THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 36-----FEBRUARY 25,
2003-----Number 5
The
Senate Record
is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The
Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing
Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty
Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2002-03.
The
publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building,
University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone
814-863-0221). The Record is
distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the
Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other
University personnel on request.
Except
for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the
responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the
Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When
existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to
submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative,
advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate
Record.
Reports
that have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The
Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or
are considered to be of major importance.
Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the
meeting is on file. Individuals with
questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University
Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for
February 25, 2003
A. Summary of Agenda
Actions
B. Minutes and
Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A.
Documents
Distributed Prior to
February 25, 2003
Attendance
III. Tentative Agenda for March
25, 2003
FINAL
AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the January 28, 2003 Meeting in The Senate
Record 36:4
[www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of
February
11, 2003
[www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html]
Senate
Calendar for 2003-04
C.
REPORT
OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 11, 2003
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS -
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS -
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS -
Committees and Rules
Revision of
Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
Libraries
Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS -
Computing and Information Systems
ANGEL Course
Management System
Outreach Activities
Penn State’s World Campus
Student Life
Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting
Understanding in a Diverse Community
Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and
Stalking
Undergraduate Education
Academic Integrity Case Data
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate heard one legislative report, one advisory/consultative report, and five informational reports.
Committees and Rules – “Revision of Senate Standing Rules: The Senate Record.” This legislative report recommends a change to the Senate Standing Rules regarding the verbatim transcription of the entire Senate meeting. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 15-16 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Libraries – “Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees.” This advisory/consultative report recommends required payroll deduction for the collection of unpaid Libraries fines and fees from current faculty and staff. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 16-31 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
Computing and Information Systems – “ANGEL Course Management System.” This informational report summarizes the usage of ANGEL (A New Global Environment for Learning) for Fall Semester 2002. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 31 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Outreach Activities – “Penn State’s World Campus.” This informational report provides an overview of World Campus programs, students, faculty, sustainability, innovations, and policy issues. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
Student Life – “Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community.” This informational report comes as a result of a committee charge to investigate best practices at other major universities to promote mutual understanding of ethnic groups and improved race relations on campus. The Intergroup Dialogue educational experience has been piloted at Penn State. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
Student Life – “Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking.” In March 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice provided a grant to the Center for Women Students to examine how best to respond to relationship violence issues. This informational report will provide information on resources available to faculty, staff, and students at all University locations. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)
Undergraduate Education – “Academic Integrity Case Data.” This informational report reviews the effect of changes in the Academic Integrity Policy implemented in 2000. The revised policy has significantly increased the number of academic dishonesty cases that are reported to the Office of Judicial Affairs. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding. One hundred and ninety-nine Senators signed the roster.
Chair Moore: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the January 28, 2003, meeting, will be posted later this week and approved at the March meeting
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for February 11, 2003. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
The Senate Self-Study Committee recommended and Senate Council approved at its February 11, 2003, meeting a six-meeting Senate calendar for academic year 2003-2004. The following information led to the decision to implement a six-meeting calendar:
- A six-meeting Senate calendar will:
- allow more time to produce superior reports and timely follow-up on the Senate Curriculum Report
- produce greater cost savings
- provide a more orderly Senate year sequence with three meetings per semester
- Standing Rule Article I, Section 13, states that Senate Council decides the dates and times of Senate meetings and that the number of those meetings must be “at least six.”
- The Senate Officers and Senate Council support the Senate Self-Study Committee recommendation of six meetings for the academic year 2003-2004. If six meetings prove to be inadequate, then the Senate Officers in consultation with Senate Council will discuss increasing the number of meetings per year.
The Senate Calendar for the 2003-2004 academic year is attached to today’s Agenda indicating report due dates, Senate Council dates, and Senate meeting dates.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of February 11, 2003, which appears as an attachment to the Agenda for today’s meeting. Included in those minutes is a report from Graduate Council prepared by Caroline Eckhardt who is Senate liaison to Graduate Council.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Moore: The fifth issue of the Senate Newsletter was distributed last week. We welcome all helpful and complimentary comments in addition to suggestions for improvement.
The Senate Officers visited the College of Engineering on February 6, 2003, the College of Education on February 18, 2003, and the Graduate School on February 19 and February 20, 2003. The schedule of Senate Officers’ future visits is posted on the University Faculty Senate web site, and they are as follows: College of Earth and Mineral Sciences on the afternoon of March 3, 2003, Division of Undergraduate Studies on the morning of March 24, 2003, and the Schreyer Honors College on the afternoon of March 24, 2003.
Please encourage your faculty colleagues to attend. These meetings go best when ten or more faculty are present to express their views. We, of course, look forward to seeing you there as well.
On March 5, 2003, Janis Jacobs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs, and I will charge the Task Force to Review the First-Year Seminar Requirement. Valerie Stratton from Altoona, Chair of the Committee on Committees and Rules, will chair the Task Force. The other Task Force members are Jeremy Cohen, Mike Dooris, Marianne Goodfellow, Richard Kennedy, Bret Kluskiewicz, Andrew Lau, David Shapiro, Rodney Troester, and Josh Troxell. The Task Force hopes to present a preliminary report at the October, 2003 meeting and a final report at the April 2004 meeting.
A Committee to Review the Bachelor of Arts Requirements will soon be charged. And a Committee to Review the Health and Physical Activity Requirement will soon be formed.
I would like to introduce you now to the newest member of the Senate Office. Her name is Jane Jones, and, Jane, will you please stand and remain standing. She joined the Senate Office a few weeks ago. Jane will be working with student petitions, and research requests, processing travel vouchers, and updating the Senate web site. I encourage you to introduce yourself to the newest member of the Senate staff. Welcome, Jane.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Moore: The Development Office has mailed letters asking for contributions to the George and Judy Bugyi Renaissance Scholarship Fund, and I hope that you will generously support this effort.
The Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon in support of the Four Diamonds Fund conquering children’s cancer took place this past weekend. The dancers raised a total of more than $3.6 million. The Senate congratulates all those who participated and, of course, those who contributed to this most worthy charity.
