Penn State University Home



Volume 32-----MARCH 2, 1999-----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 1998-99.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

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

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

Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the Meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the Meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.


I. Final Agenda for March 2, 1999

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to March 2, 1999

B. Attached


III. Tentative Agenda for March 30, 1999


A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING - Minutes of the February 2, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 32:4

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of February 16, 1999

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 16, 1999






Undergraduate Education

Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 -- Multiple Major Programs


Faculty Affairs

Addition to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 -- Withdrawal of Promotion Dossier

Faculty Benefits

Response to July 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits


Computing and Information Systems

Year 2000 Computer/Microprocessor Problem

Information Technology Fee Allocation

General Education Implementation Committee

Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)

Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98

Undergraduate Education

Grade Distribution Report





The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Undergraduate Education - "Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 -- Multiple Major Programs." This report changes the Senate policy so that a candidate successfully completing the requirement for multiple majors shall receive a separate diploma for each major for which requirements have been completed. (See Record, page(s) 11-12 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

The Senate passed two Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs - "Addition to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 - Withdrawal of Promotion Dossier." This report recommends that if the department committee and the department head do not support a promotion after reviewing the completed dossier, the candidate should be so informed and given the option of withdrawing his or her candidacy. (See Record, page(s) 12-13 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Faculty Benefits - "Response to July 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits." This report makes several recommendations regarding the Point of Service Plan, the Prescription Drug Options, the Dental Plan, and the Vision Plan in response to the 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits. (See Record, page(s) 13-16 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

The Senate received five Informational Reports:

Computing and Information Systems - "Year 2000 Computer/Microprocessor Problem." The report was presented to better inform the faculty of the Y2K problem and their responsibilities regarding their individual desk-top and research computers and instrumentation. (See Record, page(s) 16-24 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

Computing and Information Systems - "Information Technology Fee Allocation." This report described the allocation of the Information Technology Fee (former Computer Fee) for the 1998-99 academic year. (See Record, page(s) 24-25 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

General Education Implementation Committee - "Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)." This report sets the perimeters for implementing the flexibility regarding the approval, delivery and substitution of courses. (See Record, page(s) 25-27 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

Intercollegiate Athletics - "Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98." This is the annual, mandated report on student/athlete eligibility and makes comparisons from 1993 through 1998. (See Record, page(s) 27-30 Agenda Appendix "H.")

Undergraduate Education - "Grade Distribution Report." This is the annual, mandated report on grade distribution data for baccalaureate students from 1975 to 1998, with detailed data for spring semester 1998. (See Record, page(s) 30-32 Agenda Appendix "I.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, presiding. One hundred and fifty Senators signed the roster.

Chair Berkowitz: 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 February 2, 1999 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate 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 Berkowitz: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for February 16, 1999. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. On a related note, I know a lot of people are interested in the General Education course proposals that are coming forward for consideration this spring. If you'll go to the Faculty Senate web page and look under publications, you will see a link to the descriptions of all the course proposals that are going to be considered by Curricular Affairs this spring. And we'll try to keep that up to date as the new proposals come in each semester.


Also, you should have received the Report of the Senate Council for the meeting of February 16. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.


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

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on February 16, 1999, and discussed the following topics: the campaign for Penn State; School of Information Sciences and Technology; enrollment management; Phi Beta Kappa membership at locations other than University Park; promotion and tenure issues; the naming policy; and prerequisite checking. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1999.

The Senate Officers visited the College of Agricultural Sciences, on February 9; the College of Education, on February 10. We also visited the Division of Undergraduate Studies on February 18. Our last visit for the spring is scheduled for April 6 to the College of Arts and Architecture.

We have received two memos from the president regarding legislation passed by the Senate. These are in reference to the reports passed at our meeting of February 2, 1999. The first report was from the Committee on Committees and Rules entitled "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II: Senate Committee Structure." The president had no changes to this legislation and has asked the executive secretary to amend the Bylaws accordingly. The second memo was regarding the Resolution for the Student Life Committee (the IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon). The president approves this legislation and added that he was "pleased about the Senate's support for this worthy philanthropy."


Chair Berkowitz: We move next to comments by the president of the university. President Spanier is here today and does have comments.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you and good afternoon everyone. I want to report that we have several executive searches underway and they're coming along very nicely in all cases. We're at the finalist stage in our searches for Executive Vice-President and Provost, Dean of the College of Business Administration and Dean of the School of Information Sciences and Technology--I mean at least, in all those searches, to the stages where candidates' names have been forwarded to the appropriate officer. In the case of the dean searches for Health and Human Development and the dean and provost of Penn State Harrisburg, names are being assembled for search committees and committees will be appointed soon.

I want to say how pleased I am with the progress that we're making in launching the School of Information Sciences and Technology. We continue to have absolutely superb support from elected officials, from the industry itself, from faculty committees, from Senate committees that are responsible for implementing legislation relative to curriculum and other matters, and from within the university administration. This is a real great success story for us at Penn State at this point, and I continue to remain optimistic that we will receive an appropriate appropriation from the legislature in the current session, which will allow us to launch this new school based at University Park but with programs being simultaneously implemented at the associate and baccalaureate level at many of our campuses.

Speaking of appropriations hearings, mine occurred last Monday and Tuesday. Monday in the Senate and Tuesday in the House of Representatives. It was an excellent reception that we had. One of the best that we've experienced. I was very pleased that most of the elected officials began their questions with some positive statement about Penn State. We will continue to remind them that they said those nice things as they get near the end of the process and really have to consider our requests, which were for more money than the governor had proposed. We're going to continue to push our elected officials to treat Penn State fairly in this process, especially at a time when the state is in a position to provide some help for us. Did any of you catch a portion of either of those hearings on TV by any chance? I'm just curious? Several of you. Well, I was going to say you must not lead very exciting lives...

Senators: Laughter.

President Spanier: ...if you spend your evenings like that, or in the middle of the night you're watching PCN, but either that or you're checking up on me. I do appreciate it, and one thing that you can count on is they will probably be re-broadcast many times, as they have to fill all those hours of air time.

