Penn State University Home



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 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


III.   Tentative Agenda for March 25, 2003






      Minutes of the January 28, 2003 Meeting in The Senate Record 36:4



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

                                                                        February 11, 2003                                                       



                                                                        Senate Calendar for 2003-04


C.     REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 11, 2003












            Committees and Rules


                 Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record






                  Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees




           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












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.




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




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:


  1.  A six-meeting Senate calendar will:
    1. allow more time to produce superior reports and timely follow-up on the Senate Curriculum Report
    2. produce greater cost savings
    3. provide a more orderly Senate year sequence with three meetings per semester


  1. 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.”


  1. 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.




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.




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.




Chair Moore:  Two hand-held cordless microphones will be used again at today’s meeting.  If you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the chair and then wait for a microphone before speaking.  For the purpose of an accurate Senate Record, please preface your comments with your name and the unit you represent.  But there is another reason for stating your name and voting unit.  Not everyone here knows every Senator.  By clearly stating your name and location, you will not only achieve enduring fame in the Senate Record, but you will also make many of your fellow Senators happy—a worthy endeavor.  President Spanier is with us today, and I am pleased to invite him to come forward to address the Senate.


Graham B. Spanier, President:  Well, all that I can say is this is a dirty trick making me follow Annina, Nicholas, and Heather.  Very impressive students.


We have a really good turnout today, so I want to commend all of you for fighting the elements from wherever you came from.  Some of you have some distance to be here.  People sometimes wonder what the president of the university does, and it is worry about the weather sometimes and the snow.  We hope there is no more snow because we not only used up this year’s entire snow removal budget.  We have used up all of the savings from the last four years.  If it snows again we will be taking up a collection among the faculty.  We try to budget for the average snow fall year, and this year has been quite impressive.


I want to join John Moore in commending the students for the absolutely fantastic work they did on the Dance Marathon--in a year where we had the challenge of the economy of the country and philanthropy being down just about everywhere you turn and the bad weather in peak canning weekends where the students are out on the streets and in the malls and around towns all over the east.  And the fact that we strongly encourage the students this year not to stand in the middle of busy intersections where they might be hit by automobiles.  It is quite amazing that they raised essentially the same amount of money that they raised last year, which was an all-time record.  And this is all done entirely by the students.  There are three to four thousand of them involved in the Dance Marathon.  I just think it is the greatest thing that happens at Penn State.


There is that good news and in fact, there is so much other good news happening at the university I think it is important for the faculty and staff of this university to really understand how many great things are going on here and not to get sidetracked by the occasional bad news like the fact that we had another budget cut a couple of weeks ago.  I think most of you probably noticed that somewhere along the way.  We are now up to about $29 million of permanent and temporary budget cuts that the state has passed along to us in less than a year and a half.  We continue to be worried about the state’s contribution to the well-being of the university.  The prospects for next year do not look great.  I think some of you may have seen reports that the governor in the last few days has mentioned that he will probably in his March 4, 2003, budget message propose a ten percent reduction in the budgets of state agencies.  Now, we are not a state agency, so we hope we will not be included in that distinguished group that is proposed for ten percent cuts.  We will be asked again to do our fair share.  Actually it is probably not fair to say we will be asked, we will be told that we will need to do our fair share.  But we will have the opportunity in our appropriations hearings at the end of March and the beginning of April to make our case.  And we do have a very good case to make and we will do our very best to put Penn State’s good news forward and to convince members of the legislature that we are good stewards of the tax payer dollars that are invested in us.  And that further investment can greatly benefit this university.  Despite that, we must keep in mind that legislative appropriation is only 13 percent of Penn State’s budget.  That, of course, is the bad news that it is only 13 percent of our budget.  But the good news is that we have other sources of income, and we have a fair amount of flexibility.  We have the ability to try to help us solve some of our own problems.  It is hard to do when the appropriation is declining the way it is, but I want us to keep our sights focused on the good things that lie ahead of us.