After last month’s Informational Report on Circleville Farm, Dan Sieminski, Assistant Vice-President for Business and Finance, asked Anthony Baratta, Chair of the Senate Committee on University Planning, to form a subcommittee of University Planning members to review a draft of the new Request for Proposals for the Sale of Circleville Farm. Robert Pangborn chaired this subcommittee. The other members of the subcommittee were Chris Johnstone, Liberal Arts; Daniel Hagen, Agricultural Sciences; Peter Everett, Business Administration; Daniel Brinker, Arts & Architecture; and John Boehmer, Medicine. The subcommittee has met and completed its task. The Senate is pleased to have been consulted in this way, and we congratulate Robert Pangborn and the other members for having acted so swiftly and no doubt brilliantly in this regard. Their report will be distributed at the next meeting of Senate Council and will appear as part of the minutes.
May I now ask Annina Burns and Nicholas Hartman to join me at the podium?
Each year the British government awards forty American undergraduates with two to three years of graduate work at a British university of their choosing. These Marshall Scholarships were established by an Act of Parliament in 1953 to commemorate the humane ideals of the European Recovery Programme or, as it is referred to, the Marshall Plan. They serve as a gesture of thanks from the British government for United States assistance in rebuilding Europe after World War II. They provide for all fees, living expenses, books, cost of thesis and research, fares to and from the United States, and daily travel.
This year, two of those lucky forty are Penn State students, and they are Annina Burns and Nicholas Hartman, both of whom are members of the Schreyer Honors College. Annina will graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nutrition from the College of Health and Human Development and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Media Studies with a minor in International Studies from the College of Communications. Nicholas will graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry with a minor in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Eberly College of Science. While both are remarkable students, each has followed a separate path to international distinction.
Before I read something about both of them I would just like to point out that Annina is accompanied today by Fred Vondracek, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Outreach, and International Programs in the College of Health and Human Development, and also with us today is Vivienne Wildes, Director of the Undergraduate Fellowships Office, and she has much to be proud of these days.
As a freshman at George C. Marshall High School in Falls Church, Virginia, Annina founded Y-NOT, a volunteer organization for high school students to visit weekly with local homeless children. There, she learned first hand the importance of child nutrition. After arriving at Penn State, she initiated the Nutrition Service Project, an organization that helps disadvantaged youth learn about health and nutrition. To date, this organization’s volunteers have contributed 5,000 hours and reached a total of 2,200 youths from ages 5-18. During the course of her college career, she has researched vitamin E levels in breast cancer, translated science literature for CNN News segments, and lived in Rome, Italy, to work on an international child nutrition initiative called Feeding Minds, Fighting Hunger at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). She has also interned at the National Institute of Health and at the National Cancer Institute, both in Bethesda, Maryland, and at CNN in Washington, where she researched medical issues and nutrition and simplified technical literature into two-minute nightly news segments.
Time magazine featured Annina in December 1997 for founding Y-NOT and for initiating the Nutrition Service Project. In February 2001, she was one of twenty undergraduates named to the USA Today All-USA College Academic First Team and the first Penn Stater to be so named. She is also a Lion Ambassador, a member of Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, and Vice-Chair of the National 4-H Council Board of Trustees. To date, she has received research grants totaling more than $31,000.
Annina has written: “If the science of food is the key to health, then nutrition is an essential part of world policy.” Using her experiences at Y-NOT, the Nutrition Service Project, CNN, the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the United Nations, and Penn State, she plans to make a larger impact on public policy in the interest of child health. To this end, Annina will study Comparative Social Policy at Oxford University.
We are sure to hear more from her in the years to come. Annina, The Faculty Senate congratulates you and wishes you the best of luck!
Senators: Applause.
Annina Burns: Now I am completely embarrassed and too nervous to talk. But I do want to say that all those things you heard have to do with Penn State and my experience at Penn State and many people here who are in this room and who could not be here, that made that possible. It is not like I just flew in here on a plane and then just took off. There are many people behind those efforts, behind getting an internship at CNN, behind going to Rome…providing the scholarship funds to do so, providing even coming to Penn State. I came to Penn State on a scholarship and that is what made me want to come here, and since then it has been the best decision I have ever made. Penn State has done a tremendous amount for me and I just want to mention a few people in this room now that have made my experience possible and have contributed to all the things that you heard. It was not just about me but about the many Penn Staters and faculty and staff that have stood behind me and mentored me and taken the time to work with me and that has made it possible. So I am just going to scan the room to see who is here--Clare Cowen in the Schreyer Honors College, Jeremy Cohen, who was in the College of Communications when I came in at the time, Dr. Graham Spanier. You heard I am vice chair of the Board of Trustees; and you are probably wondering how did she end up on the Board of Trustees. But actually, Dr. Spanier nominated me as a freshman to be on the Board of Trustees. He served on the 4-H Board. That has made a tremendous difference. It gave an opportunity to work on national policy, and that is something that came up in my Marshall interview and they asked me about…Mary Beth Oliver, Professor in the College of Communications, as a mentor. Dr. Vivienne Wildes, by setting up the mock interviews for the Marshall Scholarship, really helped to get both Nicholas and me ready for that and I wish I could ask everybody to stand up who I know to make sure I am not leaving anybody out. But really it was a Penn State effort, and so many people made it possible, and so many faculty took the time to work with me, and I really thank you. I am going to Oxford. I am representing Penn State, and I hope to do that to the best of my ability, and thank you for letting me have that opportunity.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Moore: A 1999 graduate of Lebanon High School, Nicholas Hartman has been involved with a number of fascinating research projects plus being committed to scientific outreach. Twice each year, he has returned to his high school chemistry classes to encourage students to pursue advanced study in the sciences by convincing them that studying science is fun, and, best of all, it leads to a great career. The local Lebanon newspapers delight in covering Nick’s scientific outreach.
At Penn State, he has been involved in the HUB-Robeson Aquarium project. He was the first student to use the aquarium to conduct scientific research, and his work in the scientific imaging of coral skeletons was featured in several recent publications, including a book on coral reefs published in Germany last summer. Nick’s summers have been spent as a student research fellow at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts where he has investigated the composition of dissolved organic matter in the world’s oceans. He served as a member of the scientific crew for the research expedition Avon III in the Pacific Ocean 300 miles north of Hawaii. Recently, he presented the results of his work at a conference on Limnology and Oceanography. Over the past year his work has shifted to proteomics, the study of proteins. In particular, he has combined traditional protein analytical techniques with mass spectrometry to provide new insight into the old problem of how to analyze a protein’s sequence, composition, and post-translational modifications. The study of the nature and composition of proteins using mass spectrometry is a new field changing daily, and Nick wants to be a part of it. To do this, he will spend two to three years studying in the famous biochemistry labs at Cambridge, noted for their collaborative work.
