Penn State University Home  

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 35-----FEBRUARY 26, 2002-----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 2001-02.

 

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA  16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221).  The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications.  Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

 

Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.

 

When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.  

 

Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance.  Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances.  A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.  Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.

 

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

   I.  Final Agenda for February 26, 2002

 

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

 

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

 

II.  Enumeration of Documents

 

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to

February 26, 2002

 

Door Handout – Faculty Affairs – Promotion

And Tenure Summary for 2000-01

 

Door Handout – Student Life – Student

Perceptions of Safety

 

Attendance

 

III.  Tentative Agenda for March 26, 2002

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2002

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

      Minutes of the January 29, 2002 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:4

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                                                                              (Blue Sheets) of February 12, 2002

 

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 12, 2002

 

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR –

 

E.  COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –

 

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS –

 

G.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

H.  LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

 

Committees and Rules

 

      Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the Senate –

      Excessive Absences

 

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

University Planning/Undergraduate Education

 

      University Calendar

 

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

 

      Faculty Affairs

 

            Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-01

 

      Student Life

 

            Interim Expulsion

 

            Student Perceptions of Safety

 

K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.   COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE

      UNIVERSITY -

 

M.  ADJOURNMENT -

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

 

The Senate passed one Advisory/Consultative Report:

 

University Planning/Undergraduate Education - “University Calendar.”  The Senate voted on five recommendations: (1) have fall and spring semesters consist of 72 instructional days; (2) establish four final assessment days at the end of each semester; (3) revise Senate Policy 44-20 (final examination) to endorse the concept of multiple forms of final assessment; (4) reconfigure the summer session to allow for designated assessment days; and (5) consolidate “fall break” and Thanksgiving recess into one week.  (See Record, page(s) 5-13 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)

 

 

The Senate heard three informational reports:

 

Faculty Affairs - “Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-2001.”  This report is an overview of the tenure and promotion decisions made in the 2000-01 academic year.  A three-year composite for faculty entering the tenure ranks in 1992, 1993, and 1994 shows how many of each cohort was retained and tenured by their eighth year at Penn State.  (See Record, page(s) 13-15 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)

 

Student Life - “Interim Expulsion.”  Recent cases involving sexual assault on female students have raised concerns about policies dealing with students charged with crimes.  This report reviews existing University policies, including the role of the Office of Judicial Affairs in relation to how students are protected from threats posed by the presence on Penn State campuses of individuals charged with serious crimes.  (See Record, page(s) 15-16 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

 

Student Life - “Student Perceptions of Safety.”  According to student perceptions and crime statistics, students feel safe at Penn State.  This report presents the results of several Penn State Pulse surveys and examines U.S. Department of Education, Uniform Crime Reports to answer the question, “Why do students feel safe?”  Examples of safe campus programs and activities are presented in the report.  (See Record, page(s) 16-18 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

 

 

One report must lay on the table until the next meeting of the Senate, March 26, 2002, because it is a change in the Senate Bylaws:

 

Committees and Rules - “Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the Senate – Excessive Absences.”  This legislative report proposes changing the Senate Bylaws to provide voting units with the authority to replace Senators with three or more unexcused absences from Senate meetings during an academic year.  Recommendations will not be voted on until the March 26 Senate Meeting.  (See Record, page(s) 4-5 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and eighty-four Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Nichols:  It is time to begin.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the January 29, 2002 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  Are there any corrections or additions to this document?  All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

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

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for February 12, 2002.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  If you have not read the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs cover sheet which is attached as Appendix “A” to your Agenda today, please do so.  There are three announcements that are not routine.  The first regarding the deadlines for the General Education recertification and the second, the improvements in the procedures for recertifying the International and Intercultural Competence requirement, and third, the clarification on requirements for minors.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of February 12, 2002.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Nichols:  President Spanier is not with us today.  In about a little less than half an hour, he will appear before another legislative committee in Harrisburg trying to pull an appropriation rabbit out of the state government hat.  While we will applaud every extra dollar he brings back to Penn State to improve the education for our students, we are now at the point where we should no longer expect the president—no matter how sound his case, no matter how clear his message, no matter how effective his legislative affairs and other staff—to do the nearly impossible.

 

The very serious problems in funding the university are structural.  As a result, incremental, stop-gap, and reactive approaches to the problems keyed to an ever smaller trickle of funds from Harrisburg simply are no longer viable.

 

Under-funding of Penn State is nothing new.  In 1863, shortly after its founding, what is now Penn State received the land grant designation.  But unlike most other land grant universities, Penn State did not receive large grants of land to establish an endowment and place it on a firm financial footing.  Instead, Penn State received nearly worthless script.  Within six years, Pennsylvania’s land grant college was in serious debt and had to beg the state for permission to float bonds to raise enough money to pay the faculty and cover other expenses to keep the doors of the university open.  There is not time to recount the intervening history, but suffice it to say that not much has changed over the years with Penn State continually receiving—by any reasonable measure—inadequate funding.

 

In short, Penn State never has, does not now, and probably never will receive sufficient state funding.  It is time to recognize that, and move on.  As the baseball philosopher Yogi Berra said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”.

 

There has been a lot of discussion recently in the local and national press about implications of constrained state budgets on tuition at Penn State and other public universities.  Last fall, in anticipation of these problems, President Spanier appointed a Tuition Task Force to study the issues of financing the university and to lay out options for the Board of Trustees, which will make the final decisions regarding tuition.  Your chair was appointed the faculty representative to that task force.  Currently, it is the plan for the task force findings to be made public for the first time before this body sometime before the end of the academic year.  However, I would like to make a few, very quick preliminary comments at this time.

 

First some data, U.S. News’ recent rankings, Penn State was 46th in overall academic quality among national universities.  However, it is ranked 188th—near the very bottom—in faculty resources.  Faculty resources is a combined measure of faculty compensation, percent of faculty with the top terminal degree, percent of full-time faculty, student-faculty ratio, and class size.  On that measure, Penn State is 188th.  In addition, Penn State is also ranked 81st in financial resources (average educational expenditures per student).

