden" it would be tied to specific additional compensation. But the other point that I want to make is that we do say elsewhere in the document that not all faculty should engage in outreach but we want it to be considered where appropriate. So if you wanted to suggest a change in wording in recommendation three to include the term "where appropriate to the mission of the department and the faculty member" that would not be contrary to our intent.

Terry J. Peavler: I would feel that we need "where appropriate" in recommendation two also because as a department head I find it particularly troublesome. And I think that throughout the document there are I think "where appropriate" should be a part of every recommendation.

Wayne R. Curtis: If we just simply change "all" to "appropriate" in three and "all" to "appropriate" in two it seems to satisfy.

Jacob De Rooy: Quickly scanning the room to see if I have any objections from my committee members and I don't see anyone objecting so...

Chair Nelson: So please note in recommendations two and three if you'd specify where that is Wayne. It is a friendly amendment that has been accepted by the committee chair.

Wayne R. Curtis: I'll start with three, "Each academic unit is encouraged to promote outreach of appropriate faculty," the first sentence. And in recommendation two, "mission statements of appropriate colleges and departments." Do you want that one there or not?

Jacob De Rooy: Since you took the initiative you tell me where.

Wayne R. Curtis: Where appropriate as an appendices to that sentence.

Jacob De Rooy: So the words "where appropriate" would follow the word "departments"?

Wayne R. Curtis: Yes, in recommendation two and also change the word "all" to "appropriate" in recommendation three.

Chair Nelson: I will accept those as friendly amendments since Jacob has but I do not want to see us engage in legislation writing here. So I hope anything else will be minimal as friendly amendments in this sort.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: Given all the word-smithing that's being going on around the floor may I make a recommendation...I'd like to move that the report be taken back by the committee and reworded in committee and brought back to us again.

Senator: Second.

Chair Nelson: Okay, we will vote on the motion to return this to committee for appropriate rewording and that is all we will be discussing. Is there any discussion on that motion to return it to the committee? Please only speak to the motion to return it to the committee.

Edward W. Bittner: How many words are being changed? Is it significant to throw it back to the committee?

Chair Nelson: I can't say. I think the motion is to return it to the committee for reexamination.

Jacob De Rooy: If we are going to return to committee we need very specific guidance. And the word-smithing that Jean seemed to refer to is simply the inclusion of the words "appropriate" in recommendation two and "appropriate" in recommendation three. And if that's all the word-smithing that's required it would seem that we're putting a burden on the Senate by asking them to have to reconsider this.

Chair Nelson: If you disagree and want to continue with this you would vote "no". If you want to return it to committee and feel that there is more work that has to be done you will vote "yes". Any other comments on this particular motion?

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: It's my sense that it's not just the words of the recommendation but there is a certain amount of ambiguity around the concepts. And that is why I would support sending it back to committee to look at. Do we really need seven recommendations here? We already have outreach in our P&T guidelines and things in various areas and perhaps conceptually we can focus just a little bit more on just what we might recommend to support more outreach activity.

Ingrid M. Blood: Just a recommendation to have some consultation with Faculty Affairs. There's a very close connection in HR-23.

Jacob De Rooy: Ingrid, we did consult with Faculty Affairs and this particular document is not an HR-23 document.

Ingrid M. Blood: There are implications for the way I read it in its present stage.

Paul F. Clark: I'd like to speak in favor of sending the report back to committee. I'm very sympathetic with sentiments expressed. But I do not think that this report will change the culture in some colleges where outreach is given very little importance; where it does not count for much at all. You have an opportunity here to make an impact on the culture of these colleges and I don't think this report will do it. It's not strong enough or specific enough.

Chair Nelson: Other comments on the motion to return this to the committee for rewording and restructuring? Okay seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Nelson: Okay, we're going to count. I think we can use hands as opposed to standing. The motion is to return to committee. If you are in favor of that motion please raise your hand and leave it up if you are a voting member of the Senate. All in favor of not returning this and in fact, leaving it here toward further discussion please raise your hand. The motion carries, it will be returned to committee. I think Professor De Rooy would appreciate and the committee would appreciate any comments you have to help on what you think might be useful for some of the ways to improve the report. Next is an informational report from Senate Council on the Faculty Census Report. Christopher Bise, Secretary of the Senate will present the report.



University Faculty Census Report 2000-2001

Christopher J. Bise, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you very much Murry. You have before you in Appendix "E" the results of the Census held to determine the membership of the University Faculty Senate for next year. Based on an information base provided by the Office of Administrative Services and using the definitions contained in our Constitution, Article II, Section I, and based on the appointments as of the end of October the total membership for next year's University Faculty Senate will be 260 individuals. Are there any questions?