Congratulations, Nick. The University Faculty Senate applauds your achievements and wishes you every success with your future research!
Senators: Applause.
Nicholas Hartman: Thank you very much. I just want to confirm everything that Annina said. Penn State has had such a great impact on my life and my development both academically and personally over the last three and a half years. I would also like to acknowledge just a few people who have had a major impact on my experience here at Penn State. My research advisors, Robert Minard and Daniel Jones from the Department of Chemistry and also Dan Ripetta from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I would also like to acknowledge Clair Cohen from the Schreyer Honors College, who provided me with a lot of valuable advice for the interview process. And of course, Vivienne Wildes and Linda Craig from the Fellowships Office who also were instrumental in organizing this entire ordeal. In case you did not know, of the 32 fellowships that were given out this year only seven schools managed to garner more than one fellowship for their school, and those schools are Amherst College, West Point, Occidental College, Harvard, Yale, MIT and Penn State. As administrators and faculty members of the university, you play a very important role and central role in making sure that Penn State students are just as competitive with the students in those other fine institutions. Thank you very much.
Chair Moore: Now, may I ask Heather Agnew to join me at the podium.
By coincidence and good fortune, I sat beside Heather Agnew several weeks ago at a performance of Madame Butterfly. At the time, she faced a difficult decision–one familiar no doubt to many of you here today. She had been accepted for graduate work in chemistry at MIT and Harvard on the East Coast, Northwestern in the Chicago Area, and Berkeley and Stanford in California. Which university should she choose? How to decide? She solved that complex dilemma by accepting instead the Gates Cambridge Scholarship that provides for all her expenses and stipends for up to four years of study as she works at Cambridge University towards a Ph.D. in Chemistry. A full Gates Cambridge Scholarship is valued at approximately $150,000.
The Gates Scholarships were established three years ago by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Cambridge University as a means to support students of exceptional academic achievement and scholarly promise from all over the world who wish to study at Cambridge. The Gates Cambridge Scholars are expected to “bring vision and commitment to improving the lives of citizens throughout the world, and to become leaders in addressing global problems related to learning, technology, health, and social equity.”
Like Annina and Nicholas, Heather is a member of the Schreyer Honors College and will receive simultaneous Bachelor of Science degrees in Chemistry and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with Honors in Chemistry from the Eberly College of Science. At Penn State, her research has focused on the Synthesis and Characterization of Coordinatively-Linked Ferrocene Oligomers as Models for Solid-State Voltammetry.
At Cambridge, she plans to study physical chemistry with Professor Trevor Rayment and to use scanning probe microscopy to study molecular recognition.
Heather is from Wescosville in the Allentown area and graduated from Emmaus High School. Her father is a graduate of our College of Engineering and is a returning graduate student at Penn State Great Valley.
Heather, the University Faculty Senate congratulates you for winning this prestigious award, and we wish you all good fortune in your future endeavors. Good luck!
Senators: Applause.
Heather Agnew: Just like Annina and Nick had said, I could not have done any of this without the wonderful mentors and professors and teachers that I have come into contact with at Penn State. This is just so overwhelming for me right now because I only found out about the award about two weeks ago, and I am still on a really big high. This is just a fantastic thing, and I just owe it to all the people, some of whom are in this room
--Clare Cowen, Vivienne Wildes, Linda Craig, Song Tan, who has been a wonderful advisor to me during research, Mary Beth Williams, Paul Weiss, Dr. Robert Minard, Dr. Peter Jurs, and all of the teaching professors in Whitmore Lab in the Chemistry Department. I just love Penn State, and I have been born and bred Penn State. My dad went to Penn State, and I could not have done it without any of this help, so thank you.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Senators: Aye.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
Chair Moore: Agenda
Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports.
We have an Advisory/Consultative Report from the Senate Committee on
Libraries. It appears on today’s Agenda
as Appendix “D” and is titled, “Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and
Fees.” Brian Curran, Chair of the
Senate Committee on Libraries will present the report.
Nancy L. Eaton: Actually all of the work was
done last year in preparation for what we started in May and then put in
suspension, so all of the programming is done.
The issue is to stop the bleeding.
In other words, the number continues to grow, and so we put in place two
or three different things, shortening the time period and so on. We will continue to try to retrieve
materials and dollars from those people who have left the university, and if
you look at that amount that is a very large number. It is misleading to only look at the $40,000 because you also
have to look at the number of people who were here and left, who are part of
that larger $300,000. So our intent is
to try to close all of those doors. The
programming has been done so that part costs us nothing.
Roger A. Egolf: Is this going to take a new
staffer?
Nancy L. Eaton: No, it will not take extra
resources. We have done the work with
the existing staff, and it is based upon the library system that is already in
place. We did a small amount of local
programming to an existing system.
P. Peter Rebane, Penn
State Abington: Some of us do not mind catching up on our
fines, but we still would like to know, for instance, what steps would the University
Libraries take to recoup that current $337,000? It would put many of us on the line for having notices sent to us
and books collected or what not, but it might be a little bit more palatable if
I had some assurance that the university will be equally strict in going after
that $337,000, and not simply writing that off. And may I also say in response to what Senator Gouran said, I am
not sure that every campus location outside University Park has an operating
appeals committee, and I think those on Senate Council wanted that point two
included to make absolutely certain that locations are also bound by this. Not merely some committee at this particular
location so I would support including that as a kind of double jeopardy clause
if you may. Thank you.
Nancy L. Eaton: Regarding the first question of
the committees. My Associate Dean for
Campus College Libraries reported as of December that all of them had been
appointed. It is probably true that not
all of them have actually met yet, and so I do not have any problem with the
current language in the document. If
nothing else it underscores that those committees should remain in
existence. In terms of the second, if
we go forward once we complete the registration process for payroll deduction we
will look at all existing faculty and staff in terms of who has not returned
material and cleared their records, and we do still have the legal option
within the university of a collection agency for those individuals who have
large amounts due. For students it goes
to the Bursar’s Office now, so they are being taken care of through the
Bursar’s Office on a regular basis. For
those people who have left the university, we have selected and contracted with
an outside collection agency. We will
send them one warning letter that we are going to a collection agency approach
if they are not part of the Penn State community, and then we will use a
collection agency.