I am very pleased to announce that we just yesterday concluded and announced that we have identified a new Vice President for Outreach who will succeed James Ryan upon his retirement this summer.  His name is Dr. Craig Weidemann.  He comes to us with a career of experience in the area of outreach.  He has served as a Dean, as a Vice President for Research, as an Associate Provost, as an Executive Assistant to the President.  As a Vice President overseeing outreach, and we think he will bring a tremendous wealth of experience and a tremendous amount of enthusiasm to Penn State.


We hope within the next few days to be able to announce an appointment of a new Dean and Campus Executive Officer at Penn State Erie.  We are right in the middle of a search for a new Vice President for Student Affairs.  Our second candidate of four finalists arrived on campus today, and we hope that that search will be concluded in time for confirmation at the March Board of Trustees meeting, so we are moving ahead on that.


So that is a little bit of news and now I would be happy to open it up to your questions.


James E. May, DuBois Campus:  If the economy worsens severely and the university has to make decisions between, let’s say, laying off staff or asking units to give back money so that they would be forced to lay off staff, or freezing faculty salaries, how are such decisions made?  Is there a committee now thinking about financial emergencies and what we should give up first and what to give up second?


President Spanier:  We talk about this a lot, and we are governed by certain principles and philosophies that have been pretty well articulated already.  You mentioned two of the variables in the equation--faculty salaries and number of employees.  But another key variable is the scope of the tuition increase, which is now our single largest income source and dwarfs legislative appropriation in terms of the funds we use to support the educational programs of the university.  So tuition and tuition increases are an important variable and also what we just generally refer to as quality, because you could give up some things and erode the quality of what you do in terms of the size of your classes, faculty/student ratio, the caliber of employees that you might hire and so on.  We made a decision years ago that we would try to do nothing to sacrifice quality.  So as far as we are concerned that part of the equation is a constant.  In the worst-case scenario that part of the equation is a constant.  Nevertheless even in difficult budgetary times we are trying to improve the quality of what we do.  We are committed to continuing a program of salary increases.  There are universities out there, if you go back over the last ten or twenty years and you graph their salary increases, that look like this.  It is a boom or bust thing.  One year they have a freeze on salaries, there is no increase, they just say they cannot do it this year.  Then, maybe they even have two years of that and then the third year they say, “Oh my gosh, we have not given salary increases the last two years we better do something big this year.  Let’s give everybody six or eight percent.”  And they swing around in cycles.  Now, a lot of public universities have to do that because there are state laws and policies, and the way their governance arrangements work they may not have much choice.  Penn State has always avoided that.  You would have to go back a very long way.  I think there has only been one year that Penn State has not had a salary pool to deal with, and that year everybody got a certain dollar amount increase.  But every year Penn State has had salary increases.  So we do not do the wild swings.  No matter how bad the situation is we will try very hard for there to be some modest salary increase.  It will be modest, and it will probably be more modest this year than it has been in some other recent years.  But we have to keep doing that because we are after all in a competitive higher education marketplace like everything else.  We do not want to lose good people.  We want to continue to attract good people here, and you have all got mortgages to pay and bills to pay and things keep going up.  That really leaves legislative appropriation as a variable in the process and tuition.  And that is why we have tuition increases because it is a large part of our revenue stream, and in order for us to pay the university’s bills we have to have tuition increases.  We will this year try to keep them as low as we can given the circumstances.  We just do not think that it is fair to our students to have huge tuition increases year after year, so we are trying to cut those down as well.  We will have some internal budget reallocations.  We are going to have further belt tightening and further reallocation.


As far as layoff goes, there is not one good answer to that.  We will not be imposing from Old Main any program of layoffs.  What we do in the end is, each unit has a budget target, each Dean or vice presidential area will say, “Okay you have got to contribute this back to help solve the problem.”  And that unit will make a decision about how to deal with that problem.  It is almost certain that if we are talking about budget cuts, even if there was no increase, we might be able to get by without layoffs.  When you are talking about budget cuts in some of our units that clearly translates into real dollars and real people, and yes, the work force will be reduced in some units.  Now, whether the number is small enough that it can be dealt with through attrition, that is one thing.  In some units, and we have seen this in recent years in the College of Agricultural Sciences, in the Cooperative Extension Service, and in agricultural research programs where we have actually had to have layoffs because they have no offsetting revenue stream like you might in most of your units, where tuition can help compensate.  If you are in the extension service, there is no revenue stream to offset the potential of millions of dollars of cuts from the state budget.  So that is a problem we worry about.  But that will be decided unit-by-unit.  We will not impose that solution on anybody centrally.  By the way, I hope none of this happens.