I have visited now about 20 of our 24 campuses so far this year. I will complete visits to all of our campuses within the next several weeks. I just want to make a couple of observations about the campus visits. They've been very rewarding for me personally. On each of the visits I meet with administrators on the campus, with community leaders and advisory committee members, with faculty and staff on the campus together in a group, and with any student on campus. All students are invited to come to those meetings, and at some of the campuses there is another event or two that might surround the visit. They've been very rewarding because there's a great spirit on most all of our campuses right now. People are working as hard as they've ever worked, but I think they're seeing the rewards for that hard work. The enrollment situation is good at our campuses. At most of our campuses we have launched some upper-division programs. Students are enrolling in those upper-division programs. The admissions and enrollment picture looks good on most all of our campuses for next fall. I think we're seeing the kind of progress at our campuses that we envisioned we would see a couple of years ago when we reorganized the Commonwealth Educational System, and I want to thank all of you here who have been working on making that happen. In terms of the larger university enrollment situation, it's always interesting, and there are some notable things to report as of our weekly snapshot yesterday. We had a higher total number of applications than at any equivalent moment in Penn State history. Last year we had this phenomenal flow of applications where we broke the record and frankly, I didn't expect that would necessarily be at that same level this year. Well we are, in terms of total applications. Now it's the beginning of March and over the next several weeks we will continue to see several thousand additional applications coming in, so I don't want to say we'll necessarily be above or below. We don't know where we will be in terms of historical trends, but clearly it is about on pace with where we were last year. This week it happens to be up a little bit. And what that's telling us, of course, is that Penn State continues to be a very attractive institution for students from Pennsylvania and beyond. We have more undergraduate applications than we have had at any time. Our graduate applications are several hundred ahead of where they were last year. At the Dickinson School of Law the applications are--I think they're more than--a thousand ahead of where they were at this time last year which is more than a thousand... They're more than a hundred ahead of where they were last year, which is more than a hundred ahead of where they were the year before. So in the last couple of years we've seen significant jumps. Now they're up over 1100, which is very significant in a national climate, by the way, where in the 1990's law school applications have declined 30 percent and where nationally last year there was a one percent decline, we're seeing these double digit increases there. Very positive. So the overall enrollment picture looks very good. Now because of these increased applications and because of our efforts to control enrollments here at University Park, we are actually admitting fewer students than we have recently. So, yes, we're getting more applications, we're admitting fewer students, the cut off points are becoming higher, therefore it's more competitive to get in. But we have to admit fewer students because the yield has been going up each of the last few years. The percentage of students who accept a Penn State offer over another university's offer is going up, and besides that we're up over 41,000 students now. We're trying to keep that number there, maybe even lower it a little bit at the same time. We have to kind of lower it so that we can make room for new students who will gradually be coming into the new School of Information Sciences and Technology. The flow of applications is very healthy at our other campuses. It's a little harder to categorize because at some campuses it's down a little, at some campuses it's up a little. But overall we're about in the zone where we were last year and where we were expected to be. And there we want to work very hard to convert those who we accept into actual admissions, and of course as we go down the road and as we create more upper division opportunities for students, we want to encourage more students to stay at the campuses if they choose to do so. Most will still probably wish to come to the University Park campus, that's fine. But as we open up more opportunities for students on the campus, we hope and we expect that they will avail themselves of that opportunity. So those are a few things to bring you up to date and I'd be happy to see what questions you have.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I have two questions, both related to funding. Would you like them one at a time or...?

President Spanier: Sure.

Dennis S. Gouran: My first question has to with funding for General Education Implementation reform. It appears that the original estimates on that were unduly conservative, and--given the governor's budget projections for us--the question I'm asking is, what assurances do we have that funding will be adequate to do the job properly?

President Spanier: At Penn State all estimates tend to be conservative, that's our nature. We don't run a printing press or mint, so we always try to look at what do we really need to make this happen, and knowing that there's not going to be a lot of spare dollars around. So the Faculty Senate committees working on that, and those of us in the administration, did the best we could to estimate what would be necessary. Now I can tell you that we have distributed--I think this is fair to say--we've distributed every last penny we said we would distribute. All of the money that we committed to, we're going to stand by that commitment. Money has been distributed. So if anybody is telling you that you didn't get the money you were supposed to get, I mean, it's been sent out. Money that was distributed to implement the general education curriculum should be used to implement the general education curriculum. Now we also said, of course, that over the long run we fully expect that our students aren't going to all of a sudden take another ten credits to graduate, that our students are going to graduate with approximately the same number of credits so that there's also going to be some internal shifts in any given college and maybe even a little between colleges. So funds need to be deployed differently in some cases to meet that demand. A lot of the new funds were distributed in part to deal with transitional issues and in part because--especially, for example, with the freshman seminars--we are expecting class sizes to come down, and, therefore, you need more people and it requires more money. It's not as if everything new associated with general education had to be funded on top of everything we are already doing. That would be an unfortunate way to try to manage the university. We would never succeed at it. So the funds that we have are there. That's not to say that there won't be some additional funds. We have continued to look at that along with all of our other priorities. I do want to say that to the extent that in a particular department or college it feels burdensome to implement the new general education curriculum, I'm sorry, you still have to do it. I mean, you know we're running a university here and the Faculty Senate approves the curriculum. They've approved this curriculum, it has the full support of the administration, we have to do it, it's the right thing to do for our students. We may tinker with it a little bit each year. We may find that some things two years from now--we might say, well, maybe there's a better way of doing it. Things will always change. But just because it's hard to get it done, doesn't mean we shouldn't be going ahead with all the enthusiasm we had when we passed it. So I continue to feel very good about the general education curriculum. I think it's a big step forward for us, and as we attract more resources that will be one place we'll put it. But we really need to do it.

Dennis S. Gouran: Yes, well I haven't heard any one say...

President Spanier: I know you're not arguing otherwise. You just gave me an opportunity to make that speech...

Senators: Laughter.

President Spanier: I thank you for it.

Dennis S. Gouran: I'd like to respond before I go on to the next question. I haven't heard any one say that the administration has not followed through on what has been committed. What I'm addressing is the fact that incorporation of the active learning elements of the courses that are being proposed for inclusion on the general education list is turning out to cost more than originally estimated. It's that gap, I think, that people are concerned about. My second question has to do with funding for IST. If that grows to 800 majors, as projected or hoped for or both, by the end of the first five years, and that number represents an increase over the number of majors even though you're admitting fewer people now to accommodate that increase to some extent, that's going to have some financial implications for those courses that are going to be drawn on that are nearly at capacity now. I have in mind particularly language courses and with the language requirement part of that program, with 800 majors, again, the question is where is funding going to come from so that can be accommodated?

President Spanier: That's a good question. In fact, Provost Brighton just within the last week reallocated some additional funds for language instruction for the first hundred students we expect to come into the program next year. So, money was sent for that and we will continue to try to do those kinds of reallocations. We really didn't want to be at 41,000 students this year. We thought we'd be about 40,000 and that we save the rest of the growth for students coming into this new program. Well, we're already at 41 so if nothing happened we'd want that 41 to come back down a little bit. It takes a while, and there are some ups and downs because you have flows of hordes of students moving through the system. In the end, when the rest of the campus enrollment reaches a state of equilibrium--if you want to look at it that way--then the additional 800 students coming into this major will generate let's say $6,000 per in-state students--800 x 6--which is a few million dollars of additional tuition income that really should be applied to the new school, in part, and in part to all of those other units that have to teach the students related to those coming into the new school. So, there is expected to be some additional tuition income. In addition, we've said right from the very beginning that there would be a tuition surcharge for students coming into this major. Because of the exceptionally high cost of providing that level of instruction, that school will--as is the case of all other surcharges, the surcharge dollars go back principally to the unit of enrollment for the students. Then we're looking at the legislative appropriation to help us out here, some of which, of course, will go to the campuses that have programs in these areas, and we're looking for support from industry, which we're working very hard on. So all of this has to come together in one big financial package, but obviously one of things that has to be attended to in that process are courses in other areas that those students would take. And if you take a particular area like the languages, you know, we do have some of our colleges that require languages, some colleges that don't. Well, then you have to look at what languages they're taking. Are they languages where there do tend to be some excess seats in the class or where entirely new sections have to be added? In the case where entirely new sections have to be added, are the students going into Information Sciences and Technology mostly replacing students who would otherwise major in Business Administration, in Management Information Systems, Management Science, where they have a language requirement already, so it's a one for one substitute? Or, for example, might they be entering this major instead of Computer Science, which is in engineering where they don't have a language requirement. So these are all variables that we are aware of--that we will look at. But, of course, our goal is not to put any undue burden on any department, and if there is one thing we've learned in recent Penn State history that maybe Penn State didn't do so well in an earlier era, it's that one college would go off and come up with some requirement and not really check with another college over here realizing that it was going to have a massive impact on them. Well, now we know about those things, and I think the Senate's on the lookout for those kinds of things too, aren't they? So it's an excellent question, and we will certainly want to deal with it.