Howard G. Sachs, Penn
State Harrisburg: One of the problems I have with this report
is that it appears to attempt to solve a large problem by taking on a small ant
with a sledgehammer. In particular, the
problem as identified in your report says, “Most of the unreturned material is
irreplaceable, as books go out of print very quickly under current publishing
cycles.” To me, what that says is we
are really going after the fines for overdue material, but we are going to be
unable to replace some of the very critical materials that are either sitting
in a faculty office or have been misplaced or stolen, and the problem goes well
beyond the faculty. The bulk of these
materials are not in the hands of the active faculty, and I think the thrust of
this proposal is to irritate the vast majority of faculty who are loyal
supporters of the library in addition to being users. It just strikes me as being a sledgehammer approach to a
cockroach problem, and I think the cockroach analogy is real. We have got some faculty that are so abusive
of the intellectual environment that you need a better solution.
Brian A. Curran: I take the point in the
analogy. I guess my response to this
would be that, yes, it is an overarching solution, I suppose you could say, in
that for legal purposes and for purposes of cost in terms of implementation
this is being applied across the board to all library users at least that is
our recommendation. This is not
actually being applied at this point but that is our recommendation. But in all honesty one of the major goals of
the policy and a fundamental part of it is also to put a brake on it, so to
speak, to slow down the rate of this thing in the future. It is to create a framework where this will
happen less in the future. It is true
that we have this outstanding problem, and that, as I understand it, the charge
that was brought to the Senate Committee on Libraries was that you do not have
any system. You have no way of getting
any of this material, and what was proposed was something which would, we would
hope, work best especially as the future runs out. Obviously, tracking down the individuals especially after this is
instituted and we have a period of time, if we locate any of these 300 or 400
people there, there are probably a small number of those people who have a lot
of stuff out. There are probably other
people who just happen to get caught up in the statistics at that point, and so
the numbers may be even lower than you say.
But I think that it is a matter of coming up with a practical and, I
think even more importantly, legal way of dealing with it, and that was the
charge that we faced, with really only the collection agency option as the
other one we could use.
Richard I. Ammon,
Penn State Harrisburg: I am speaking I guess with some personal
reference, but between my colleague here at University Park, Dan Hade, we
contribute approximately 2000 children’s books a year. We have never received any extra
compensation. I mean, that is the other
way of looking at this. If you are
going to extract blood from us for this, we never expected any kind of
gratitude or thanks for this. We did
this voluntarily, but it seems to me that the knife slices both ways.
Brian A. Curran: Can I just say something? I am not sure what you mean by blood?
W. Travis DeCastro,
College of Arts and Architecture: I personally am not having a real hard time
with this and certainly not as much as some of my colleagues in Senate Council
have. The use of the library is a
privilege, and the university spends an enormous amount of time making sure
that we have what we need to teach our classes and do our research and whatever
it is we do. Some people are not
behaving responsibly. Is it so
difficult to ask all of us to say yes?
I speak from personal experience for having gone up against the Parking
Office and won that there are parking rules that we have to follow, but there
is also an appeals process where if I felt I was dealt with unfairly I was able
to go forward and say, “You said the rule was this, but you gave me a ticket
for it,” and I won. And I do not see it
as any different than that. Maybe you
do, but I think there is a due process system that they said is in place. We are not giving away our personal
privileges. We are agreeing to behave
responsibly, and unfortunately we have to do this because a group of our fellow
faculty has chosen not to behave responsibly, so I do not understand what the
big deal is.
Tramble T. Turner,
Penn State Abington: I just had a question for some information
on part of the system that could be involved in the appeals process. It came up in some discussion earlier today
that some folks would like information on what receipt might be provided
clients of the library who have turned in books but then are told, “Oh the book
is missing.” We all get a slip when we
check out a book but is there already some system in place to refer to?
Nancy L. Eaton: The new system that we
implemented about 18 months ago has the ability to generate a receipt for
you. So anybody when they turn in books
can ask for a receipt now.
James E. May: I am on the Senate Committee on Libraries
and feel strongly in favor of this resolution.
I am in Liberal Arts and rely a great deal upon books, and I have
frequently had the experience of finding that a book had been lost in the
university and not been replaced. While
the language does indicate that some books are irreplaceable, many books are in
fact replaceable. Having a system of
collecting money would encourage the library to replace books that can be
replaced. Having a system of recouping
the money from those who have lost the books would encourage people not to lose
books. It seems to me we would have a
decline in the overall loss of books.
The system seems to me to be equitably right because we have a system
now where students are held to account for the materials that they lose, and
yet faculty are somehow better. Their
word is bond. But in the real world I
mean if we lose something we expect that we will have to pay for it. If I lose a book, I do not expect the
university at large to pay for the book that I myself have lost, and it is the
same at the video store, at the tool rental, and I do not think this is that
extraordinary. I do not feel for
instance when I rent a movie at the video store that they think that I am a thief
because I am expected to pay for the movie should I lose it. Society seems to require that all of us in
good faith suppose that other members of the society will do their job, and we
at the university have to assume that the folks at the library are not “them,”
but they are an “us.” Now it may be
that, being from a Commonwealth Campus which is a little place where you have
45 faculty members, I think of my fellow staff and faculty as an “us.” But it seems to me it has to work that way
or the university falls apart. We have
to suppose that people in the library are not trying to gouge us, and the
people who they train to put books back on the shelf are going to do their best
to put the books back in the proper places on the shelves. If we begin to think that, well the library
does not work or the library is out to screw us, then all sorts of pieces of
the overall machinery stop working, and so I appeal to the fellow faculty
members to vote for this resolution.
Wayne R. Curtis,
College of Engineering: Throughout this process I had some simple
questions that had not been answered or had been answered differently at
different times, and I will put it in this scenario. If I am writing a half million dollar grant, half of which the
university is going to get, and I take ten books out of the library, am I
walking out with $1,000 worth of books or $10,000 of books. What exactly is the value of what I am
taking? I think if many people knew
what that was, it would be less of a concern in terms of what you are taking
from the library because I do not really know the answer to the question, when
I have ten books on my shelf, what it is worth to you guys? I know it is worth a lot to me to have that.
Nancy L. Eaton: Well, there is no simple answer
to that. It depends on your discipline
and so on, but the average cost of a replacement right now can go from
thousands of dollars to tens of dollars.