David Breslin, Student Senator, Penn State Harrisburg:  With regards to all of this, you mentioned tuition increases being our largest source of income at this point.  I understand that I am surrounded by a group of people whose paychecks come from our tuition and that this university is funded by our tuition.  The issue that I can see as a student is, as you mentioned, year after year getting tuition increases, and that is going to start to snowball.  Can we possibly look at doing a cost benefit analysis of what programs Penn State offers?  The lower the program’s benefit in terms of its cost, let’s eliminate it.  There are a lot of things that this university does that, although they may be aesthetically pleasing or may be more culturally adept…they are beneficial, but they are not as beneficial in terms of the burden that they are going to put on students and on the state to support.  I am just worried that the economy is not doing good, and for students tuition is going up.  So we are acquiring more and more student loans in order to fund our education, and we are going to walk out the door, and, if the economy does not improve, we are not going to be able to find jobs to go ahead and in turn pay these loans.  So I understand that is a concern to the administration and to the faculty but I would just like to bring that up every now and then to make sure that it is on the front burner.  Thank you.


President Spanier:  You are really talking about priorities, and we have to face up to that every day.  If we open up a new major or something, we tend to publicize it because it is happy news, and we are doing something new and exciting.  We do not tend to publicize it when we close down a program, but we close down lots of programs.  If you go back over the last ten years, we have a long list.  I cannot remember how many are on the last list we prepared.  But there are literally dozens of major, minors, programs, and departments that have been closed or collapsed or merged.  So there is far more of that going on than people realize.  And what we do with the funds that are saved in that kind of decision-making process is use them to help offset the cuts, or we recycle that back into other programs that are growing and need to be stronger.  We also have an active budget-cutting task force, which is co-chaired by Rodney Erickson and Gary Schultz.  They actually have a real honest to goodness dollar and cents budget target--I think it is $2.5 million this year--that they have got to find.  And that is just plain and simple a cut.  We are just taking it out of the base budget of the university, and that will go away and whatever kind of cut the state imposes on us or whatever we are short from paying our bills and what we get, that will go to help solve that problem.  So every year there is a certain amount of budget cutting going on.


And the other thing that we have done is every year we take a certain amount of money and we recycle it.  In other words, there is another category where all the Deans know this.  Every year they have to identify areas of savings, and then that money goes back and gets recycled either within the college or university-wide depending upon what is happening that year.


Finally, I would point out that it is very dangerous in a university to make drastic decisions in one year alone about what the priorities are.  This past year we had a four or five percent budget cut from the state--permanent money gone.  Now, we could say, “Oh my gosh we have got to cut out five percent of our programs.”  You look for maybe what is low hanging or something that you think you do not need.  But keep in mind that a university, first of all, is very people intensive, so the single largest part of the university budget is salaries.  So there are real people on those budgets, and any cuts you make are usually affecting people, and you do not want to tell somebody, “Okay, pack your bags you are out at five o’clock, you are off the payroll.”  You have got to have a more humane approach.  The other thing is we have students in all of these programs.  If you decide today you are cutting out a program, because it has always been the custom at Penn State and it is the right thing to do, we are going to decide today to eliminate the program, but it will not be totally eliminated until four or five years from now because there are students in the pipeline and we have to help them finish.  You will not really realize all those savings until down the road.  Certainly, you do not want to identify a program like that and, in three years from now, you say, “Actually we have a new governor and we are getting some more money and that was not such a bad program after all let’s start it up again.”  So you have to be very careful about all of these kinds of decisions and that is why we try not to just look at this on a year-to-year basis, but we are trying to engage in longer range planning and take the greater overview of the whole picture and get there gradually.