Chair Nelson: Questions or comments for Christopher?

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine: I'm probably not reading this correctly but the table on Faculty Census Report under Medicine the third column over, there's 480 for faculty and 24 in Faculty Senate

Christopher J. Bise: That's in 1999-2000.

Dwight Davis: And in that third column there's 519?

Christopher J. Bise: That's for 2000-2001. Look at the headings.

Dwight Davis: Oh, I see.

Chair Nelson: Other comments or questions for Christopher? Okay, thank you Christopher. Our last informational report is the Senate Committee on University Planning having to do with Transportation Services at University Park, it's Appendix "F". Please note also that CATA Bus has supplied the Senate with the publication "Ride Guide" that you received upon entering the auditorium. Page 56 shows the town loop; page 57, the campus loop so when Peter makes a reference to that you have your guides right in front of you and you can follow along. Peter Deines will present the report.


Transportation Services at University Park

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you, Murry. I think the report is very self-explanatory. The only thing I would like to say is avail yourself to the services that are available. Both that are described in the Appendix "F" and in the "Ride Guide" that has been given to you. If you have specific questions about particular issues on the transportation opportunities that are there, there are several contact points given in the report. So you can email or telephone those contacts.

Todd D. Ellis: One thing that you might want to add to this is the new "Link" service, which might be useful to the faculty since it runs only from the lots out by the Bryce Jordan Center to Palmer Museum and to Rec Hall. It's a lot faster and may be less crowded than the free "Loops".

Peter Deines: Right. I think that is a good point. I think you make an excellent case for getting a different mode of information to the faculty and the students. And I think the committee is working on encouraging the office to make the information available more directly on the web.

Chair Nelson: Is that on page 58? Is the "Link" included on there?

Carly M. Lipsitz, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: I just have to point out that on page three where it talks about the No Fare Loop Service. Point one, "There is less than a five minute waiting period between buses during peak hours." That's totally false. No kidding, to get up to here today it took me 20 minutes from Simmons to Kern. I could have walked faster. I think there is a lot of problems with the "Loop" service since CATA took it over. And I just had a CATA bus driver say to me the other day when I questioned them about why there were two "Loops" running back-to-back with no cars in between them and then nothing for 15 minutes she said, "well, we've just gotten this service turned over to us and you know we're still getting the bugs worked out". And my response to her would have been, "you've had this for six months, I don't understand how hard it is to ride around in a circle".

Peter Deines: It's mostly traffic, and I think the Office of Business Services is aware that there are bugs that need to be straightened out. There is some road construction that needs to be made, there is traffic backed up because there is no possibility for the traffic to pass at appropriate stops. And so there are things to be still worked out. The point I suppose that the committee was trapped by, was that actually very few faculty who knew about the availability of the services that are there. Simply put, they didn't recognize what savings they might have and the students might have if they would avail themselves to the services.

Carly M. Lipsitz: Just one thing. Also I think along with the problem of the traffic, is just the problem of getting off and on. Part of the hold-up today was we had an entire full bus and the bus driver in the front of the bus said, "please move back". And there was no where to go so we stood there for another five minutes while no one moved. There's going to be people that are left behind and I just don't think there are enough buses. There are things that need to be worked out.

Peter Deines: Right. I think there are a number of specific issues that are probably there and if you could convey them to the contacts that are given. There are email addresses. So you could email and if you're not quite sure where to go you can email me and I will see that your comments and suggestions get into the right place. I think the institution is working very hard to make this work. It is in the process of being developed.

P. Peter Rebane: One way you can increase ridership, especially among faculty would be on the "Loop" buses to put a big sign in front saying "Free". I think that would work because some of us who come and are used to the old system of paying in exact fares as well as people who visit this campus and park in one place. You cannot tell from the outside, the electronic message moves pretty rapidly and unless you are a resident here you would not know that the "Loop" and the "Link" are for free. And I think there are some people, visitors here I know, our visitors would get on it instead of dealing with correct change because you have to have correct change. That perhaps a sign in the window or the roof saying, "Free" might encourage more people to take it.

Peter Deines: I think that's another good point.

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Can you say to what extent which faculty and staff parking fees around campus are being used to pay for that "free" service?

Peter Deines: No, I'm not sure which way to figure it out.

Chair Nelson: Other questions or comments? Thank you, Peter.






May I have a motion to adjourn? The February 1, 2000 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:43 PM.


Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f) (Legislative)

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of January 11, 2000

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relations of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions (Advisory/Consultative)

Outreach Activities - Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities (Advisory/Consultative)

Senate Council - University Faculty Census Report - 2000-2001 (Informational)

University Planning - Transportation Services at University Park (Informational)


Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of

Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions


[Implementation Date: July 1, 2000]



Twenty-five years ago, Penn State was not the research University it is today. Only in 1974 did the Senate approve a version of HR-23 that required systematic reviews for tenure and promotion, including a full-scale review of faculty for whom a sixth-year decision needed to be made. Our faculty on our campuses particularly was not the strong faculty it is today, and many of the faculty with academic rank did not have terminal degrees. That has changed markedly in recent decades, particularly since the 1980s and President Jordan's commitment to make Penn State one of the major research universities in the country. TO AN EVER GREATER DEGREE WE HAVE ALSO BEEN INSISTING THAT TEACHING BE A MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN TENURE AND PROMOTION DECISIONS FOR FACULTY AT ALL LOCATIONS. (FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1998 THE FACULTY SENATE VOTED TO INCLUDE EXTENSIVE REVISIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR HR-23 IN ORDER TO PLACE GREATER EMPHASIS ON THE EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN THE P&T PROCESS.) Today we are proud of a system-wide faculty that consists of strong teachers and researchers.

Changes in Practice

One sign of that strength is that in the tenuring process all of our units assume that tenure is to be granted only to faculty who can be advanced in rank, either at the time of tenure or in the immediate future. Historically, this has not been the case. There are still 169 tenured assistant professors at Penn State--21 at University Park. These are largely long-time assistant professors, mostly tenured before the "modern" period. Most of these tenured assistant professors have served us well for a number of years, and we do not mean to undervalue their contributions and what they have given Penn State over the years. However, if they were tenured with an expectation that promotion was just a step away, this has not been the case as the years have passed.

Over the years, however, as we have become a stronger University system-wide; we have been reducing our proportion of tenured assistant professors because we have been making significantly fewer decisions to tenure without promotion. In the PAST three years, 161 assistant professors were reviewed RECOMMENDED for tenure. and promotion. Of those, all but six (two each year) did not receive promotion. At the same time, 21 other assistant professors received promotion, even before their tenure decision. (See records for 96-97, 97-98, and 98-99, attached.) Clearly, there is no longer an assumption that tenure and promotion is a two-step process, with tenure the first step in the process and promotion granted at a later date.

Reason to Review Policy

Why is this important? To begin with, to change our language so that policy is not at odds with practice. The statement in HR-23 is as follows: "Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment." The language, passed by the Senate in 1974, and never revised, was once behind an assumption of a two step process for tenure and promotion, and mirrors a world where many faculty were tenured and then had to earn promotion at a future date. (There would frequently be two committees, one to consider tenure--and often consisting of largely tenured assistant professors--and another to consider promotion.) It was this policy that led to assumptions behind the creation of a cadre of 168 tenured assistant professors. Some still point to this language as justifying tenure decisions based on "promise" but little achievement. However, over the past 25 years, the recognized "performance" that the statement says is necessary to signify promise for tenure has risen to a level where it is reasonable to assume that promotion to associate professor is also warranted.

Benchmarking with the CIC

Our counterparts in the CIC either tie tenure to promotion absolutely by policy (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin), or by practice (Michigan State says that they haven't had separate decisions in 15+ years and Minnesota says that, while its policy says only that "the granting of tenure will ordinarily be accompanied by promotion," "our current practice is that tenure is granted with promotion to associate professor"). Only Purdue suggests that it is still possible for a decision to be made to tenure without promoting, but only rarely and in exceptional circumstances. Several of these schools talk about old codes that separated the two decisions before they were replaced by the new ones that have tied them. Penn State is now the only CIC school to have a statement--placed in our P&T policy document over 25 years ago and never revised--that makes separate decisions the basis of understanding.

Reasons for Changing the Presumption from Separate Decisions to Linkage

The reasons to consider changing the presumption behind the current wording are therefore twofold: 1) Major universities, like Penn State and our counterparts in the CIC, do not wish to create a faculty that is identified as not promotable beyond the assistant professor level; and 2) if we can make the case for tenure for a faculty member in a University where that case has to be multiple times stronger than it was in 1974, then we should assume that the case is also strong enough to promote the faculty member under review. We do not create a happy, productive, and loyal faculty by recognizing them with tenure while withholding the rank that most of their counterparts at Penn State--and virtually all of their counterparts at other major universities--receive with it.