Alan W. Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I, too, have a funding question. Did you have to change the tone of your pitch where--I think it was-- the committee chairman thanked you for not asking for funds for stadium expansion and then you had to ask for funds for Beaver stadium?

President Spanier: Well, it was a bit of an awkward moment because we had a wonderful hearing in the Senate, and at the very end the Senate Appropriations Chair, realizing the time is up, said, "Thank you. We've had this wonderful hearing..." and he said kind of half jokingly, "and I'm so glad you didn't ask for money for the stadium. We're adjourned." He didn't know that we had asked for money for the stadium.

Senators: Laughter.

President Spanier: And so we had to cycle back with him, pretty quickly explain, well, maybe word hadn't gotten to you yet. But I think his staff knew and other people knew, and he and I have traded telephone calls since and so he's fine. But the fact is, in all the big negotiations about huge professional--we're talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars for professional--stadiums in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the Senate passed, not at our request--I mean it was just part of that big deal--they passed a 300 and some million dollar item in the budget for economic development for a variety of things, including the possibility of funds for something like the Beaver stadium expansion. So, of course we're going to ask. That just puts a lesser burden on ticket prices and other things, and it doesn't take away from any of the capital construction projects that we're getting from the governor and the legislature in the normal course of events. It's an add-on, and we've said from the beginning that we needed to raise so many million dollars through some combination of state and private funds for the stadium. A couple of stories said Penn State is just asking for it now. This is the first they ever indicated they were interested in such funds. I can assure you we've been very interested in such funds from the beginning. Beaver stadium and all its additions up to this point have been built without any state funds, it's quite miraculous. This next $85 million project, which is a big one, we really need that $15 million to deal with accessibility, ADA issues, restroom renovations, concessions, some of the infrastructure things that you really would be hard to load up into the price of an average ticket to pay off the bond. So we think we have a great case to make both for central Pennsylvania, for economic development, and something that can benefit Penn State without taking away funds from any other aspect of our budget.

Jeffrey R. Tranell, Student Senator, College of Education: A student life issue that I don't know if anyone's heard of: recently several student groups were notified of a university policy prohibiting student groups from using university intramural recreational athletic fields for events such as philanthropies. In the past we've been allowed to use things such as the intramural fields and Pollock fields for fraternity, sorority and club philanthropy events to raise money. Recently the athletic department informed us that we would no longer be able to do this, but in the past they've let us, but they said it was a long-standing policy. First of all, I'd just like to comment that I think this is kind of ridiculous because this is outreach into the community. And secondly we drive RV's and cars over these fields for football tailgating, but they say we're going to tear them up. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter and if anything can be or is being done about it?

President Spanier: I'm not aware that there's any recent change of policy, and I know there have been such events in the past. I also know that there has been a phenomenal increase in club and recreational sports--that the demands for those fields for their principal intended purpose, for intramural and club sports, is so great they're having some scheduling problems trying to fit anything on. So it may simply be a priority matter, that often to put on these events it's not just for the two hours the events are going on. There's a lot of staging and cleaning up afterwards, and it might be out of commission for awhile, so they may be responding to that, but that's about all I know. I think the thing to do is to maybe just send an email. I can tell you who to email, who would really know, is Herb Schmidt who is the Associate Athletic Director and oversees all the facilities...

Jeffrey R. Tranell: That's actually who the mandate was from...

President Spanier: He will give you a very comprehensive thoughtful response as to what all the angles are that I may not be aware of.

Helena Poch, Student Senator, College of Health and Human Development: I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but Academic Assembly recently passed legislation concerning international teaching assistants and training the assistants. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on your opinion of the problem and what you think should be done about it?

President Spanier: Well, I guess I was quoted on this topic in a Centre Daily Times editorial this morning and I'd say they got it about right. And that is that I do not support putting into the classroom anyone who is not sufficiently fluent in English to provide high quality instruction. Now that happens to be the Penn State policy as well. But obviously from anecdotal information that I get--and from, I'm sure, what some of you hear from time to time--it is unclear that that policy is always being followed, or maybe it's being followed but it's not working as well as it should, because our students are screened and tested, and it may be that we just have to set the bar higher. But I can tell you this: that in every instance where I have ever received a complaint, I forward it either to John Cahir, who's our Vice-Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, or to the associate dean for undergraduate education in the college. And in all cases we investigated, somebody goes into the classroom, does an assessment and I get a report. And I can tell you that about 9 out of 10 times the answer comes back that the English is very fluent and there is not a problem. Independent assessments are made, and when they check back and talk to the student about it and so on, they look at the student grades and the evaluations. The answer is usually that the student is having trouble with the chemistry, or the physics, or the math, and it's not really the language. That was a convenient excuse and the instructor with the accent got blamed for something that probably wasn't fair. Now I don't say that just to defend everybody in that situation, because you know I said 9 out of 10 times, and maybe 1 out of 10 times the answer comes back, well, you know, maybe that student was in that gray area and they were put in the classroom a little too soon and they could use some work. Now in about half of those cases the answer is not that the problem is with English fluency. It's with their instruction and supervision in teaching methods. It's that they're relatively inexperienced teachers and that's kind of being...the accent is what's being blamed, but it may be something else. So, you know we've got to be careful here not to throw the baby out with the bath water and just overreact and sort of put the clamps on people with accents and say they can't be in the classroom, because we do have a very good screening process. It works most of the time and it's a very good thing, I think, for all of us to have that kind of exposure. But I stand behind everything that was quoted in the paper, and I began my comments with saying that the policy is, nobody should be in the classroom if they can't speak English sufficiently well to deliver quality instruction, and to the extent that that is happening, it will stop. We're not going to let that happen, and long before USG was talking about it or people were writing about in the newspapers, we've had people in the university looking at this issue and looking about whether to raise the bar on the cut-off points, and Rodney Erickson, in his capacity as Dean of the Graduate School is heading up that effort, working with John Cahir and some others. Are you here, Rod? You want to add anything to that?

Rodney A. Erickson, Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School: I think you made a very good synopsis of the situation, and we're looking at it. I think that, as President Spanier said, we want to take a good balanced approach, because as we look at this we would want to review this policy particularly with respect to the provisional certification. We will keep focusing on particular data and we will have a report out before the end of the semester.

Chair Berkowitz: Fellow Senators, we have a long and interesting agenda but Gordon De Jong has been waiting, and we'll take this one last question and move on.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: The Intercom last time had a article about the World Campus and my question concerns the boundaries of and articulation between the World Campus and the 24 other resident instruction campuses at Penn State, particularly on curricular and tuition issues. With unit-based budgeting now an established principle at Penn State, what happens if the World Campus decides to offer a resident instruction course or courses that students decide to use to fulfill their curriculum, thus decreasing the number of resident instruction students, student credit hours, thus reducing tuition resources to units, thus reducing money for faculty at campuses and so on? What's happening about the boundaries between them?