When we bill, we bill on an average cost per subject area so that the
bill is specific to your subject area, and the $300,000 represents the cost of
the books plus processing fees and so on.
So that is the actual billed value of what we are trying to get back at
any given time. Remember that we take a
snapshot in May, so that is the snapshot at that moment in time.
Craig M. Meyers,
College of Medicine: To me it is not a matter of library, parking
or whatever; it is a fundamental thing of, if something goes wrong, somebody
has a right to go into my paycheck and start taking money. Sure there is an appeal process, and you say
well that way you can save the money, but my time would end up being worth more
than trying to appeal a $25 fine, so I would probably let the fine go. That is still not fair. That is just putting my time up against the
money they want to collect. And it is
not the library, and it is not parking.
It is not anything else; it is just that giving more and more groups the
right to touch our paychecks is just not correct.
Jamie M. Myers,
College of Education: I can live with this, while at the same time
I feel that there is some legal issue involved when it comes to garnishing
wages. I actually am more concerned
about the people leaving the university with books and materials from the
library that are under that six-month cycle.
I can see that can happen.
Someone could check out a bunch of materials and then be gone and not
even reach the 60-day overdue time etc., and I am wondering if this
recommendation prevents that holding up of that final paycheck until the
library checkouts have been cleared or whether you have given up on that issue? Because, certainly there is ten times as
much money involved here with people who have left the university.
Nancy L. Eaton: As you might note in the report,
we looked at withholding of payroll, and the legal conclusion was that we still
had to have permission to do that, so it does not work.
Robert Heinsohn, Retired Faculty Senator: I
am puzzled by your non-current category.
Two-thirds of all the money are in the non-current category, so my
question is what are you doing for these people or about these people? I can think of four of them that you may or
may not be doing things for right now.
Graduating students can have their diplomas withheld, I believe, if they
have not paid their fees. You have
Inter-Library Loan, I do not know what sort of monies are lost in that, but
that is always in collaboration with some other library for which they could be
billed. You have retiring faculty. Many of the retiring faculty would be
looking for emeritus status, office privileges, parking privileges, so there is
a club there. And for visiting faculty,
visiting faculty are always here at the behest of some sponsoring department,
so I would think maybe the sponsoring department could be held in some fashion. Am I off the wall here, or is there some
leverage here?
Nancy L. Eaton: I believe I already summarized
that we will be using a collection agency for those who leave the university
and who have not returned materials.
Under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law we cannot divulge information
about personal materials checked out.
It is illegal to do that.
David Breslin:
Again, from a students standpoint I am the odd man out. I do not see a problem with something like
this. As the Senator representing the
retired faculty has pointed out, if I lose a book and I do not return it, the
seven years I have spent at this university to get a diploma are thrown out the
window until that Bursar’s bill gets paid for.
And if you are going to be required to pay the money in order to replace
something that you lost, well fine.
Most of us in here from the faculty point, you have masters degrees, you
have Ph.D.s, you should be responsible for a book. And as far as the legality of it, put it in the employee
handbook. If it is in the employee
handbook, it is going to be legal, and if you do not like it, there is the
door. Get out. Thank you.
John S. Nichols,
Immediate Past-Chair: I rise in strong opposition to this
report. I emphasize that I do so with
the permission of Chair Moore, but not his endorsement of my position. I have got a very brief written statement
and a motion to offer. The Senate is
being asked to endorse a proposed administration policy that requires, all
faculty to waive legal rights against garnishment of their paychecks as a
condition of using the library, which is in many disciplines a de facto
condition of employment, and with very little due process. The issue of library fines in and of itself
we spent way too much time on, and we have probably exceeded the $40,000 that
is outstanding, but because it is the most recent case of a very troubling
trend in which the faculty are presumed to be guilty of wrongdoing until proven
otherwise. Honest hard working faculty
are required to waive substantial legal rights in order to do their jobs. It is like being nibbled to death by
ducks. Why are we in this
situation? The library asserts that
there are 317 Penn State faculty who have not returned library materials, in all
a total of $40,460 in library fines. If
any of these faculty are in fact guilty of this serious academic offence, they
should be dealt with sternly. But the
simple truth is we do not know how many of these cases are library errors, or
how many are actually deadbeat faculty.
Most of the 317 cases have not been adjudicated. I personally talked to a few of the
317. I know several of you have talked
to those among that number as well, and they all angrily denied that they have
not returned library materials and say they are being scapegoated by a library
goof-up. Given the huge number of books
that are returned to the library in any given day, it is at least plausible
that many or most of these 317 cases can be accounted for by a very small error
rate in logging them in. I for one am
unwilling to declare my colleagues as irresponsible or worse until they have
been proven so. And endorsing a far
reaching, heavy-handed policy until we know the nature and degree of the
problem seems to me is at least premature.
Another serious flaw
is that the report erroneously states that the so-called required deduction
option has the best chance of recapturing the library materials and collecting
the fines. Astonishingly, it is just
the opposite because the faculty are required to sign the waiver on their next
use of the library, probably electronically.
Those who are accused of having the books and money already have lost
their library privileges and, therefore, will not have to sign the form and
will get off scot-free, while the overwhelming majority of the faculty who have
proven by past performance to be responsible users of the library will in
effect be accused of stealing from the library in the future. In other words, the proposed policy will not
succeed in its stated goal and at a very substantial cost of forcing faculty in
good standing with the library to make a choice between waiving important legal
rights or losing privileges to use the library. That is not an enlightened policy to me.
There is an even
more serious problem in the proposed policy, and that is the policy allows for
the university to dock your paycheck with almost no due process regarding
matters such as burden of proof, standard of proof, powers of the appeals
committee, limits on the amount that can be garnished from your paycheck, etc.,
etc., etc. For example, in what I
suspect will be the typical case, the faculty member says that he returned the
book to the library, he saw it go down the conveyor belt, the library says that
it was not received. May the university
garnish his pay under those circumstances?
The report is silent on this and other critical due process issues. Further, the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs, which has jurisdiction over faculty rights and responsibility issues,
has not been consulted on this important matter. Therefore I move to recommit this report to the Senate Committee
on Faculty Affairs with instructions to:
(1) Determine if there are reasonable alternatives that would target the
317 accused faculty, rather than requiring all faculty to waive important legal
rights as a de facto condition of doing their jobs. (2) Propose tough and effective mechanisms for the university to
recover the library materials and the fines and deal assertively with the
proven offenders—proven offenders. (3)
To draft for Senate approval adequate due process protections to guarantee that
innocent faculty do not have their wages unfairly garnished. Thank you.