 

None of the top 50 universities had anywhere near as wide a gap between the ranking of academic quality and faculty resources, and only six—none of them Big Ten or CIC institutions—had a wider gap between the rankings of academic quality and financial resources.

 

These large gaps in Penn State’s rankings are a good news, bad news deal.  On the one hand, it is a strong indicator of efficiency of the university that is, maintaining relatively high academic quality with relatively few resources.  But on the other hand, it is compelling evidence that Penn State will have great difficulty sustaining its academic quality with existing resources and almost certainly cannot improve the quality of scholarship without a substantial infusion of additional funds.

 

As you know, Penn State faculty salaries have been in decline relative to other Big Ten/CIC and our peer institutions, and President Spanier has made it a high priority to arrest that decline.  But in these difficult budgetary times, if the university is forced to protect faculty salaries by cutting program funds, it merely will be robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Having an adequately paid faculty is important, but ensuring that the faculty has the necessary tools to deliver a high quality education is also important.  Having a great faculty teaching lecture courses in the Bryce Jordan Center or with labs in a broom closet, is not a solution.  Cutting yet again a few bucks out of this program budget or squeezing a few more students into that section will no longer do.  Like a colleague of mine used to say, “It’s like being nibbled to death by ducks”.

 

This structural under-funding of Penn State—now increasingly common in peer institutions—requires fundamental rethinking of what the university can realistically accomplish with available resources and how it will be financed to ensure academic quality.

 

But what fork in Yogi’s road to take?  Therein lies the problem.  There is no easy, clearly right choice.  All options have obvious and considerable downsides, and probably will result in all sorts of other unanticipated negative fallout.  These choices will mean a fundamental change in Penn State—its structure, its mission, and its financing.  Given what I just said, this is a formula for delaying the hard choices in hope—probably a vain hope—that better options will emerge sometime in the future.

 

My point today is simply that these tough choices have to be made—they can no longer be avoided.  We’ve long since reached that fork in the road.  It’s time to take it.

 

Most of the usual administrative announcements are in the Senate Council minutes which are attached to the Agenda and they won’t be repeated here today.  The only additional item on the Agenda is the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President which met on February 19, 2002 and discussed the following topics:  Tuition and 2002-03 Budget; Tuition Task Force Report; Reorganization; Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty; Dean Search Updates; Course Availability; Graduation Credit Requirements; Race Relations Project; Faculty Honors Hall of Fame; Calendar Update; and the President’s Christmas Movie Reviews.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Nichols:  Agenda Item E, Comments By The President Of The University.  President Spanier and Provost Erickson, who is also in Harrisburg today, are accounted for.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

 

Chair Nichols:  Agenda Item F, Forensic Business there is none.  Agenda Item G, Unfinished Business there is none.  As we move to discussion of reports I’d like to remind you that if you wish to speak to the Senate, please be recognized by the chair, then stand and identify yourself, and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.  Thank you.  Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports, the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, “Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7—Election to the Senate—Excessive Absences”.  That is Appendix “B” and Jean Landa Pytel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will present the report and answer any questions that you might have.  However, because this is a change in our Bylaws, that means that it will have to lay on the table until the next meeting (March 26, 2002) before we vote on it.

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the Senate—Excessive Absences

 

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

 

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering:  Thanks, John.  I guess you all had an opportunity to look at the report.  It came forward to our attention as a result of problems that certain voting units were experiencing because of inadequate representation that resulted from insufficient attendance by their representatives.  Just to make the point, I will draw your attention to the data that was attached to the report that communicated some of the rate of absences that we’ve incurred over the past couple years.  So, I’m happy to answer any questions.

 

Winston A. Richards, Penn State Harrisburg:  Twenty-four percent of all elected Senators are unable to meet the obligation.  This seems to be a very serious problem.  My question is, before the legislation was drafted the 24 percent, were they surveyed to see if there were any particular problems associated with their not being able to meet their obligations?

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  The question was whether some of the people that were     absent were surveyed as to what their particular reasons were for being absent and I don’t think there was any kind of formal survey.  Currently, we do have on the books the possibility that the faculty who go on sabbatical and so on can be replaced for the interim.  So there are some possibilities right now to address academic kind of reasons why

someone cannot fulfill their obligation on a temporary basis.  This is not a part of that.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, thank you Jean.  Agenda Item I, Advisory and Consultative Reports.  The Senate Committee on University Planning and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education on the “University Calendar”.  That is Appendix “C” in your Agenda.

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

University Calendar

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

Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

 

Chair Nichols:  Let me take just a minute to set the stage for you.  The chair has attempted to achieve four goals regarding the Senate’s consideration of the University Calendar.  First, to give the Senate an opportunity to vote on the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar, better known as the Smith Committee Report.  This blue ribbon committee was appointed by my predecessor and the provost, which included the registrar, the dean for undergraduate education, the chair of the Senate Committee on University Planning, faculty and student representation and was chaired by a distinguished former Senate chair.  That committee did most of the heavy lifting including extensive research, benchmarking, months of deliberation, review of literally hundreds of emails, and other comments and suggestions from the university community.  In other words, the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar is our expert on the subject and has put forth a legitimate set of recommendations.  The Senate has the right and the responsibility to vote up or down on those recommendations.

 

Second, because the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar recommendations are conceptually interrelated, or at least some of them, we would like to vote on all of them at once.  To divide the question and vote individually on each of the recommendations could result in the Senate endorsing a partial set of recommendations that are internally inconsistent or contradictory.

 

Third, to present the Senate with a clear straightforward question and avoid descending into the parliamentary abyss.

 

Fourth, to give full voice to all points of view and constituencies throughout the process.  In twenty-twenty hindsight, this probably was a pretty ambitious set of goals, but it is still our intent is to try to achieve them today.