President Spanier: Interesting question. Well, I'll say a few different things about that. I sometimes refer to the World Campus as our 25th campus, but it really is no one place. It's everywhere. The World Campus is set up as a separate cost center, completely self-supporting and operated under the vice president for outreach and cooperative extension. So, financially, in terms of the development of the World Campus and the revenue stream and the development of new courses and course materials, it doesn't directly impact any other units budget. However, where I think your question becomes relevant is what if--and maybe it shouldn't be what if--but when, in Penn State's history we get to the point where the courseware and the materials associated with the World Campus are so good that a student might be taking a combination of resident instruction courses and World Campus courses, how do we work out the finances of all of that? The reason I think at some point we'll begin to see some of that is that the World Campus materials, just to use a technical term, it's good stuff. I mean, it's whatever fears some people have about distance education, the World Campus, and whether it matches up with the kind of quality you would offer in your classroom. The materials that are being produced are truly excellent and it really has to be right and has to be done well to be delivered in that medium. Now we're not going to see very much of it very soon. Why? Because the World Campus courses are not undergraduate courses in the humanities and social sciences, and if you took all the areas where Penn State generates lots of undergraduate student credit hours, that's not what we're doing in the World Campus. The World Campus is developed by going out and doing national marketing studies. What are the educational needs in the United States that are not being met and that happen to match up with areas of substantial expertise at Penn State? So you get big World Campus programs in areas like turfgrass management and graduate level work in chemical dependency counseling and graduate and certificate courses in noise control engineering. It's not english and sociology and history. We're not likely to have World Campus courses for a long, long time, if ever, in those areas because you can get that kind of thing already. But at some point we'll begin to see some overlap, I think, because we expect within five years to have about 300 World Campus courses in a number of different fields. When that happens, we'll have to begin to work out some economic models. I think we will expect the dollars to mostly trace back to who's providing the instruction and who made the investment in the instruction, but to the extent that there's shared resources or shared faculty participation we'll have to do that. And Penn State's pretty good at working that out. We've got a lot of things that we do in collaborative ways across units, and we usually can find a mechanism to make that happen. I don't think by the way, it's going to erode anything we're doing in resident instruction. If anything, it will enhance it. It will enhance it for two reasons: one because not every campus can do everything, so you might be able to actually do a residential degree on one of our campuses only if you take a few of the courses from a distance or through the World Campus, and that might make being enrolled in the first place at a resident campus possible; and the second reason it's going to benefit is because some of the materials that are developed for the World Campus--web-based instruction and use of CD-ROM and so on--are going to be so good and so expensive and people had to invest energy in developing them, we will own the intellectual property for that. That belongs to Penn State, and in my opinion if it belongs to Penn State and was developed as a product for the World Campus, there is no reason why it shouldn't be turned over to faculty members at Penn State who want to integrate that into their own course materials in a resident instruction course. It will give them some things they can use that they might not have had the ability to produce themselves, but that a whole team of instructional designers were able to produce and enhance what they're doing in their own classroom.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you President Spanier. We now move on.







Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 -- Multiple Major Programs

Arthur C. Miller, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Arthur C. Miller, College of Engineering: Let me start off by kind of reviewing a little bit on Senate policy 60-00. There are three things that come under that. The first one is dual-degree programs, then simultaneous degree programs, and then multiple majors. Under the dual degree program, those are programs that are set up by the Senate, and they would have like Liberal Arts and the College of Engineering having a dual degree. There are simultaneous degree programs under Senate policy 60-20 where a candidate receiving approval may complete no more than two simultaneous degrees and shall receive one diploma for each degree. A candidate for simultaneous degree baccalaureate must earn, however, an additional 30 credits if it's in the baccalaureate program and an additional 15 credits if it's in an associate degree program. Under the multiple major, what's being presented is, at the present time, if you take multiple majors you only receive one degree or one diploma. What's being asked then is that if you have satisfied the degree requirements for two, that you would actually get the two diplomas.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there questions or discussion?

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: Art, can you explain a little bit what would be the difference between a simultaneous degree and a dual major?

Arthur C. Miller: Possibly none, and what we were thinking of is that in the transition we would not right now ask for the simultaneous degree to be removed but we would come back and revisit that next year.

Jean Landa Pytel: Now what would happen if someone would need two major requirements, one with a BS and one with a BA? Would that fall under a simultaneous degree or would that be...

Arthur C. Miller: If they met the requirements with the number of credits, it could fall under the major.

Jean Landa Pytel: Double major.

Arthur C. Miller: Yes.

Jean Landa Pytel: So there's nothing that precludes the two degrees, the two diplomas from being one arts and one science?

Arthur C. Miller: Not that I can see.

Emily K. Freeman, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: I actually have experience with the multiple major of International Politics and Spanish, and I have found it to be of great benefit to me to have this multiple major, and I believe the students such as myself would benefit getting two diplomas--to say that we don't understand why we fulfill requirements for two majors and often have to spend an extra semester or multiple summers at Penn State yet we don't get rewarded for our work.

Helena Poch: I would also like to point out that if someone receives a minor and a major they get the certificate for the minor, yet if they get two majors they still only get one diploma.

Chair Berkowitz: Does this item need further discussion? Then are we ready for a vote? All those in favor of the recommendation, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? Congratulations. That completes our legislative reports. We do have two advisory/consultative reports. The first is from Faculty Affairs and Cara-Lynne Schengrund is here to present that report.



Addition to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 -- Withdrawal of Promotion Dossier

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine: Thank you. I think this report is fairly self-explanatory. The point is that currently there is no provision in HR-23 or the guidelines for withdrawing a promotion dossier once it has been submitted to the first peer committee for review. And what this recommendation does is permit the candidate to withdraw their dossier if review at the department level and by the department chair is negative. The definition for the terminology of department is stated in the parenthetical expression. Are there any questions?

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any comments or questions on this motion? Seeing none we shall move to a vote. Keep in mind what we're doing is voting on what is in bold as an addition from Appendix "C". All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? We are moving ahead. Momentum is building. We may get out of here today. Our second advisory/consultative report is from Faculty Benefits, and that concerns the 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits, and Allen Phillips is here to present that report.


Response to July 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits

Allen T. Phillips, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

Allen T. Phillips, Eberly College of Science: I'd like to remind you that last year in September, we had a chance to review the efforts of the task force on the future of benefits and in that document there were 18 recommendations that were put forth. Subsequently, the Faculty Benefits Committee was requested to review some aspects of the report, and one of those issues actually came forward to the Senate before our current legislation had a chance to be enacted, and that had to do--as you recall--with the extension of health benefits to same-sex domestic partners. So, of the remaining issues the Faculty Benefits Committee looked at, five issues out of the 17 that remained at that time, to consider suggestions, comments, additions to or even just plain support of recommendations that were in the initial task force report. And what you have today are comments relating to those particular issues that were considered most relevant for comment by the Committee on Faculty Benefits. I would mention before we look at specifics that one of those issues will come forward in a subsequent report. That particular issue has to do with the timing of the phase-in for additional costs to members in the HMO plans, and that we hope you will be able to look at and hear more about at our next Senate meeting in late March. But of the other remaining issues that are actually included in the current report--it's just a comment that you'll hear more about this HMO phase-in period-- and subsequently let me just go to the issues that are dealt with specifically in this advisory and consultative report. These are on page two of Appendix "D," if you're following along, and the first of these has to do with the recommendation that the university retain Plan A, the indemnity plan for current and retired employees, until such time as a Point of Service plan that's equal to or better is well in place and is generally accepted by all. And even at that time we would urge that Plan A elimination be brought back to the Senate for approval before any real decisions are made to close out future enrollees and people in Plan A. The second of the recommendations has to do with support of the task force report on the feasibility for carving from the current medical plans a separate plan for prescription drugs. And we think that really does deserve to be studied and we request that this actually come back to the Senate once the decisions have been made to explore that in more detail. That these come back to the Senate for consideration at that time. The third of the topics has to do with the dental plan. This is probably a little more involved, but as most of you know there are some very major changes afoot having to do with people being allowed to enroll in new kinds of coverage in a dental preferred provider network. We recommend that these opportunities be explored further to enroll more dentists in this network to allow for more choice. Currently the choices are fairly limited, at least in the State College area. But at the same time we would hope that opportunities or efforts to implement disincentives for using dentists outside the network, that these be brought back to the Senate for review, and that's certainly something that I think most people have asked--that we not provide disincentives for people and there are none in place currently. But there should not be introduced disincentives to stay out of the network. And finally in this category we recommend that employee contributions to the dental plan remain the same, regardless of whether one uses in or out of network providers. The final recommendation has to do with the vision plan, which we recommend that further information be provided to people involved in the vision plan benefit program, and at the same time we would urge additional benefits be brought forth if possible, particularly in the area of yearly lens allowance being added for employees. So, with that I think we'll be glad to comment on any specific questions you have with respect to the report.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any questions for Allen?