Chair Moore: We
have a motion. Do we have a second to
that motion?
Senators:
Second.
Chair Moore: The
motion has been moved and seconded to recommit this report to the Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs with three instructions. Do you want me to repeat those instructions? So, is there any discussion of the motion?
Annette K. McGregor,
College of Arts and Architecture: Recommitting the report to a different
committee, is that right?
Chair Moore: Yes.
Annette K. McGregor: With
a set of instructions to that new committee seems to me to be passing the buck
back to a new committee that this recommendation is not legislative and,
frankly, I find the whole emotionalism of it a little overstated. I do not feel being asked to pay my bills is
an infringement on my honesty or my integrity or nobody is accusing me of
theft. I serve on this committee, and I
know how many hours, and hours, and hours have been put in on it. To send it back to committee at this point
seems to me to be postponing a decision or postponing a choice.
Dennis S. Gouran: Well, first of all, I do not
find anything in the language associated with this recommendation that comes
anywhere close to constituting an allegation of theft for anyone who would be
affected by the policy. Perhaps it is a
serious misreading of the recommendation on my part, but more to the point of
the motion, to recommit a proposal with the specification of the ways in which
the committee must revise that legislation seems to me to be highly
inappropriate, and, if you do not like the recommendation on the floor, either
move to modify it here or vote it down.
Sallie M. McCorkle,
College of Arts and Architecture: Two things.
One, I think the issue of the lack of a descriptive process of appeal is
a structural problem for me and that is why I would, especially as Vice-Chair
of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, support the idea of at least giving
the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs a chance to look at it from the faculty
rights point of view.
P. Peter Rebane: Am I
correct, but I do not think one can recommit to a different committee? In other words, then we should vote this
down, and the motion should be to send it for consideration by another
committee. I just technically want to
point out that the motion as it stands asks for recommit to the Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs, and I would like to have a ruling from the
Parliamentarian.
Chair Moore: Upon
advice from the Parliamentarian, I am going to make an editorial change to this
and say that we move to commit the report to the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs.
John S. Nichols: Robert’s Rules of Order,
Article 13, Commit or refer, it says, “The term recommit is applied to a motion
that proposes to refer a question a second time either to the same committee
that previously considered it or to a different committee.”
Chair Moore: Any
further discussion?
Gary L. Catchen,
College of Engineering: My only comment is that the points about the
legality are well taken. It seems to me
the major problem is how the library accounts for its materials and how to
prevent people from stealing them, and this measure of payroll deduction seems
to me to be not treating the root cause of the problem but a way in which to
try to recoup the loses. So, therefore
I support this motion.
Mila C. Su, Penn
State Altoona: I am going to step back and remind everyone
who uses the library that you sign a registration card that agrees to the
lending policies that have been established by the library. If you are familiar having gone through any
step of the process, whether you have lost a book, got it lost in transit, or
any of the following factors that can happen within any given library, you know
that there are policies and procedures that have been established and have gone
on in this institution for a very long time.
This is not a new situation.
What is trying to be done right now is to put in place a way that
everybody is on the same playing field.
I understand the concern that Dr. Nichols has expressed, but I think
that when you start thinking from a negative point of view and thinking that
the library is assuming that you did something nasty when, in fact, the library
has set up so many ways that you can address your innocence, that I disagree
strongly with the wording within that context.
Cara-Lynne
Schengrund, College of Medicine: I am not sure if this addresses the motion
that was just made or the main motion, but isn’t there another way that has not
been addressed and that is to just revoke an offending faculty members library
privileges?
Nancy L. Eaton: We do that at the second
month. These are people who have not
responded to that.
Chair Moore: Let
me remind everybody what we are discussing is whether or not we should recommit
this to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Richard N.
Barshinger, Worthington Scranton Campus: I am a member of the Senate
Committee on Libraries, and I really do not care one way or another whether we
recommend to the administration to collect future fines and fees by either
collection agency or by payroll deduction.
It just seems to me that collection agencies are so much more messy than
payroll deduction. This problem is, in
fact, not a new problem; it dates back to at least 1998, I believe, when the
problem was brought to the attention of the library and the administration by
external auditors, and in fact 1998 is before my service on the Senate. So I would welcome passing this document on
to a different committee. I am tired of
it. The last person speaking said,
“Isn’t there another recommendation?”
And if you allow me,
I would like to tell you a very short story.
About four weeks ago, I was at the national joint meetings of the
American Math Society and Mathematical Association of America, and I had the
good fortune of sitting in on a lecture by a number of people on the history of
mathematics. And there was a very
engaging woman from the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, and she spoke
on Proto-Iraqi mathematics, as evidenced from clay tablets with cuneiform
writing as currently having been excavated, not in the last ten years
certainly, but before that and back around the turn of the century. Among her overlays that were put up was a
transparent picture of a set of mathematical tables--survey tables, I believe
they were-- from a library near the City of Ore, and this was excavated from
the library itself, and the tables were in very excellent condition. And there was an inscription at the bottom
of the tables. The inscription was
library policy on returns. The
inscription said, “You may take these tables out for the day. Please return them by nightfall or the gods
will inflict a curse upon you.” I
immediately thought shamefully, or perhaps the best word is shamelessly, that
here is an alternative that might get some consideration by the Senate
Committee on Libraries.
Chair Moore: The
topic before us is whether or not we should recommit this report to Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs.
W. Travis DeCastro:
John, I do not want to minimize your concerns because I know you have
spoken very eloquently about them, but would it not simplify the process to say
that the establishment of a due process under the direction of the Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs would then be applied?
John S. Nichols: I am
prepared to introduce that amendment if this one fails, but this one has two
other important parts. One, a
self-policing part that we need to deal with those out of the 317 that are
proven to be deadbeats and also the issue to explore other alternatives.
Robert P. Crum, Smeal
College of Business Administration: I am an accountant and CPA by training, and
people are putting forth, both in talking about the revised motion and the
original, a very thin straw man, and that is that there is a requirement that
they do something as for external audit purposes. The only requirement for external audit purposes is that it be
valued on the university’s statements at its anticipated collectible
value. Not that anything be done in an
affirmative sense with the $300,000, but simply that it be valued with some
kind of allowance or something at the actual collectable amount and not
overstate the amount of the receivable that is expected to be collected and is
an asset to the university.