 

As we proceed, there are two more important points to remember.  First, this is an advisory/consultative report; it is not legislative.  The president has the authority over the calendar.  Whatever passes the Senate is this body’s advice to the president on the matter.  Second, after today’s vote the door is still open for further Senate input on the issue of calendar.  The administration has made this commitment and Senators should not operate under the erroneous belief that if they do not add their legislative Christmas tree bulb on this legislative Christmas tree that they will not be heard in the final decision-making process.  I’ve asked the Senate Committee on University Planning to summarize the debate today to receive any additional suggestions or comments and to transmit them to the president prior to March 12, 2002.  That is the date when the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President will be meeting and this will be the primary, maybe the only agenda item.  In other words, your voice can be heard without undermining a straightforward vote on the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar recommendations.

 

The Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar will be considered ad seriatim; that is, paragraph by paragraph, and voted on all at once.  The Senate will debate each recommendation individually in numerical order.  Then, the floor will be open for debate on the entire motion and we will take one vote on all recommendations together.  Again, the purpose is to give the Senate an opportunity that it deserves to have a clean and simple up or down vote on the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar recommendations.  And again, seeing that we have already had the forensic session on this, please be parsimonious in your use of floor time.

 

Anthony Baratta, Chair of the Senate Committee on University Planning which has Senate jurisdiction over the calendar is here; did you want to say anything in introduction, Tony?  If you do, go ahead and also Laura Pauley, who is Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education that also considered this matter, is here to answer your questions.

 

Anthony J. Baratta, College of Engineering:  You have the report both from our committee as well as comments from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education.  I really don’t have any additional points to make.  I do want to thank all those that did provide comments.  We had a lot of comments received from students, faculty, and administrators over the period of time that we were looking at this and I do appreciate those comments.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, then the floor is open for debate on recommendation number one.  Laura, please go ahead.

 

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering:  When the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education reviewed the set of recommendations, we came with a split vote and we did not support the set of recommendations.  I want to make the point that a second vote was taken to determine if committee members wanted to keep the current calendar.  Only two were in favor of the current calendar, 18 were opposed to the current calendar, so I would like to emphasize that a vote against the current set of recommendations does not necessarily mean a support of the current calendar.  This is one option that is currently on the floor and being considered.

 

Chair Nichols:  Now the floor is open for debate on recommendation number one.

 

Robert D. Minard, Eberly College of Science:  I’m sort of speaking on behalf of Peter Jurs who is on sabbatical right now.  In the fall, Peter polled the various undergraduate officers in the Eberly College of Science and they were unanimously against any shortening of the semester whether it be 15 week, 14 week, or the 14½ week.  We find it virtually impossible to get through all the material.  Forty years ago when I took Chemistry, there was about ten times less to learn than there is today and somehow we are expected to shoehorn this in to an ever-shortening semester, so it just doesn’t make any pedagogical sense.  I notice that the principles which you worked by had only one pedagogical or teaching/learning criteria and that had something to do with assessment.  The rest of it had to do with symmetry, national holidays, arrival days, etc.  There was nothing to do with the main mission of this university, which is education.  Dr. Jurs and I have talked to people in the College of Engineering and they too feel that it is asking a lot of our students to shorten the semester, and have them learn in a short amount of time.

 

As the Eberly College of Science Undergraduate Officers toured the campuses this fall, they polled faculty and the polls demonstrated unanimous support against the shorter semester.  The campus colleges nee all the time they can get to teach students.  This 72-day proposal sort of popped out of nowhere to me when I got the Senate Agenda because I thought we would be debating 15 versus 14 weeks now we are at a compromise position, which I guess I could consider if I knew what it would really be.  I sat down with a calendar last night, played around with it, and I couldn’t come up with anything that seemed very satisfying at all.  It seemed to be breaking weeks up and it just didn’t make a lot of sense.  So, I would propose that we not really vote in support of this measure until we see some examples of how it would be executed.  Thank you.

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  Could I raise a procedural question here because I’m not clear as to why we are discussing these recommendations one at a time when we are going to vote on them as a package?  I can see this debate affording opportunity for redundant statements of positions of various voting units on each of the items so that it would make it seem as if there are five times as much opposition or support for these as there actually is.  So, can’t we discuss these as a package and give ourselves the benefit of an economy that may make it easier to reach some other conclusion?

 

Chair Nichols:  There is, of course, a strong opposite opinion as well, Dennis, and Robert Rules allows for an ad seriatim consideration.  I don’t know what to say beyond that.

 

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture:  Senators from the College of Arts and Architecture met as a group prior to this meeting, which is why most of us are late.  We are largely in favor of the 72 days.  It is better than the system that we have now.  We are in favor of changing the term to assessment period because that is more appropriate for the exam period in our college.  So, the College of Arts and Architecture is in favor of this.  Thanks.

 

Steven Koeber, Substitute Student Senator, Penn State Altoona: 

 

Chair Nichols:  What’s your unit? (repeated three times)

 

Steven Koeber:  Penn State Altoona (with assistance from Senators)

 

Steven Koeber:  First of all, if you are cutting the number of days, are you going to cut my tuition, too?  I believe the fall break was at first a study break and at the end of the fall semester you need that break because during Thanksgiving the semester is basically over.  What we have right now in the spring, is a middle break.  I’m able to catch up with my classes.  But if I don’t have a break during the fall and also, if freshmen, don’t have a break they fall behind.  I didn’t do too well last semester because I just came in, and if I don’t have a break I wouldn’t do well.  It’s my opinion that you should not approve recommendation number one because freshman such as myself didn’t do too good last semester.  If you remove the break, you give us no chance to catch up.  This spring I have a chance to catch up on all the school work that I have.

 

James A. Strauss, Eberly College of Science:  The student actually makes a valid point in this budgetary crisis that we have.  We are looking at tuition this year being raised perhaps 10-15 percent, and we have to, I think, look at public perception of raising tuition a record amount and also cutting our instructional days.