P. Peter Rebane, Abington College: I think that Penn State's health plans are on the whole quite good. I'm happy that we have them. There's one thing, though, that I hope that some committee can address. I know the dental plan, and as we turn in these things, there's always the column that says what the dentist charges and then what is reasonable and customary. I've been around here a long time and I have never had anybody tell me that their dentist charges less than the reasonable and customary, they always seem to charge more. That charge may not be reasonable but it is customary.

Senators: Laughter.

P. Peter Rebane: Thanks to Vice-President Billie Willits I also learned that these reasonable and customary charges are determined by some independent agency. And I'm just curious, after my 30 plus years here, when will I ever get a dentist who charges reasonable and customary because there seems to always be a gap, at least for us who live in the extreme ends of the state, and we end up paying a considerable portion out of our pocket because of that particular difference. And I'm wondering how one gets around to getting some readjustment of what reasonable and customary is, or at least some discussion with the agency to take a look at some realistic figures when we turn the new millenium. Thank you.

Allen T. Phillips: I'd be glad to comment on that, but I think--in fact, from what I understand, these figures are reviewed yearly. I have to ask Billie Willits. Billie, are you here? These are arrived at by negotiation between the university and

Chair Berkowitz: Billie would you like to explain?

Billie S. Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: Sure. And I think, as a result of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits as we dialoged these the past couple of months, we'll try to write in English that most of us can understand what reasonable and customary is and how it's arrived at. It feels like a mystery, I know exactly what you're saying. But actually reasonable and customary is derived at the 80th percentile--not percentage but percentile, actual claims, costs that are sent in by the dentists to the insurance company. So you have costs that are claims costs that are submitted by the dentists that vary considerably, and they use the 80th percentile by geography. We have talked to UCCI, which is now the company that is doing claims processing for the dental, to ensure that they are going to be looking at this again geographically. It is my understanding that they will be doing that approximately in an August timeframe of 2000. They were adjusted in about the March timeframe of 1998. I'm sorry, I said August of 2000, I mean August 1999. They had been adjusted about March of 1998 but will be adjusted again in August of 1999. We think that we will be able to keep reasonable and customary at a good level. There are some dentists who are below reasonable and customary, maybe not in your area, but there are some across the state.

Edward W. Bittner, Penn State McKeesport: On page two of your report under the dental plan, beyond these incentives to use participating dentists, no disincentives for seeking dental care outside of the network are currently in place. Do we anticipate that there will be disincentives?

Allen T. Phillips: My understanding was at some point there might be, and so I think part of the feeling of the committee was to try to encourage everyone not to put disincentives into place. But, again, there are none in place currently and I'm not aware there are any plans to do this. I think this was really trying to make a preemptive strike so that there would not be disincentives introduced.

Edward W. Bittner: I was under the impression we were waiting a year to see how many dentists we could get on board and then something would be decided.

Allen T. Phillips: Well, I think the original understanding I had, and Billie can comment on this, there were supposed to be 70 percent of the dentists in the region in the plan before any consideration of disincentives would come in. And certainly only--I think the feeling of the committee was--only at that time would we wish to see any consideration given to that.

Edward W. Bittner: Let me comment. I had a dentist who would be willing to accept the numbers, but not willing to sign up into this particular program. And so, if there are more dentists like that, then perhaps you'll never get to the level that you wish.

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries: This is a comment for your report that you're planning to bring to the next meeting, but I'd like to bring it to the table for your discussion. Within the University Libraries there were a lot of comments brought to the Senators about the impact of increased costs for the HMO for individuals especially for staff people who may not make as much money, younger faculty and single parents, where a larger portion of the contribution towards that plan coming out of their salaries would make a significant difference to them on a monthly basis. Thank you.

Chair Berkowitz: If anyone has further comments on that issue, since it will be coming up next month, please send them directly to the committee and to Allen, and let's not take up floor time with it. But thank you for raising it. Other comments on what's on the floor for today? Then we are ready for a vote. We need to be clear what it is we're voting on. This is an advisory/consultative report. As I read it, the parts that we are voting on essentially are the parts where we make recommendations and requests and suggestions to the administration, and that begins on page two. No, the bottom of page one simply states that we're going to give a report next month. We don't have to vote on whether they're going to give a report next month. So the top of page two, that entire first paragraph encompasses a recommendation and suggestion. The second part, again underlined, and what follows is all a series of recommendations and endorsements. Under dental plan, the first half of that paragraph is a description, but when you get down to Faculty Senate recommends--from there on, that's a recommendation. Everything under the vision plan I read as a recommendation/suggestion, and on page three I read the last sentence as a recommendation as well. "We request any action related to contribution strategies for medical plans be delayed until a recommendation is forwarded from the March 30, 1999 Faculty Senate meeting," and that's what takes care of what was at the bottom of page one, that asks them to postpone action until then. It was unlikely that they were going to move between now and then, but it is a legitimate thing for the committee to do. If everything is clear, let's vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you. That completes our advisory/consultative reports, and we now move to informational reports. The first report is from the Committee on Computing and Information Systems and involves Year 2000 computer/microprocessor problems, and as you can tell we're going to use a screen so we're going to move out of your way. Dave Christy will present the report and Ken Blythe is here to help answer questions and issues.