David W. Russell, York Campus:  At our last meeting you commented on the reorganization of the Commonwealth College and its relative success.  One of the things that my colleagues and I, at least in my campus, are interested in as a way of continuing our success is the possibility of a residential facility.  Other than money, I wonder if you might comment on what you perceive as being the chief pitfalls of having residential facilities at non-University Park locations, and if you can foresee a time when those pitfalls can be overcome?


President Spanier:  I cannot foresee a time when those pitfalls will be overcome.  We really have three categories.  We have residential campuses like University Park, Erie, Berks, Altoona, and some others where the university owns and operates on university land its own residence hall facilities.  Then we have campuses like York where we just do not have any residence halls.  And then we have some campuses where the university does not have residence halls, but somewhere along the way we allowed some outside person to come in around the edge of campus and do something that looks suspiciously like residence halls.  There are pros and cons of all of these different approaches.  But one thing we are pretty certain of now is that we just cannot afford to start traditional residential housing at campuses that do not already have it because it is very costly.  Let’s just say we cannot do it the way some outside commercial developer could put up a building and amortize it over so many years and that is that.  If the university is building a residence hall, we are building it on our land according to codes that we follow.  It has got to be built for a very, very long time—not for 25 or 30 years—but more or less forever, and we have to have sprinklers and we have to have all kinds of things that make it very costly.  We are talking now at least $30,000 a bed is what it costs to build new residence halls.


Now this is millions and millions of dollars, and, first of all, you have got to have all the beds filled.  So you cannot be starting residence halls anywhere where you are anything less than 100 percent certain that you are going to have 100 percent occupancy more or less in perpetuity.  Now, we are about that certain here at University Park, so we are building this new complex, and we know now those are just going to fill right up and there will be money coming in to help us with the debt service.


But there are some campuses saying, “Please we just want housing.  Build us a thousand or two thousand units.”  On some of our campuses somewhere along the way a predecessor of mine was persuaded to do that, and we are not getting the bills paid.  And so, the cost of paying those bills gets spread against all the students at all the campuses who are in the residence halls which we have to operate on a self-support basis.  So we cannot take any risk.  The upfront money that we need is very substantial.  It goes to the bottom line, and, if we have any accounting professors here, you know how this works on the university’s balance sheet.  The university has its own bond rating and our own debt capacity, and, frankly, we need to preserve as much of that debt capacity as possible for building new academic buildings because we have millions of square feet of space at this university that were built in that big boom period in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s that are now coming into that zone of incredible disrepair.  So we still need to keep doing a lot of stuff to improve our buildings on campus, and we just do not want to get into a whole new residence hall business at some campus where we have not had it.  Now, that is the reality of it, so, no, we are not expecting residence halls.  The down side of that, of course, is that some campuses’ future potential is probably being restricted by the fact that they do not have residence halls, because if they did they would be able to attract certain students who will only go to a place where they can live on campus and be in a residence hall, and we just have to deal with that reality.


Anytime I meet with the campus advisory board they all want to talk about residence halls, and I am being honest with them--that is really the answer.  It is not necessarily what they want to hear, but, when you look at the big Penn State picture and what all the needs are and what we have to do, those are some of the variables we have to contend with.


Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware County Campus:  Do you envision a time when campuses that already have dormitories outside of University Park would be allowed to build more dormitories?


President Spanier:  Do you have a campus in mind?


Peter D. Georgopulos:  No, but what I am saying is that on one hand you are saying that those campuses that do not have dormitories cannot build because of the fact that you have to show 100 percent.


President Spanier:  At the campuses that are residential campuses with existing residence hall systems there you do want to have the right critical mass and meet the demand that is out there, so we have done some of that.  We have built several new residence halls at Penn State Erie.  We have built new residence halls at Harrisburg Campus.  We have built residence halls at Berks and Altoona.  I might have missed one, but at least at those four campuses just within the last two or three years we have had several new residence halls built, and they are all full.  But to start a whole new program somewhere where it does not exist is not a line that we feel comfortable crossing.