Arguments for the Presumption of Separation

The arguments for the present language are usually as follows:

1) Faculty being reviewed are disadvantaged if it is an "up or out" presumption, since many of our valued faculty members today would, by that presumption, not be with us. In any case, it is easier to achieve tenure if the case is not strong enough for promotion if only a tenure recommendation is being made.

Response: The policy as it is applied in practice probably does more to benefit the faculty member whom we want to tenure than it does to disadvantage them. In the few cases where we have granted tenure without promotion in recent years, it is more likely that both would have been granted if the candidate had been recommended for both tenure and promotion, than that the candidate would have been denied both if both decisions had to be made to agree. Moreover, it is not true that a weak candidate has a better chance of receiving tenure if promotion is not simultaneously recommended in the sixth year. A weak candidate is a weak candidate, and calling attention to that weakness by not recommending promotion does not strengthen the case, even though tenure and promotion are, by policy, separate decisions.

2) Faculty members at campus colleges teach more and more is expected in the way of service than is true of their colleagues at University Park; they therefore have fewer hours, as well as fewer resources, for research, and so should be allowed more time before a promotion decision is made.

There are two responses to this consideration. First, efforts in faculty development need to be made to give provisional faculty at all locations the best opportunity to succeed, and success should include promotion as well as tenure. Campus administrators need to monitor candidates' service time and teaching schedules so that neither are all-consuming, and initiatives should be taken to support and advise faculty in their research agendas.

Second, where expectations for promotion are not reasonable within a six year period, they need to be made reasonable, rather than assume that the timetable for promotion to associate professor should extend beyond the provisional period (with the possibility that such promotion may never be achieved after the tenure decision). All campus colleges are now tenure-granting units, and they should construct tenure and promotion guidelines in the context of their mission, with reasonable expectations for what faculty in a research university at a campus location with a strong mission for teaching and service should achieve in the provisional period before the granting of tenure.

The Faculty Affairs Committee, therefore, recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed so that the presumption is that a positive sixth-year tenure decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT FOR promotion to associate professor, although in exceptional cases a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote.


The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs Committee recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed as indicated below so that the presumption is that a positive TENURE decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT FOR promotion to associate professor; in an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote. The change in wording has no impact on the possibility of promoting before tenure.

"Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment." The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT promotion to associate professor.; In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; HOWEVER, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE(S) OR ADMINISTRATOR(S) WHO WISH TO SEPARATE PROMOTION FROM A POSITIVE TENURE DECISION TO SHOW WHY PROMOTION IS NOT WARRANTED.


Shelton S. Alexander
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Melvin Blumberg
Robin B. Ciardullo
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky
David J. Myers
John S. Nichols, Chair
Amy L. Paster
Denise Potosky
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim C. Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair



Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Bagby, John W.
Barbato, Guy F.
Bardi, John F.
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Book, Patricia A.
Borzellino, Joseph E.
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Burchard, Charles
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Cao, Wenwu
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Arthur W.
Carter, Nicholas
Casteel, Mark A.
Carr-Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Christy, David P.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Diehl, Renee D.
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Todd D.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Floros, Joanna
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, Thomas A.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Fullerton, Erika R.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gutgold, Nichola
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine M.
Hatcher, Lisa C.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
Hock, Winand K.
Holt, Frieda M.
Hufnagel, Pamela
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Kenney, W. Larry
Klein, Philip A.
Krochalis, Jeanne
Kunze, Donald E.
Lasher, William C.
Lindberg, Darla
Lukezic, Felix L.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
May, James E.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Myers, Jamie M.
Nath, Richard F.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Olson, Jon
Ozment, Judy P.
Paster, Amy L.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Peavler, Terry J.
Pell, Eva J.
Porterfield, Neil H.
Potosky, Denise
Preston, Deborah
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Rodriguez, Lola
Rogers, Gary W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor C.
Roth, David E.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schott, Adam
Schuelein, Derek R.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Sharp, Jeffrey M.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol A.
Smith James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda Klebe
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Walters, Robert A.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Ware, Roger P.
Weiss, Beno
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

136 Total Elected
6 Total Ex Officio
11 Total Appointed
153 Total Attending


Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students (Legislative)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid/Undergraduate Education - Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b) (Legislative)

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - Academic Integrity Report (Legislative)

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate (Advisory/Consultative)

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination (Legislative)

Undergraduate Education - Grade Distribution Report (Informational)

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Affairs - Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99 (Informational)

Faculty Benefits - Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office (Informational)

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities - Annual Report for 1998-99 (Informational)