Year 2000 Computer/Microprocessor Problem

David P. Christy, Chair, Senate Committee on Computing and Information

David P. Christy, Smeal College of Business Administration: Thank's, Len. The Committee on Computing and Information Systems had a rather detailed presentation two meetings ago by Ken Blythe, who's with the Office of Administrative Systems, with regard to Penn State's response to the Y2K problem. As a result of that, we are presenting an informational report to you, and at the request of Senate Council, we've included in the Agenda today hard copies of two White Papers that are on the Penn State Y2K web site. One of them has to do with desktop and personal computing systems, and the second one has to do with issues surrounding Y2K and researchers. At the presentation that Ken Blythe gave the committee, he outlined the five levels of response that Penn State has in place for Y2K. They're included in the document that I've given you but I'm just briefly outlining here so that you can kind of understand the extent to which Penn State is addressing this issue, and the particular issues that we'd like to talk about today in the Senate, and answer questions if there are any. In terms of the five levels of response, first we have the review of plans with external business partners. There are about 5,000 organizations that Penn State routinely does business with. Some that would be easy to imagine would have Y2K impacts on the university would be Bell-Atlantic or Allegheny Power, but there are certainly many other providers of goods and services or business partners with the university. Review of their Y2K compliance is being conducted. Secondly, we review university mission-linked systems. This includes things like the registration system, the admissions process, but also things like electronic monitors that are in rooms such as this for fire prevention, theft prevention, temperature control, environmental controls and so forth. Those have been reviewed and there have been plans for refitting some of those as necessary. The third level is the review of network systems, wide-area networks and local-area networks which have different kinds of microprocessor related issues, and that is also in the purview of the university response to Y2K. The final two levels, though, are the areas that we'd like to address because they particularly concern faculty and, hopefully, in examining the material that was in the Agenda that you've been given, you've been able to perhaps formulate some questions. You've been provided with a document called Desktop "Personal" Computer Preparation for the Year 2000. Every unit of the university has a Y2K officer, and in many locations you may already have been contacted by your officer to certify or for them to audit your desktop systems to see if they are Y2K compliant. The university is also trying to negotiate with principal vendors like Microsoft to see if we can get site licenses for software fixes and other issues associated with that. But that is just the issue of, is your computer going to function and are you going to be able to continue with your work because of the age of the software or hardware that you're using. The last one and perhaps the one that is of greater significance upon reflection has to do with the efficacy of research. Indeed, information technology but also embedded microprocessors that are in many of the devises that you may use for research or in the environmental controls that are used to provide a suitable environment for human subjects or animal subjects that are being used as part of your research may or may not be Y2K compliant. There are several issues associated with this. One of them is just the ethical treatment of human subjects and animal subjects, but the second one has to do with associated liability. If a Penn State researcher using technologies that are not Y2K compliant reports results, and someone subsequently uses the results of that research and feels that they have been harmed by the use of those incorrect, if you will, results, there could be associated liability. So that gets to be a much more complex problem that researchers--faculty researchers--are being asked to audit systems with the assistance of the university and essentially sign off to say that they have acted in a responsible manner to try to advert any potential tort liability, if you will, associated with their research. I'm not an expert on these areas. I'm just presenting this, and Ken Blythe is here to hopefully answer any questions that there might be associated with the university response to Y2K, and certainly there are other people in the audience that may be able to answer specific questions with regard to desktop systems or efficacy of research.

Chair Berkowitz: Does anyone have any questions on this issue for either Ken or Dave?

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine: For desktop systems that are university owned that we use for research and the like, if there are financial implications involved in making them ready to function, whose responsibility would that fall under?

Kenneth Blythe, Senior Director, Office of Administrative Systems: And I take your questions to be university-owned equipment?

Dwight Davis: Yes.

Kenneth Blythe: Let me preface my comments by saying that we spent a lot of time looking at how did the university position itself on this equipment to take a reasonable and prudent action. And the White Paper goes into some great detail about what we believe to be the types of computers, the computers that we already have that can be corrected on-site, remediation action taken on-site. And we've actually, I think, come up with a categorization that leverages us heavily in the position of retaining most of the equipment that we have. However, there is a category of equipment that we estimate to be about 10 or 15 percent, which we recommend eliminating from the Penn State inventory. In those cases, the request to do that is going to the executive officer at whatever campus or in whatever college associated with the equipment. My answer to you is that the equipment will probably be replaced by the university if it needs to be replaced.

Dwight Davis: And the officer at my location would make that decision?

Kenneth Blythe: You're in a campus?

Dwight Davis: Hershey.

Kenneth Blythe: The campus executive officer will make those determinations. Now there's a Year 2000 officer at your campus. The Year 2000 officer's name is on our web site. The person that could answer the question directly would be that Year 2000 officer.

P. Peter Rebane: Well, I think that the answer to some degree makes the question. There are those people who are expert in computers and know how to download and fix them and look for glitches. But there are a lot of us who use this for simple tasks, email, perhaps finding information in the "net," word-processing and so on. And if I look at what I'm asked to sign here in Appendix B, that I have carefully reviewed all aspects of my research program and confirm, etc. I would have great difficulty in signing that because I'm not an expert enough to know if all of the aspects are compliant, and what I think Dwight Davis asked was, if I signed this thinking that it works or perhaps that the whatever officer on my campus thinks that it works, what am I leaving myself open for if the system does not work? I think that there are some implications here from that point of view that are not quite as clear as it seems to be. I have tried to look at this report quite carefully and I really wouldn't know how to start with the equipment or the desktop or the wiring that we have. We frequently have problems, they are solved sometimes, sometimes not. I think that there needs to be a little bit more clarity as to what the individual faculty member's responsibility in actually looking at the material as well as any professional liability is.

Kenneth Blythe: That's an excellent question, and I'd like to characterize the problem that we're faced with in the university is we have that problem universally throughout the system. We have 40,000 desktop computers throughout the university. We have an unanswered number of pieces of research equipment, electronic equipment disassociated with research, databases that are in mainframe computers, a whole variety of equipment that's available. The term we use in the paper is components. There is a whole variety of components that could contribute to a Year 2000 problem, and it is, in fact, quite a difficult task in many cases to make the determinations. Even computer experts themselves can't just simply look at a piece of equipment and say, "Oh, yes, that equipment is Year 2000 ready." What we have here is a process that we hope, in fact, surfaces up known components that do have problems and is at the same time able to filter out components that are inconsequential. The thinking behind the paper is that, if a person is using equipment for research purposes, that they probably have a good sense for how critical that equipment is to the outcome of the research. One of the things that we are aware of is that across the university we have research from one extreme to the other. We have research that never involves a computer, we have research that uses desktop computers for perhaps word-processing purposes or, like you say, for electronic mail purposes. And then we have other research that involves 10, 15, 20 inter-linked components. Each of those might have their own particular quirks when it comes to this Year 2000 question. In looking at the question university-wide we said the person that can best make the determination about criticality is, in fact, the researchers themselves because they know the nature of the equipment and how that equipment fits into their research enterprise. The question about whether it's Year 2000 ready or not is an entirely different proposition. If it's a desktop computer, we've given a lot of guidance in the White Paper on desktop computers about whether they're Year 2000 ready. But if there's some electronic research component that is not very common, not very popular, the information is not very much available, we have an altogether different proposition. Appendix B has the option of indicating "unknown," and that option should be exercised liberally. If you don't know what the readiness of your equipment is, if you have a piece of equipment that you believe might create a problem in your research, it's far better off to say, "I don't know whether that equipment is ready," than it is to say, "Well, I think it's okay, I don't think it'll be a problem." I don't know if that answers your question?

P. Peter Rebane: I didn't see that option quite frankly the way I look at it here. Perhaps I don't need the test. My signature would go on after I agree it's compliant. There is no check-off list or a point that says, "I can't determine that it is not." If you look at that piece of paper, that's on here. Perhaps that ought to be clarified so that I can check. I don't know.

Kenneth Blythe: Well, and I appreciate that point. That particular document, Appendix B, actually has been interpreted exactly as you say. In that, by signing the paper you're saying that my research is not going to have a problem. What we really are attempting to achieve by that document is on the next page, which is a list of components and a statement on those components, whether they are not compliant or whether the compliance is unknown.