 

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg:  Could you clarify whether adoption of recommendation one would affect the number of contact hours?

 

Anthony J. Baratta:  The current number of minutes in a period would remain the same.  I believe the current number of minutes for a typical three-credit course is roughly 2250 minutes in a semester.  So if you went from 75, which was the current number of days in a semester, to 72, you could lose between one to two 50-minute periods.

 

John J. Cahir, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education:  Some of us believe that the present calendar is broken and one of the ways in which it is broken is that we advertise either 74 days in the fall or 75 days in the spring but we are not conducting classes on some of those days to a very great extent--at least at this campus.  When we are collecting tuition and having people going home and saying, “my class was cancelled,” that, I think, is more dangerous than anything else.

 

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona:  I have a question regarding the 72 days and the potential impact on 15 weeks of lab that we currently now have.  If we had lab days typically one per week in a course, what is the impact of 72 days on the number of labs that we would otherwise have with 72 days of instruction?  That’s not clear to me.

 

Anthony J. Baratta:  I think in part that would actually depend upon the course.  There was no way for us to assess that.  We could only look at comparable institutions to see what the number of instructional days that they had.  We could not break it down into the course and what we found was that 75 days was on the high side compared to most of our peer institutions and 72 or 73 was more typical.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  We did consider that in the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education and we made the point that having 14 ½ weeks would be a problem for classes where there are multiple sections and different sections are held on different days and I think the labs are an example of that.

 

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington:  The issue that Brian raises seems to be essentially a scheduling or registrar issue and, as I saw in our deliberations with Jim Wager at the table, this was not brought to the foreground.  I think it is realistic to conceive however, Brian, that there might be some courses where labs would be 14 meetings instead of 15, maybe with extra minutes per lab, something like that.  On the other hand, in the final analysis it would turn into a scheduling issue.

 

Chair Nichols:  Seeing nothing more on recommendation one we move to recommendation two.  The floor is open for debate on recommendation two.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  We were just wondering if there was an assessment into the issue of just how much more conflicts are going to be created by the four rather than five assessment days?  Let me just clarify this and that is, currently there tends to be a mapping of the days of the week to the actual final exam period which naturally results in a lack of conflict.  If they go to a situation where now they randomly pull from air and they don’t have a mapping matrix, there will be a lot more conflicts than the 40 percent numbers that are thrown around in terms of actual use.

 

Anthony J. Baratta:  That question did come up on several occasions and we were told by the representative from the Registrar’s Office that, yes, there probably would be somewhat of an increase in the number of conflicts but he felt that it was manageable.  That was based on his expert opinion so that was not an issue.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  Just as a comment…if you take a container full of objects and you pour them out and you try to put them back in randomly, you’ll find very quickly that they will occupy twice the space and so their expert opinion…I’d like to know there was something more than that in terms of an actual plan for getting them back in the box.

 

Chair Nichols:  Anything more on recommendation two?

 

James F. Smith:  The discussion of whether it was possible to do what is now a five day schedule in a four day schedule came up.  It came up in our committee’s deliberations and Jim Wager did not think it would be a problem.  I checked with a couple of campus registrars to spread it out in the commonwealth, particularly at places where I know rooms are at a premium and so on, and the fact was that it was possible to create a matrix where examinations could be scheduled that would not necessarily conflict with one an other.  The kind of scheduling conflict that you are talking about is something that is impossible to predict because it varies with every student’s schedule.  The question is whether the student is going to get three exams within the window of time and I think the bottom line is that the possibility exists for a slight increase in that kind of conflict.  I think, at the same time, it is still possible to create a grid for the template of exam schedules that will eliminate direct course-to-course conflicts.  So there may be a marginal increase in schedule conflicts for students but that is totally unpredictable because you don’t know what courses student “A” is going to schedule or which of those courses will schedule a final assessment or final exam during that time period.

 

Clay Calvert, College of Communications:  My question is just this, does the professor then have total discretion on making the call of when the final exam would be?  Is that correct under this schedule?  So I could pick whenever I schedule my final exam?  I’m confused on that.

 

Anthony J. Baratta:  I think the same rules would apply, at least conceptually, then as now.  If you choose to have a scheduled final exam then it would be determined by the registrar.  If you choose to go to an alternative form then that would be different.  We have not proposed or identified any need to change the exam policy other than to institute the word assessment to allow for alternative forms of assessment.

 

Dawn M. Noga, Student Senator, College of Engineering:  I just wanted to state that I polled a number of my friends in Engineering.  For most of us, all of our courses have final exams, that is between four and six exams per student.  You take away one of those exam days even though the registrar has the conflict filing.  You may not have three exams in one day; you can have three or four exams in 24 hours.  So then, you take all of those exams in that 24-hour period and if you look at the accuracy of the assessment period, is it really a look of how we did in the course and on all the material, or an overload on the students in that four days?  So obviously I would be against recommendation number two.

 

Chair Nichols:  Seeing no additional hands on recommendation two, we are down to recommendation three.  The floor is open for debate on recommendation three.  Seeing no hands, the floor is now open for debate on recommendation four.  Seeing no hands, the floor is now open for debate on recommendation five.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  Much in the same way that we would like to see a later start to the university calendar which allows our students to participate in internships and summer programs, which now with the early start creates some conflicts.  The fall break also creates some difficulties in the university calendar at least in terms of how we deal with our own scheduling in College of Arts and Architecture and specifically the School of Theatre.  Already we are confronted with this coming fall, five home games to start the season.  You can imagine we can’t put on a production when there is a Saturday football game; nobody would come and if they did, nobody could park.  This fall break creates an additional challenge for us in terms of being able to give our students the kind of experiences that they need to have.  I have to say as a professor who has been available that Monday and Tuesday for consultations, I’ve yet to have a single student come to my office for consultation to solve a particular problem, either in advising or in play production.  To top it off, we have a holiday just before that in September, and already the students for Fall Break rather than attending classes on Friday are taking off classes early.  What happens is we now have not one or two breaks in the fall semester, we end up with three breaks, and we are largely in favor of just condensing it all into Thanksgiving Break.  Dealing with football is a separate issue but dealing with just one break in the semester.