Peter D. Georgopulos:  But that is detrimental to those campuses that do not have even one bed at all for their campuses.  That is, if you keep on building dormitories at those campuses that have dormitories already and saying the argument is we can fill them, you are really taking students away from those campuses that do not.


President Spanier:  There is probably some evidence that we have seen a little bit of this where enrollments shift from one campus to the next.  If you build a new residence hall at a popular campus where students want to flock for whatever reason and you have the place to house them, it might detract from an enrollment at another campus that does not have the residence halls or what they perceive as the same ambience.  We are very mindful of that.  It is a part of the overall planning that we do in terms of the capacity at each campus and what affect it might have on other campuses.  This is all going to become even more complicated because starting in 2008 the number of 18 year olds going to college in Pennsylvania is going to start going down.  We are just about at the peak now and have a little more room, but it is all going to come down, and that is one of the reasons why we are so pleased with some of the things I talked about last month--that retaining more upper-division students at our commonwealth campuses has been the single most important factor in maintaining the enrollments at some campuses that otherwise might have declined because Penn State’s market share of the incoming freshmen has gone down and may actually go down further when we have this demographic phenomenon that kicks in just a few years down the road.  Some of our campuses are primarily commuter campuses, and so our mission there is to try to be the best commuter arrangement in their region, and that is what we want to emphasize.


Peter D. Georgopulos:  That may be so, take for instance at the Delaware County Campus.  There are universities, for instance, West Chester, that is on an extensive dormitory campaign right now, and they are taking market share away from us.  And I think those of us who are at non-University Park campuses that do not have dormitories are losing out not only to those campuses here at the university but to other universities in the area.  When you think of Penn State not having a dormitory campus in the Philadelphia area that just does not sound right to me.  I could see it where we are having trouble getting enrollments but there is no trouble getting enrollments at these places.  I think we may be below a sort of critical mass for instance at York or at Delaware, but certainly these should be considered, let’s say in the five-year period.


President Spanier:  Well, you know, if we had the money there are lots of things we would like to do, but every three hundred bed residence hall is going to cost us another $10 million, and you know if we did just one additional three hundred bed residence hall at 20 of our campuses that is $200 million.  That is equivalent to all the money the state gave us during the entire Ridge administration.  It is a matter of priorities again, we just cannot do everything we would like to do.


Bonj Szczygiel, College of Arts and Architecture:  You mentioned the governorship twice.  I would be interested to hear about our new relationship and where you see that developing.  Has it changed?


President Spanier:  Yes, I think so.  I think we have really a wonderful relationship with the new administration.  They are in touch with us.  They are responsive.  They seek our input.  I will be having dinner with the governor tomorrow night in Harrisburg.  I mean, not just me, there is a group there.  They have us in mind.  I am sure it is very painful for the new administration to have had in the first few weeks of the administration to impose another $3.2 million cut on Penn State.  Gary Schultz got a nice telephone call of apology, but the money is gone.  They are contending with a particular set of circumstances, but I continue to be very optimistic about the opportunities for openness, collaboration, and I do feel a sense that they believe in Penn State, and we hope that will be something we can build on.


Chair Moore:  Thank you very much.












Chair Moore:  Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports.  Again, I remind you that if you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the chair and then wait for a microphone before speaking.  For the sake of the Senate Record and the curiosity of your colleagues, please preface your comments with your name and the unit you represent.  We have a Legislative Report from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.  It appears in today’s Agenda as Appendix “C” and is titled, “Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9:  The Senate Record.”  Article IV of the Standing Rules addresses the topic of making amendments to the Standing Rules.  Article four reads as follows, “Amendments to the Standing Rules may be adopted at any meeting of the Senate by a majority vote of those Senators present provided that the amendments have been presented in writing in the Agenda for that meeting.  The amendment to be discussed today has been presented in writing; therefore, we will vote on it today.  If we were discussing an amendment to the Constitution or the Bylaws, then we would have to wait a month to vote.  Valerie Stratton, Chair of the Committee on Committees and Rules will present this report.




Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9:  The Senate Record


Valerie N. Stratton, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules


Valerie N. Stratton, Penn State Altoona:  Thank you.  The Committee on Committees and Rules is recommending a change to what goes into the Senate Record in terms of verbatim minutes of the meeting.  The recommendation is that verbatim minutes of the meeting shall go into the Record except for informational and mandated reports.  Just an executive summary of informational and mandated reports will be included in the Record, unless a verbatim transcription is requested by the Chair and the Executive Secretary.  I would like to make two very small changes.  This morning in the committee we just wanted to make an editorial change to the first sentence of this section, which says, “Under the direction of the Senate Secretary…”  To be more accurate that really should say, “Under the direction of the Executive Secretary of the Senate…,” because that is the individual--not the elected Secretary but the Executive Secretary of the Senate.  So the Committee on Committees and Rules has voted to make that small change.  Just before the meeting it was presented to me as a possible change which I would like to perhaps just ask the members of the committee here at this point if they would agree to this change.  In the bold section that we are adding where it says, “unless a verbatim transcription is requested by the Chair and the Executive Secretary.”  To change that to “or.”  So it would be, “requested by the Chair or the Executive Secretary.”  Members of the Committee on Committees and Rules are there any objections to making that change?  Okay, then the committee would like to make that editorial change as well.  So the rationale is that this does take a fair amount of the staff time to do these transcriptions.  The written reports and the taped discussions will all be available but to actually transcribe everything as it is presented on the floor of the Senate is redundant as well as time consuming.  So the committee makes the recommendation that we adopt this change.


Chair Moore:  Are there any questions?  Since this motion comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded.  Are we ready to vote?  All those in favor of the motion to amend the Standing Rules as proposed, please signify by saying, "aye."


Senators:  Aye.


Chair Moore:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it.  The motion is carried.  The Senate has approved the motion to amend the Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9 as proposed by the Committee on Committees and Rules, and the amendment will now be implemented, having passed.  Thank you, Chair Stratton and thanks, too, to all members of your committee. 




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.




Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees


Brian A. Curran, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries


Brian A. Curran, College of Arts and Architecture:  Thank you, Chair Moore.  The Senate Committee on Libraries, after months of deliberation and consultation, is presenting an advisory/consultative report this afternoon—advisory, that is, to the president of the university--that recommends a policy for the collection of library fines and fees owed by faculty and staff.  This issue is an important one since we feel as stated at the beginning of our report in the statement of principle that access to library collections by all faculty and staff is a critical component of academic life.  This includes respecting library polices requiring renewal of materials, payment for lost materials so that replacements can be purchased, and returning materials if another member of the community needs them.


In our deliberations the committee has endeavored to act in the best interest of the faculty and staff.  Our recommendation, which appears at the end of the report and in a revised and more grammatically elegant form in the handout that you received today on the way in as was suggested by Professor Len Berkowitz, gives strong support to a payroll deduction policy for the collection of outstanding fees and further recommends that a due process appeals policy be instituted at all University Libraries locations.  It is our intention in supporting this policy which was one of a very limited number of final options available to us at least as we saw it, to ensure that any policy be administered in a fair and equitable manner.  It is our further conviction that any policy implemented by the University Libraries be handled as much as possible within the confines of the university community.  And that the employment of external means, such as the use of collection agencies, be kept to a minimum for interests of privacy as well as practical matters like cost.  I know I speak for the committee when I ask you to give the recommendation your careful consideration.  Now I would like to pass the podium over to Dean Nancy Eaton of the University Libraries, who will provide a brief summary of the policy outlined in our report.


Nancy L. Eaton, Dean, University Libraries:  Thank you.  You have the report before you, and you have had a chance to read it, so I would like to just highlight what I consider the most important aspects of the committee discussion and the final recommendation.  The library is trying to solve an accounts receivable problem that was brought to our attention as needing to be fixed.  The problem is that once overdue or lost books are billed for we have no process for getting the materials back or collecting the money if people do not act responsibly.  We have given you in the report a five-year snapshot taken every May of the numbers of faculty, staff, and students involved and the dollar amounts so you can see that it is still over $300,000 and on occasion has been over $400,000.  We are simply trying to find a legal solution to this problem within the options available to us.  Of the four options outlined in the report only two are legal and viable and that is with consultation with the university controller.  Those are payroll deduction that would be required of everybody or use of a collection agency.