Chair Moore: The
motion before us is to recommit to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Debora Cheney,
University Libraries: I am on the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs,
and we are dealing with an issue of privacy right now, and I want to emphasize
something that Dean Eaton has said--that you will find if you use the existing
wording that you have, John, I think that you will find that we cannot really
deal with specific people for legal reasons of privacy. We cannot target or identify publicly people
who are using the library or what they have used. So I think that you would have charged us to do something that I
do not think that we can do, so that might be one reason to reconsider your
motion.
Chair Moore: We are now going to have a vote on whether you wish to end discussion. All in favor of ending the discussion, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, "nay?" The aye’s have it. We now have a motion, and the motion is to recommit this to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs with three specific instructions. All in favor of this motion, please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?”
Senators: Nay.
Chair Moore: I am afraid we are going to have to have a division of the house at this point. So would all those in favor please stand up so we can see you. Will those opposed, please rise. The nay’s have it, and the motion is defeated, and we are back to the main motion. The main motion, which is in the handout that you received today, reads, “The Senate Committee on Libraries recommends (1) that the university institute a (required) payroll deduction plan for the collection of Library fines and fees from current faculty and staff, and (2) the establishment of an Appeals Committee at each Library location to provide due process in any cases of dispute about such fines or fees. These committees must include representation from faculty and staff and must be in place by the time of implementation of the payroll deduction plan.” That is now the motion before the floor.
John S. Nichols: I move to amend the main motion as follows, “That this policy shall not be implemented until the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has proposed and the Senate has approved adequate due process protections to guarantee innocent faculty do not have their wages unfairly garnished.”
Chair Moore: Does this motion have a second?
Senators: Second.
Chair Moore: Is there discussion on this motion which reads, “That this policy shall not be implemented until the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has proposed and the Senate has approved adequate due process protections to guarantee that innocent faculty do not have their wages unfairly garnished.” Is there any discussion on this motion?
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: I do not really understand it. The amendment presupposes that the motion is going to be passed? How does that work? I am just a little confused on how the order of the voting is.
Chair Moore: I think what this is saying is that if we do pass the main motion, that motion cannot be implemented until Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has devised adequate due process protections to guarantee that innocent faculty do not have their wages unfairly garnished.
Jean Landa Pytel: Are we going on a contingency matter here?
Chair Moore: No, what this does is to add a new clause to the motion that is on the floor.
Jean Landa Pytel: So we are adding it to the statement of the main motion?
Chair Moore: This is an amendment to the main motion.
P. Peter Rebane: So, let us get this clear. The vote you are calling for is the recommendation with an amendment added?
Chair Moore: Right. That is correct.
P. Peter Rebane: But if you are voting on an amendment you cannot simply vote on an amendment. The amendment has to be attached to something.
Chair Moore: That is right. It is being attached to the main motion. What this does is you have a door handout and what Senator Nichols is asking for is the addition of a new sentence to the motion and that is the amendment that he is making.
Brian A. Curran: I just have a question, and it is a technical question. Maybe you can answer this for me. My impression was this is an advisory/consultative report?
Chair Moore: Right.
Brian A. Curran: The wording of it as I heard it sounded legislative to me.
Chair Moore: Well, what we are doing is trying to come up with the nature of the advice which we seek to offer the president.
Brian A. Curran: Just checking.
Cara-Lynne Schengrund: This may be a dumb question, but do we not have any kind of due process that people can follow if they are accused of having a book out of the library and are being told they owe money?
Nancy L. Eaton: Yes, we do. We have processes in place, and we have added to that the campus committees so that every campus has an appeals process that follows any administrative process, and I think we have already described that.
Dennis S. Gouran: I do not see how this amendment amends the motion before us. The motion calls for making a recommendation in the form of advice to the President of the university, and we are trying to amend the motion in terms of the date of implementation when we do not even know that he is going to accept the advice. It seems to me that at best the amendment that has been made is irrelevant to what it is that we are taking into consideration, and I am also curious as to how many more different versions of the same amendment are going to be forthcoming because a lot of us do not have time to stay here for the rest of the day.
David W. Russell: Another dumb question: under the policy as it is being offered to us right now, do we get the fine first and the appeal later, or do we appeal and then when the decision comes down we give the money?
Nancy L. Eaton: You may appeal anytime during the entire six-month process from the receipt of the first notice.
David W. Russell: When does the money come out of your paycheck? After the appeal?
Nancy L. Eaton: Yes.
David W. Russell: Thank you.
Chair Moore: Are we ready to vote on the amendment? The motion is to amend the main motion, but first we have to vote. Where we are right now is we are trying to decide whether or not we want to add this sentence to the main motion. I will read it again. What you are going to have to decide is do you or do you not want to add the following sentence to the main motion, “That this policy shall not be implemented until the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has proposed and the Senate has approved adequate due process protections to guarantee that innocent faculty do not have their wages unfairly garnished.” That is what we are voting on. Do we or do we not add that sentence to the main motion. All in favor of accepting the motion, please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?”
Senators: Nay.
Chair Moore: My ears tell me the nay’s have it. The motion has been defeated, and we are back to the main motion. Is there any discussion on the main motion? All in favor of accepting the main motion, please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?”
Senators: Nay.
Chair Moore: In the interest of equity here let us just say all those in favor please rise, and we will count. Never mind, the aye’s have it, and the main motion passes. The Senate Committee on Libraries motion has been approved, and the report will now be sent to the president for his approval and implementation. Thank you, Dean Eaton, Chair Curran, and all members of the Senate Committee on Libraries, for bringing this issue to a successful close.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
The report was introduced by committee Vice-Chair Lee Coraor and presented by John Harwood, Senior Director for Teaching and Learning with Technology.
ANGEL Course Management System: This report summarized the usage of ANGEL (A New Global Environment for Learning) for Fall Semester 2002. Questions were asked on the following topics: availability of ANGEL to other Pennsylvania universities, courseware ownership, timeline for submitting grades through ANGEL.
The report was introduced by committee Chair Thomas Glumac and presented by Gary E. Miller, Associate Vice President for Outreach and Executive Director of the World Campus.
Penn State’s World Campus: This report provided an
overview of the growth and development of the World Campus, including
information on student enrollment, faculty, sustainability, innovations and
policy issues. A question was asked
about what mechanisms are in place to ensure academic integrity is maintained
in World Campus offerings.