 

Chair Nichols:  Other debate on recommendation five?  Seeing none, the floor is open for debate on the entire main motion.

 

Dennis S. Gouran:  Thank you for not repeating your positions on the issue.  I rise to speak on behalf of the caucus of the College of the Liberal Arts Senators, who in its meeting of last Thursday came to a consensus in support of the package of recommendations.  While I think everyone within that body could probably individually find a more ideally suited schedule to his or her particular needs, I think a collective judgment of that body of committees involved in this process have done the best they can to come up with a sensible and a rational set of recommendations and we stand in support of it.

 

Eric B. Cowden, Student Senator, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I also worked on the Senate Committee on University Planning after it was put together and I think that it is very important to keep in mind that this is a compromise.  The two extremes could be very dangerous; if this is voted down, then and it goes back to committee and the chances are if this doesn’t come up again in exactly this way then it is going to be one extreme or the other.  You either are going to be really ticked or really happy.  This way you might want 14 weeks instead of 15 weeks but you might want 15 weeks instead of 14 weeks, this is the best bet--14 ½ weeks.  You might have wanted fall break, you might have wanted to get rid of fall break to cut down to having three stops in the fall semester we did both, we kept fall break and only have two stops to the semester.  I don’t think there is a better compromise between each end of the spectrum.  I just think that it is very important to keep that in mind when you are voting today.

 

Robert D. Minard:  I think we’re voting for a pig in a poke because we just don’t know what we are going to really have.  In terms of labs, I know that I’m giving up a whole week of lab.  That is what it is going to come down to.  My colleagues and my department have not had a chance to really look at this executed in a model so that they can see how much class time is really going to be impacted.  I recommend that, until this is fleshed out and we can really see some examples of how this would be applied, that we not vote in favor of it.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delware County Campus:  I would like to vote against this set of recommendations for a bunch of reasons.  I commend the committee for doing its work.  I too am concerned about the number of contact hours that are going to be reduced here with students at the commonwealth campuses, especially in technical courses.  I’m concerned about labs as well.  Having said that, I also have a concern that there is no flexibility in this schedule or in this calendar.  And what I mean by that is the following:  our concerns at the campuses are not the same concerns that you have here at University Park.  We don’t have a constraint about a Saturday commencement.  We don’t have a problem with Thanksgiving and students cutting classes as much as you do.  But the concern we do have at the campuses is starting so early in the fall semester, especially with our sister institutions near the Delaware County Campus.  For instance, in Delaware County where classes start after Labor Day, students who would be considering Penn State late in the summer are not going to be coming to Penn State at our campuses for the simple reason that we start so early.  I don’t see any flexibility.  I don’t even see any guidelines for what a credit is equivalent to and that concerns me.  I agree with the colleagues in Science and Engineering for wanting to maintain the schedule because of contact hours; I really do.  But if we decide to go with a 72 plus four days of assessment, I think the following:  You asked about have you ever laid this thing out?  Well, I did lay it out, and there are seven possibilities considering when September 1 starts, whether it starts on Sunday, Monday through Saturday.  So there are seven possibilities and scenarios.  If you consider starting classes on the Tuesday after Labor Day, or at the earliest, the Monday prior to Labor Day and you want to have a two-day Fall Break and a three-day Thanksgiving Break and have commencement on Saturday prior to Christmas, it all cannot be done.  The number of cumulative class days plus the assessment days turns out in this type of calendar through a spreadsheet to be 74, so something has to give.  And I think what naturally has to give is Fall Break, if you are going to go to 76 assessment plus classroom days.  There is only one other way that I know of that you can do that and that is get the entire country to go on the Orthodox Calendar and have Christmas in January.  I want these types of statements to also be put in the Record so that the president can actually see something of a structure, basically in seeing these seven calendars and benchmark and manipulate these things.  We can’t have everything here and have the 76 days.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any other debate on the main motion?  Seeing none we are ready for a vote.  All those in favor of the motion which is the five joint committee recommendations which appear on the first page of your appendix, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay"? 

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  The aye’s seem to have it.  Is there a call for a division of the assembly?

 

Senators:  Yes.  So moved.

 

Chair Nichols:  A division of the house has been called and ordered.  The chair-elect, the secretary and the parliamentarian will serve as tellers.  This will be a standing vote.  As many as are in favor of the recommendation of the main motion, please stand.  As many as are opposed to the motion, please stand.  There are 105 aye’s, 62 nay’s.  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried.  The Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar recommendations will be forwarded to the president as our advice to him.  Thank you very much.  Agenda Item J, Informational Reports, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs “Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-01”.  It is Appendix “D” plus there is also a door handout.  You should have received a door handout.

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-01

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

 

Vasundara V. Varadan, College of Engineering:  Bob Secor will answer questions about this report.

 

Robert Secor, Vice Provost:  Are there any questions about the report?  The report consists of two parts, what is in your Agenda and the door handout.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  The College of Education Caucus was curious about exit interviews before faculty leave the university and try to understand if there is some explanation for departure before tenure?