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the problem that we're discussing now was created actually 20 years ago within Microsoft, when they actually had software problems. And some clocks that did not consider that would be changing in a transition period so that it means that if it's software problems what is the contribution of Microsoft now and what is their role in solving the problem from the perspective of Microsoft? Are you dealing or considering this aspect of it?

Kenneth Blythe: Yes, we are. We're working intensely on Microsoft, and again the paper on desktop computers is focused on the Microsoft question. The problem is a lot larger than Microsoft, however. It turns out that nearly every piece of electronic equipment that you have which is over 5, 6, 7 years old may have this problem built into it. We have laboratories in the university where we have a large accumulation of equipment, much of that equipment could be as I say 5, 6, 8, 10, 15 years old, and we routinely will pull that equipment off the shelf and put it into a research project and think that it's going to be fine, and in fact going across the Year 2000 time zone could create a problem. So Microsoft is of concern, but also UNIX computers, Apple computers, and other research equipment are all part of this problem.

Brian B. Tormey, Altoona College: It became apparent to me when I read this in preparation for the meeting and then again this morning at the Commonwealth Caucus meeting that there are a large number of us that don't have this information out at the campuses yet. I'm not sure how familiar the committee may be with how well widespread this information is, but it hasn't filtered down to the department level in the campuses very widely.

Kenneth Blythe: And I'm not surprised by that. This is like late-breaking news that we're seeing here, and, in fact, what we did is distributed the information out to deans and the deans have then distributed it down to the faculty in their colleges and the cycle for doing that has been different across the university. I feel confident that you'll see it soon.

Brian B. Tormey: In the document, though, it does indicate a response time of two months.

Kenneth Blythe: There are two response times. There is a statement that we'd like to get back 10 days after you receive it, then there's a second statement that we're asking back on May 15. And I want to point out that date May 15, because I understand that some of you may have received documents that say April 15. The correct day is May 15. If you believe that's a problem making the determinations by May 15, I think you should bring that to the attention of people at your campus. Bring it to the attention of your Year 2000 officer, and they can certainly put an asterisk by...

Brian B. Tormey: Well, I'm concerned because I think it's a problem right now and I'm bringing it to the attention of the committee. I think that we do have a problem...

Kenneth Blythe: You think May 15th is ambitious?

Brian B. Tormey: I do, yes.

Guy F. Barbato, College of Agricultural Sciences: I understand that there are special requirements for animal care, and also you mentioned human subjects in research. The concern of a lot of people under my college is to what degree by signing off on this form are we trying to indicate that the facilities themselves where animals are kept, plants are being grown, greenhouses are also Y2K compliant?

Kenneth Blythe: The interpretation is research and the equipment that's associated with your research. If I were in your position, and if I had concern about the equipment that's maintaining the environment, animals, storage areas, I would certainly indicate that in any statement that I would submit.

Guy F. Barbato: But you're not implying then that we're taking responsibility through a university function which is to make sure that the facilities are Y2K compliant, are you?

Kenneth Blythe: No I'm not, and I'm pleased you asked that question. Because there's nothing implicit in these documents, or certainly it's not intended to be implicit in these documents, that we are finding fault by the way you answered the statement. We really--truthfully, the core issue here is that we want to know if there are pieces of machinery, a piece of electronic equipment, animal storage facilities anything that's associated with the research of the university that is suspect, and that needs specific attention. In the research enterprise at Penn State, we have this really complex question that an animal facility used by the College of Agricultural Sciences may in fact be maintained by the Office of Physical Plant, or it may be maintained by the college itself, and each of the researchers that are using it are really customers of that animal facility rather than being the caretaker of that animal facility. So the process that we tried to put in place here is one that will bring that issue to the surface, that we'll be able to attend to it without saying, "Oh, now that's your problem."

Guy F. Barbato: If I might just add two more points, and I don't mean to monopolize, one is the implication that only equipment, as we've been talking about, 5 to 8 years old has this problem. I might point out that there is a class of very inexpensive microprocessors that's been in equipment made as recently as last year that are not Y2K compliant, especially small pieces of inexpensive laboratory equipment. The other part is, given that we're undergoing a variety of other discussions at the university regarding F & A cost's, that this is an ideal opportunity--given the total cost of this operation to Penn State--to also utilize this to point out how much we do spend in support of research, assuming that we are going to spend a little bit of money to fix this.

Kenneth Blythe: Both points are valid.

Mark A. Casteel, Penn State York: Comment about the White Paper. That really needs to be distributed wider than it has been to this point. I got one of those Appendix Bs with the April 15 statement, and I'm not one to procrastinate, and maybe I think I know more about computers than I do, but I checked the virus--I have a virus fix on my software--I have a couple programs that I use, my research program and I have verified that they are compliant and I thought everything was fine. Yesterday, before I came up I signed and forwarded that document to my Director of Academic Affairs. I then last night in my hotel room read the White Paper that I had not had access to before, did not know of its existence, and some things came out there that I hadn't considered before--things as simple as my word-processing program, spreadsheets. This needs to be distributed much more widely than it is, and the first thing I'm going to do when I go home is withdraw that document and rip it up and start from scratch. Even as I've talked to colleagues, that White Paper needs to be much more explicit than it is. We almost need a matrix. If you own Microsoft Office 97, this is where you go, this is the patch you download, this is how you do it. If it doesn't work, call for help. It's not that explicit. Many of my colleagues are not as well versed as I am, and I'm not a computer idiot by any means but basically could not make head or tails of that White Paper.

Kenneth Blythe: Are you talking about the desktop computer...

Mark A. Casteel: Yes, we need things I guess maybe more clear, for many of us that are not...

Kenneth Blythe: We worked very hard to make even that one... And truthfully we developed that paper and the term we used all the time we were developing it was "cookie cutter." We really wanted to give people delineation so that they could say, "My computer is fine, or my computer needs some work done to it, or my computer is hopeless." And we hoped that we could put it in those kinds of simple categories. As simple as we tried to make it, however, it's very complex even now. And your point about needing more information and distributing more information is absolutely right. The number one thing we need to do with Year 2000 is what we call awareness building, and we're trying to get information out in every manner that we can.

Alan W. Scaroni: Is there any protection in the procurement policy of the university, not so much for computers but other components that go out for bid, that prevent non-Y2K compatible equipment coming in to the university?

Kenneth Blythe: Yes. Every order that's been made by the university for electronic equipment now since October 1997, I think it is, we have had a statement on that purchase order that says, "Don't sell it to us if it's not Year 2000 ready." Now the problem is that we have a big legacy of equipment that preceded that date.

Rodney A. Erickson: I'd just like to add that I hope Senate colleagues will help spread this word to others throughout the university who are engaged in research. This is indeed a very serious matter, and I think we need to have a balanced kind of approach to this as well. The main thing that we want to ensure is the integrity of our research programs. I think it would be disastrous if some of us lost plants, animals or other specimens that we had worked years to build, or in other cases where the integrity of our databases was somehow adversely impacted by the Year 2000 situation. Awareness building is very important to this. There is also the legal aspect as well. Many of you may know we're now being asked to certify to many of our sponsors. Most of our private-sector sponsors are requiring that we sign a statement to Year 2000 compatibility. Many of our federal sponsors have now just in the past few weeks switched to this requirement as well. So it's important first of all for the integrity of our research programs and secondly for Penn State to be able to demonstrate that we have taken due diligence as we approach this issue, but approach it with good judgement. Your questions are very relevant about how important this is for me. Look at your mission critical components through your research program, where I would guess there are probably thousands of you who will not be directly affected. If you are working with relatively recent equipment and programs and there's no danger to your data and kind of standard word-processing that you're doing, there will be no problem at all. But if you are involved in any way with embedded chips or with perhaps programs that had been written some years ago or by graduate students that have long since departed, it makes good sense to check into those things, and--as Guy indicated--where there's a key interface between your research equipment and your program activities and the Office of Physical Plant--with larger issues. It's important to ask those questions and it's important to ask them well. So please, bear with us from the research side as we ask you to participate with us in making certification again to the best of our knowledge to those who are sponsoring our research. Thank you.