The report was introduced by committee Chair Bill Ellis and presented by Arthur Carter, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs.
Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community: This report illustrated how Intergroup Dialogue has become a significant method for promoting mutual understanding among various groups on campus. A question was asked about the program’s availability at other Penn State campuses.
The report was introduced by committee Chair Bill Ellis and comments were made by Maureen Jones, Project Coordinator, Center for Women Students.
Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking: In March 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice provided a grant to the Center for Women Students to examine how best to respond to relationship violence issues. This report provided information on resources available to faculty, staff, and students at all locations. Two questions were asked about community partnerships and on-going potential for funding.
The report was introduced and presented by committee Chair
Laura Pauley and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International
Programs, Janis Jacobs.
Academic Integrity Case Data: The data in this report demonstrated a significant rise in the number of cases reported by faculty. Seventy-four percent of cases involved plagiarism.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
None
ADJOURNMENT
May I have a motion to adjourn? The February 25, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:50 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 25, 2003
Committees and Rules – Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record (Legislative)
Libraries – Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees (Advisory/Consultative)
Computing and Information Systems – ANGEL Course Management System (Informational)
Outreach Activities – Penn State’s World Campus (Informational)
Student Life – Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community (Informational)
Student Life – Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Academic Integrity Case Data (Informational)
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
FEBRUARY 25, 2003, SENATE MEETING
Abmayr, Susan
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard
Ansari, Mohamad
Arnold, Judd
Atchley, Anthony
Atwater, Deborah
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie
Barbato, Guy
Barshinger, Richard
Bazirjian, Rosann
Beck, Laura
Becker, Paul
Benson, Thomas
Berkowitz, Leonard
Berlyand, Leonid
Berner, Thomas
Bittner, Edward
Blasko, Dawn
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John
Bollard, Edward
Book, Patricia
Boothby, Thomas
Breslin, David
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan
Browning, Barton
Brunsden, Victor
Burgess, Robert
Burkhart, Keith
Calvert, Clay
Cancro, John
Cardamone, Michael
Carlson, Richard
Carpenter, Lynn
Casteel, Mark
Cecere, Joseph
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Clark, Paul
Cohen, Jeremy
Coraor, Lee
Corbets, Jeff
Corwin, Elizabeth
Cranage, David
Crum, Robert
Curran, Brian
Curtis, Wayne
Davis, Dwight
De Jong, Gordon
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
Disney, Diane
Dong, Cheng
Donovan, James
Egolf, Roger
Ellis, Bill
Engelder, Terry
Erickson, Rodney
Eslinger, Paul
Esposito, Jackie
Evans, Christine
Evensen, Dorothy
Fisher, Charles
Floros, Joanna
Fortese, Ryan
Fosmire, Gary
Franz, George
Frecker, Mary
Freeman, Sean
Gapinski, Andrzej
Geiger, Roger
Georgopulos, Peter
Gilmour, David
Glumac, Thomas
Gouran, Dennis
Gray, Robert
Gray, Timothy
Green, David
Hagen, Daniel
Hanes, Madlyn
Hanley, Elizabeth
Harwood, John
Heinsohn, Robert
Hilton, James
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale
Horwitz, Alan
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hupcey, Judith
Hurson, Ali
Irwin, Zachary
Jacobs, Janis
Jago, Deidre
Jensen, Leif
Johnson, Ernest
Johnstone, Christopher
Jones, Terrell
Jonson, Michael
Jurs, Peter
Kane, Eileen
Kennedy, Richard
Kephart, Kenneth
Khalilollahi, Amir
Koul, Ravinder
Kramer, John
Kunze, Donald
Laguna, Pablo
Larson, Daniel
Levin, Mark
Li, Luen-Chau
Lodwick, Kathleen
Love, Nancy
MacCarthy, Stephen
Marshall, Dan
Marsico, Salvatore
Mattila, Anna
Maxwell, Kevin
May, James
McCollum, Gwenn
McCorkle, Sallie
McGregor, Annie
Mengisteab, Kidane
Meyers, Craig
Miller, Arthur
Miller-Hooks, Elise
Moore, John
Mueller, Al
Myers, Jamie
Neiheisel, Paul
Nichols, John
Oliver, Mary Beth
Osagie, Sylvester
Pangborn, Robert
Pauley, Laura
Payne, Judy
Pearson, Katherine
Pell, Eva
Petersen, Gary
Petriello, Gene
Pietrucha, Martin
Poole, Thomas
Pytel, Jean
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Bob
Ritter, Michael
Romano, John
Romberger, Andrew
Rupp, Dawn
Russell, David
Sachs, Howard
Sandler, Karen
Sandmeyer, Louise
Scanlon, Dennis
Scaroni, Alan
Schaeffer, Stephen
Schengrund, Cara
Seabright, Kristen
Secor, Robert
Semali, Ladislaus
Seybert, Thomas
Shea, Dennis
Simmonds, Patience
Simon, Julia
Simons, Richard
Simpson, Timothy
Smith, Carol
Smith, Edward
Smith, Sandy
Sommese, Kristin
Spanier, Graham
Spychalski, John
Stace, Stephen
Steiner, Kim
Stoffels, Shelley
Stratton, Valerie
Strauss, James
Su, Mila
Szczygiel, Bonj
Tempelman, Arkady
Thomson, Joan
Tormey, Brian
Troester, Rodney
Turner, Tramble
Urenko, John
Vgontzas, Alexandros
Wagner, Kristy
Watkins, Marley
Welch, Susan
White, Eric
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara
Wijekumar, Kay
Willits, Billie
Zervanos, Stamatis
Ziegler, Gregory
179 Total Elected
6 Total Ex Officio
14 Total Appointed
199 TOTAL ATTENDING
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 25, 2003
Committees and Rules – Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports (Legislative)
Student Life – Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities (Advisory/Consultative)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission (Informational)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students (Informational)
Committees and Rules – Nominating Report –2003-2004 – Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)
Election Commission – Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-04 (Informational)
Faculty Affairs – Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-02 (Informational)
Faculty Benefits/Intra-University Relations – Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-03 (Informational)
Intercollegiate Athletics – Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03 (Informational)
Senate Council – Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign (Informational)
Senate Council Nominating Committee Report – 2003-04 Senate Officers – Chair Elect and Secretary of the Senate and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Annual Grade Distribution Report (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location (Informational)