 

Robert Secor:  That’s a good question particularly since we have that discrepancy between men and women, minorities and non-minorities.  We do conduct exit interviews.  There is an exit interview officer in every college.  We hand a questionnaire to everybody departing.  Our feedback so far hasn’t given us a lot of answers to that question.  What we are finding is, people leave, and we find this in women more than men, because there is a concern about mentoring.  We have been talking more about mentoring programs.  We have an Academic Leadership Forum with department heads and deans to talk about fostering mentoring programs.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs is also very concerned about this.  You had a report last Senate meeting about “Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty” and it is meant to be responsive to it.  But also the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has just met with Judd Arnold, one of the exit interview officers, and our report and our procedures have been sent to each of the three commissions asking for their feedback and suggestions for getting better information as to why we have these discrepancies.  The subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs is going to put all that together with a recommendation for strengthening the exit interview program.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  I have a comment.  When this was approved in Senate Council, it had the stipulation of adding interpretations and being a veteran of seeing lab reports with an interpretation, the added statement in the interpretation was these data describe what has happened in terms of promotion and tenure.  The data do not explain why individual decisions were made or why differences exist in the promotion and tenure profiles of various demographic groups.  To me, that would be returned, and it would say as does a lab report, that’s not interpretation.  I have an alternative statement.  So I just wanted to suggest, given personal and market forces, it might not be surprising that retention of women and minorities in a given P&T cohort might be reduced.  Nonetheless, this is a trend and is not compensated for by other hiring strategies such as recruiting senior faculty when this denominator will result in conversions towards a less diverse rather than a more diverse faculty.  Further monitoring this and other portals for women and minority hiring need to be assessed.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Concerning second year reviews, you have 103 cases reviewed and 102 went forward.  Is there anything in the rules that say that we can terminate at that stage or is there anything that prevents us from doing that?

 

Robert Secor:  No, there isn’t.  Nothing prevents us from doing that.

 

Henry O. Patterson, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley:  I guess I’m looking for more on interpretations and discussion of this as well.  How do you see this 51 percent?  Historically, is there a trend involved here or are we pretty much the same as in the last ten years or so?  And how do we compare to other comparable universities?

 

Robert Secor:  I don’t have a comparative to other universities.  There is a trend and it is downward.  The percentage that we have been tenuring is a lower percentage for an incoming class than it was even three years ago--the trend is downward.  And that is a concern, too.  It is a concern also which was brought up at this forum for department heads and deans and the provost raised that question about whether we are getting our best response for the investments that we make when we bring in new faculty and spend two or three hundred thousand dollars of start-up costs in the sciences and then we are only tenuring one out of two.  On the one hand, we want to make sure we’re making the right tenure decisions.  Making sure that we are making decisions and on the other hand we want to protect our investment.  So I think that is a lower figure than any of us would like and it is a retention issue.  As you’ll notice once people actually come to the sixth year tenure, we had 87 people who are up for tenure last year and 77 received it, so it’s about 89 percent.  But once they get to the university committee, there is a much higher percent yet.  But in terms of people who actually came seven years ago, are retained, and ultimately get tenure, that 51 percent is a low figure.

 

Jacob De Rooy:  Looking at the figures that you gave us for promotion to associate and full professor rank, I think we should be very concerned about the fact that even though a third of the faculty are serving outside of University Park, only 12 or 13 of the 67 recommendations for promotion came from outside University Park.  I think that your concern about mentoring early is something that should deserve the attention of the Senate in the following way—promotion rates to full rank.  I consider full professor as full rank, and these are clearly much lower at the campuses, and even these figures are misleading.  If you look at the number of people holding full rank at campus colleges you would say, “well, we don’t really have a serious problem, we have a lot of full professors”.  The problem is, in a lot of colleges, people were hired at that rank.  They didn’t progress through the system.  So they give us no evidence about the ability of Penn State to develop its own faculty.  And if you’ll permit an anecdotal comment, one full professor, who, by the way, was hired at that rank, when asked by me about mentoring and it wasn’t a personal question he said, “well mentoring is a very risky process and I rather not get involved with it”.  I think that says something very bad, so let’s not take a look at the number of full professors because many of them have not gone through the system.  I think we should look at this and say, “Outside of University Park we have a big job to do about faculty development”.

 

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine:  I heard the comment made on several occasions about market forces, and I just want to make the comment that I certainly hope that we look at this first as an interim and that we don’t place the blame outside of the university.  If we created the proper environment in terms of an investment in having our faculty grow, some of those market forces issues would go away.  I rise to make this comment that I hope our feet will be held to the fire about what we do internally to recruit and to say at the point of recruitment that we are investing in the growth of every faculty member no matter where they are located, to grow within the institution.

 

Dale A. Holen, Scranton Campus:  In the years 1992-1994, up to 49 percent did not receive tenure.  Do you have any information on what percentage of that 49 percent left before the six-year review?

 

Robert Secor:  If you look at the figures that are in the Agenda, the part with the three-year tenure progression, the way you read that is, year one we had 402 people who were on the tenure track and the next year it drops to 371 and 342, so here it is giving year by year and it doesn’t tell you why they left, it just tells you that they left.  The chart below on ‘tenured’ tells you which one of those were tenured so that in that three-year progression of the drop-out rate of 31 from year one to two—13 were tenured, the others left for other reasons.  You can do that for each one of those years.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any other questions for Bob?  Seeing none, thank you, Bob.  Thank you, Vasu.  The next informational report is from the Senate Committee on Student Life, “Interim Expulsion”.  That is Appendix “E,” and Bill Ellis, Chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life will present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

 

Interim Expulsion

 

Bill Ellis, Chair, Senate Committee on Student Life

 

Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus:  Thank you.  I’d like to introduce William Huston from the Office of Judicial Affairs.  This is a report that was put on the agenda of the Senate Committee on Student Life this past fall when there were considerable concerns about whether university policies were sufficient to protect the safety of students from other students who had been charged with serious crimes.  We quizzed Joseph Puzycki on this.  We did an investigation of the policies.  We think the policy is sufficient to protect safety.  It is important though to note that not every student who is accused of a serious crime can be removed from campus in this way simply because this process does deprive students of due process.  And when this happens, the university is normally obligated to give that student a hearing normally within five working days.  When the university does not have compelling reason to believe that the student is a danger to other students or to himself, then the policy is to allow the student to remain on campus.  In cases where there is a clear danger, as there was this past October, when you had a rather serious case of a student entering female students dormitory rooms then the policy can be used and was used.  So, Bill and I will stand for questions on this.