As Dr. Curran pointed out we have had lengthy discussion with the president, the provost, the corporate controller, auditors, the Senate Committee on Libraries, and Senate Council on this issue and in the end do recommend as in the best interest of the faculty and staff payroll deduction.  We have already implemented some additional changes due to this consultation, and I want to just highlight them.  The first is that we have reduced the billing cycle from 18 months to 6 months, hoping that by shortening the process we would get your attention more quickly and get a faster response than by dragging it out over a longer period of time; people forget and so on.  We have included additional notices in this billing period so that you get a reminder before the book is due and you get nine reminders or bills during the six month period before the final bill would take effect.  If you return materials within the 30 days, you owe no fines or fees.  If you find the material within the six months, if you have already paid for it, we return that to you.  Finally, we have put into place, and they are already in place, appeals committees on every campus that have to have faculty and staff on the committees, and the library staff who work with those committees cannot be in the majority.  They have to be in the minority.  Any appeal of a bill can take place at anytime during the six-month period, and, while an action is under review, no activity will take place on your account.  In other words, payroll deduction would occur only if the borrower has taken no action to return, renew, pay, or appeal for a six-month period.


Let me just touch on the process.  As you remember, we started this process last May and, at the request of the Faculty Senate, put it in suspension until we could have full deliberation this year.  We do still need to have your permission to do payroll deduction under federal and state law; therefore, we would continue to ask for that process.  We would re-start the process that we started last May with updated information.  Almost 50 percent of the faculty have already given us permission for payroll deduction--4200 people have already said yes.  And for those individuals you do not have to do that again; we have retained that information.  For faculty or staff who returned the material at the time they agreed to payroll deduction, we started with a new clock.  In other words, once the material was back--which is our biggest concern--then you started with a new system and had a clean record.  For faculty who do not agree to payroll deduction, you would still be able to use all of the services of the library except for checking out books, and we would continue to try to locate those materials and to deal with your overdue status.


Again, our concern is to try to find within the legal options available to us, a process that respects faculty and staff, provides due process but is legal within federal and state law.  Thank you.


Brian A. Curran:  I thought it would be appropriate to conclude with a reading of the recommendation.  Again, as I mentioned, in the revised wording that was handed out to you at the door, 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 concludes the programmatic part of our presentation.


Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  If I heard the dean correctly, provision two in this recommendation has already been implemented, which presupposes it seems to me, passage of the first part of the recommendation.  Either that ought to be removed because it is already in effect or there is something wrong with this recommendation.


Brian A. Curran:  I think I can respond to that if you like.  Recommendation two was added following Senate Council presentation of the report very recently, and we were aware at the time that this language was in the report itself.  It was actually in the section of the text, but it was the feeling of Senate Council that this be brought forward and made clear in the recommendation as part of it.  And so, agreeing that perhaps this was a way to make the recommendation more clear, we moved that language directly from where it was buried in the body of the report to a place which was very visible in the recommendation.  So that is the history of how that got there.  It was our understanding that the provision of this would facilitate getting through Senate Council, and so we did do so.


Dennis S. Gouran:  You are proposing something that already exists.


Brian A. Curran:  Well, we are proposing something that already exits but we are also proposing something in the first part that we would not support if the other thing did not exist.  It is primarily a matter of structure of the recommendation to put something out there.  I agree with you in technical terms, but it was felt that many, many concerns were expressed about due process, and so that was why that was foregrounded in that way.


Roger A. Egolf, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  I was just wondering what are the costs of implementing the appeals process, the collection of the payroll deduction, etc., compared to the small amount of money--we are looking at $40,000--that it is going to bring in.  Is this policy going to cost more money than it is actually going to bring in?


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.






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.












May I have a motion to adjourn?  The February 25, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:50 PM.




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)






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





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 RulesNominating 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 Report2003-04 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)