 

Chair Nichols:  Questions on this report?  Seeing no hands, thank you very much, Bill and Bill.  The next report is also from the Senate Committee on Student Life, “Student Perceptions of Safety” and that is Appendix “F” in your Agenda and again, Bill Ellis.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

 

Student Perceptions of Safety

 

Bill Ellis, Chair, Senate Committee on Student Life

 

Bill Ellis:  First of all, I would like to thank Jon Olson who was a member of the Senate Committee on Student Life for the past two years and is no longer a University Faculty Senator.  But, he put in a considerable amount of work in getting this report off the launch pad and is responsible for collecting much of the data in 1997, 1998 and 1999.  I refer you to the door handout which we felt was necessary because there is some degree of slippage between the databases that were used.  Because some of the databases that we used to actually record the actual incidence of crimes at these campuses included crimes that were committed on students, but not on the campus, we have an affect where you have a campus that is located in an urban area will tend to have a larger rate of crimes committed on students, but not on the campus.  The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) data deal only with offenses that occurred on the campuses themselves and I’m rather fortunate that we did put together these supplementary data because I looked at the report when it arrived and somehow or another two sets of graphs were omitted from the green sheets here.  So this does have the data for comparative data for Penn State and other Big Ten campuses on aggravated assault and burglary/robbery/motor vehicle theft, which somehow or another were omitted from this version.  Mackenzie DeVos is the person that did the most work in putting the final form of the report together and is largely responsible for the final form of the data and she has asked to say a few words about the report.

 

Mackenzie DeVos, Graduate Student Senator, College of Medicine:  I just wanted to briefly describe the reason we worked on this report.  We wanted to first determine if Penn State students feel safe on campus and why they feel safe, but also if they are relatively safe.  So if they feel safe, are they justified in feeling safe, and we consulted a variety of sources to obtain the data.  We looked at Penn State Pulse Surveys.  We also surveyed Penn State students and. as Dr. Ellis mentioned, we looked on the OPE website for crime rate statistics.  Based on the surveys of the Penn State students, it was determined that most students at Penn State feel safe on their respective campuses.  The most common reasons for these feelings of safety include campus lighting and the blue light call boxes that are located throughout the campuses.  Then, the addendum data shows the crime rate statistics.  What you can see is that relative to other schools including other Big Ten main campuses, to compare with University Park, as well as other Pennsylvania main campuses and small colleges, and to compare with the satellite campuses, you can see that the crime rate statistics for Penn State are relatively low compared to these other schools indicating that Penn State students are relatively safe on their campuses.  Any questions?

 

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development:  Is there any gender differences in terms of the survey and responses?  How generalized is your data for all of this?

 

Mackenzie DeVos:  I’m sorry I didn’t…

 

Semyon Slobounov:  The gender differences.  Did you see any gender differences in female/male in terms of the safety survey?  And how generalized is your data that you present here?

 

Mackenzie DeVos:  There did seem to be a little bit of a gender bias.  On the Penn State Pulse Surveys it was found that women tend to feel more unsafe in certain areas of the campus than men, which is pretty general for the circumstances.  Women tend to feel a bit more unsafe, as well as minorities, which was another bias that we found.

 

Bill Ellis:  I don’t know that the data that we have allow us to break down whether the actual crimes committed against people break down in a differential way on gender.  I would tend to think they probably do because, like it or not, we are dealing with a society where minorities and women are in fact more at risk.  I think we can say Penn State is doing a good job.  But, this kind of risk is something that we can’t escape and that is one of the things that we tried to reference in the paper.  There are some serious concerns that are still being presented by women and minorities and so, continued vigilance in these areas is certainly justified.

 

Kane M. High, College of Medicine:  My question has been answered, thank you.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  As this report came through Senate Council I learned of something that might be of interest to faculty, in particular, faculty located at University Park.  It appears that the Office of Human Resources is required to distribute to employees summary statistics on crime on a yearly basis.  I learned that is done through paper means to a great number of locations in the university, but is done through electronic means at University Park.  You are kind of at the whim of your college in terms of whether you receive notification of where to go on the web to locate that information.  So there is a yearly update on this type of information that you should be on the lookout for, it isn’t necessarily going to come to your mailbox.

 

Chair Nichols:  Other questions or comments on this report?  Seeing none, thank you Bill and Mackenzie.  Agenda Item K, New Legislative Business.  Is there any New Legislative Business? 

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

Chair Nichols:  Seeing none, we move to Agenda Item L, Comments and Recommendations for the Good of the University, Bill.

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Bill Ellis:  I wanted to put one thing on the Senate Record at this point.  In the course of any given year, typically between 40 and 50 of our Penn State students lose their lives.  Each one of these deaths is tragic.  Each one diminishes our community and should be observed.  However, we are especially called to attention when a student loses his or her life as a direct result of a quest for excellence in a university-related activity and in the effort to bring credit to Penn State.  For this reason, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Student Life, I would like to ask this body to stand and observe a moment of silence in honor of Kevin Dare, the Penn State pole-vaulter who lost his life this Saturday at the Big Ten indoor companionships.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The February 26, 2002 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 2:42 PM.

 

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 26, 2002

Committees and Rules – Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 -Election to the Senate – Excessive Absences  (Legislative)

University Planning/Undergraduate Education – University Calendar

(Advisory/Consultative)

 

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

 

Student Life – Interim Expulsion (Informational)

 

Student Life – Student Perceptions of Safety (Informational)

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Student Perceptions of Safety

(Informational)

 

Addendum

 

Data on crime rates for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999 at Penn State and for other universities was gathered over the past two years from a variety of university websites and Uniform Crime Reports.   Data for the year 2000 was obtained from the United States Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).  On examination, the numbers collected by this committee for the previous 2 years were not always consistent with the data now reported on the OPE website, presumably because of differences in reporting on-campus vs. off-campus incidents.  In the interest of presenting figures that are as consistent as possible, the following revised tables reflect data from 1998, 1999, and 2000 taken solely from the OPE website.

 

·        Data for 1997 was not readily extractable from this source and so is omitted here.

 

·        Murder/homicide data is also omitted for lack of meaningful numbers (only one school reported a homicide on campus). 

 

·        As noted in the report, crime rates at Penn State's University Park campus compare  favorably with those reported by other Big Ten campuses and by major Pennsylvania campuses.  The numbers of incidents at branch campuses are more difficult to rate given smaller populations, but remain modest.

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

William W. Asbury                                              Karen Johnson
Arthur W. Carter                                                  Jeffrey S. Mayer
Mackenzie L. De Vos                                           Nicholas J. Pazdziorko
Bill Ellis (Chair)                                                     Irwin Richman
Andrzej J. Gapinski                                              Robyn A. Ricketts
Wallace H. Greene                                               Jose A. Ventura
Nichola Gutgold (Vice-chair)

Figure 4:  Crime Statistics for Big Ten Main Campuses

 

Figure 5:  Crime Statistics for Pennsylvania Main Campuses

 

 

Figure 6: Crime Statistics for Pennsylvania Small Population Schools

 

 

Forcible Sex Offenses – (Actual number of incidences)

 

1998

1999

2000

Clarion University

4

1

4

Slippery Rock University

3

0

0

Lehigh University

3

3

1

Michigan – Flint

1

1

0

Minnesota – Duluth

0

1

0

Penn State – Harrisburg

1

0

0

Penn State – Abington

0

1

0

Penn State – Altoona

0

0

1

Penn State – Behrend College

0

3

1

 

 

Aggravated Assault – (Actual number of incidences)

 

1998

1999

2000

Clarion University

3

2

2

Slippery Rock University

0

2

0

Lehigh University

4

4

1

Michigan – Flint

0

0

0

Minnesota – Duluth

1

0

1

Penn State – Harrisburg

0

0

0

Penn State – Abington

0

0

1

Penn State – Altoona

5

3

1

Penn State – Behrend College

6

1

0

 

 

 

Burglary/Robbery/Motor Vehicle Theft – (Actual number of incidences)

 

1998

1999

2000

Clarion University

0

21

29

Slippery Rock University

3

1

3

Lehigh University

3

6

5

Michigan – Flint

10

0

14

Minnesota – Duluth

3

1

4

Penn State – Harrisburg

0

0

2

Penn State – Abington

1

1

0

Penn State – Altoona

6

0

7

Penn State – Behrend College

0

2

3

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

FEBRUARY 26, 2002 SENATE MEETING

Abmayr, Susan M.
Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard L.
Atwater, Deborah F.
Aydin, Kultegin
Bagby, John W.
Baggett, Connie D.
Balog, Theresa A.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barbato, Guy F.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Bazirjian, Rosann
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berner, R. Thomas
Bernhard, Michael H.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John P.
Bonneau, Robert H.
Book, Patricia A.
Boothby, Thomas E.
Bord, Richard J.
Borhan, Ali
Bridges, K. Robert
Brown, Douglas K.
Browne, Stephen
Browning, Barton W.
Brunsden, Victor W.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Calvert, Clay
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Arthur W.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chirico, JoAnn
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Clark, Paul F.
Cowden, Eric B.
Crane, Robert G.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
Dawson, John W.
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
DeJong, Gordon F.
Derickson, Alan V.
DeRooy, Jacob
DeVos, Mackenzie L.
Disney, Diane M.
Donovan, James M.
Eaton, Nancy L.
Egolf, Roger A.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Evans, Christine C.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Everett, Peter B.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Frecker, Mary I.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Geiger, Roger L.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Gilmour, David S.
Glumac, Thomas E.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gray, Timothy N.
Green, David J.
Gutgold, Nichola D.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hanes, Madlyn L.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harrison, Terry P.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hunt, Brandon B.
Hurson, Ali R.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Johnson, Karen E.
Jones, Billie J.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kennedy, Richard R.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Koul, Ravinder
Kramer, John H.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lakoski, Joan M.
Li, Luen-Chau
MacDonald, Digby D.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Masters, Andrew K.
Maxwell, Kevin R.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarney, Michelle H.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McCollum, Gwenn E.
McDonel, James L.
Medoff, Howard P.
Minard, Robert D.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Morin, Karen H.
Mueller, Alfred
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Noga, Dawn M.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pazdziorko, Nicholas J.
Pearson, Katherine C.
Pell, Eva J.
Perrine, Joy M.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Probst, Ronald W.
Pugh, B. Franklin
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ritter, Michael C.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Russell, David W.
Sachs, Howard G.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Shea, Dennis G.
Shouse, Roger C.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol
Smith, James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Stace, Stephen W.
Staneva, Marieta
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, James A.
Strickman, Mark
Su, Mila C.
Tachibana, Reiko
Thomchick, Evelyn A.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tingo, Jennifer
Tormey, Brian B.
Troester, Rodney L.
Troxell, D. Joshua
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Watkins, Marley W.
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.

 

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

 

170  Total Elected
    4  Total Ex Officio
  10  Total Appointed
184  Total Attending

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 26, 2002

Committees and Rules - Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the Senate – Excessive Absences (Legislative)

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College (Legislative)

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into the Rainbow Dividers (Advisory/Consultative)

Computing and Information Systems - Technology Classrooms at University Park (Informational)

Computing and Information Systems - Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD) (Informational)

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2002-03 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Election Commission - Roster of Senators for 2002-03 (Informational)

Faculty Benefits - Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison (Informational)

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities - Annual Report for 2000-01 (Informational)

Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01 (Informational)

Research - Report on University Research (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2002-03 - Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

Student Life - Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Grade Distribution Report (Informational)