James T. Elder, Penn State Shenango: Question not with the embedded chip kind of difficulty but the virus difficulty? I just had a chance meeting with someone that said there are 149 verified viruses now that are ready to kick in, and probably many more. Do these sorts of procedures help in that regard?

Kenneth Blythe: No, I'm sorry they don't. I wish I could say they did, but the virus--the best thing we find for virus is virus protection programs. All the folks in my office routinely have a virus checker that starts up when their computer starts up and checks to make sure that everything is okay today.

Chair Berkowitz: On the other hand, if I have a computer that's not Y2K compliant and won't switch over to the Year 2000, wouldn't that prevent all these terrible problems? If there are no more really important questions, we should move on. Thank you very much. We do have a second report from the Committee on Computing and Information Systems, and that's on the information technology fee allocation and Dave Christy will present that if he hadn't done enough already.

Information Technology Fee Allocation

David P. Christy: Thanks, Len. Actually the response that we got for the previous report was exactly what we wanted, which was to raise awareness and maybe some sense of urgency on the part of university researchers. The second informational report on the information technology fee allocation is a Senate-mandated report. We received information from Russ Vaught in the Center for Academic Computing. As you no doubt know, the information technology fee is a special fee formerly called the computer fee. It's collected from each student, each semester, and that's actually very good money because it does not go into the general fund. It is specifically reallocated for information technology purposes. We tried to make this report rather complete, because there is sometimes misunderstanding as to exactly what categories of expenditures in information technology those monies are applied to. So on pages two and three of our report, you can see that we've indicated where the money goes and for what kinds of purposes. We have indicated the differences in allocation of those funds over the past two years where there has been reallocation. Some of the money is used for location-specific services, and those are for campus colleges, campus locations, or individual colleges on the University Park campus. Those are not allocated to individual colleges or locations necessarily on a per capita basis, but through an as needed or as opportunities provide themselves basis. But you can see on page four of our report the degree to which monies collected at each location have been used in the central allocation through a common percentage or for location-specific purposes, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Berkowitz: Does anyone have any questions for Dave?

Robert P. Withington, Graduate Student Senator, College of Agricultural Sciences: Once the World Campus gets going, is there going to be any fee associated with information technology associated with the cost that the student pays to use that since they're using a server kind of thing?

David P. Christy: I don't know but I will ask.

Dwight Davis: On the committee is Tom Abendroth, who was our dean for information technology down at the College of Medicine, but I don't see us listed here?

David P. Christy: There is no information technology fee collected at the Medical School and therefore there is no allocation to the Medical School. It's handled separately. Once again, this year Dickinson School of Law is also handled as a separate entity, and there will be ongoing discussions as to how that should be handled in the future, but the Medical School students neither pay such a fee nor is there an allocation.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there other questions. Thank you very much, Dave. We now move on to the next informational report, this from the General Education Implementation Committee. John Bagby had to leave at about 2:15 and we managed to postpone things long enough, and I think it's safe he's gone, so John Moore is now stuck with us.


Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)

John W. Bagby, Chair, General Education Implementation Committee
John W. Moore, Vice-Chair, General Education Implementation Committee

John W. Moore, College of the Liberal Arts: John Bagby wants me to apologize to you for leaving, but he had a 2:30 class. He also asked me to make two other comments. One is that he wants to express his appreciation to President Spanier for his remarks on the funding for general education and secondly for his enthusiastic endorsement of the general education reforms and hopefully for their implementation. And also, John asked me to point out that he and the rest of the committee appreciate the enthusiasm and cooperation that the committee has received from faculty and staff throughout the university in helping us to refine these guidelines. Now, today's report has to deal with recommendation five of the legislation passed in December 1997, and on the first page, recommendation five reads, "The University Faculty Senate in a sense is to develop policies, procedures, and guidelines for the general education curriculum and its attendant requirements that will stimulate creative collaborative approaches, both in terms of curriculum development and delivery and in the ways students may meet the spirit of the requirements." And at the bottom of the page the committee sorted that out to make suggestions in five specific areas: ways in which we could adopt flexible approaches in regard to facilitating creative and collaborative approaches in course design; secondly, ways in which we can improve the course substitution process; and then ways of preserving portability and mobility as students move across from college to college within the university; enhancing the role of advising in terms of the general education program; and, lastly, various ways in which the course approval process can be streamlined. And these five suggestions are in regard to each one of these points made on pages 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, are there any questions in regard to these?

Dennis S. Gouran: I may be out of the loop on this, but could you share with us through these exciting developments--on page six under number five course approval process--could you give us confidence that in fact is how the process works by actively improving the course approval process in ways that will make it streamlined, flexible, simple, and quick in response time? The evidence suggests... I want to know what the evidence is for that claim? The claim that these colleges and committees are streamlining the process and the turn-around time.

John W. Moore: Well the evidence that the committee has at the current moment is that individual colleges are certainly coming up now with computer programs that make it much easier for individual faculty members to make the course proposal basically right from the computer in their office, and it goes over to the college. Now, I assume the particular issue you're talking about right now is the apparent difficulties that some departments are having in moving courses through Curricular Affairs at this moment. Is that what you're talking about? I think that what we have to understand is at the current moment that Curricular Affairs is trying to move all the courses that are dealing with general education through before they get to new course proposals. Is that right, Peter? Is that how you would... I'm sorry did you want to speak to this point?

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Well, I would say that we are actively involved in reviewing the general education course proposals. And if I would like to make a general statement, it is this: as long as I've been on Curricular Affairs, all of those items that have appeared on the Blue Sheets have been acted upon within the monthly meeting or bimonthly meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee. I think it also has been a long-standing policy that all proposals that reach the Senate Office that are prepared according to the guidelines as they have been published have been acted upon in such a way that the courses would be available for offering within the next semester. So in particular the ways, as far as the particulars on item number six go, we have currently a program in which we are developing an electronic submission process for all courses including the general education courses. I think we have a prototype and we have a college that wants to test that model--College of Earth and Mineral Sciences has volunteered--and I hope they can make progress with that so that I can show you how the system works. Probably at the beginning of the fall semester--we hope that we can use that system very much earlier--but I think we could come to the Senate here in the fall semester and have a demonstration of how the system works. Some of you have seen that system already in operation. We want to expedite the process, so I've spoken to the committee members about this issue, and so if they make the assertion that there are things going on in Curricular Affairs that we too wish to make improvement to the submission process, they can talk to me about that.

Chair Berkowitz: And Senators would please notice that, although this is an informational report, it's one of a very special kind as all the reports from the implementation committee are. It contains a number of things which would otherwise be recognized as recommendations and suggestions. And in this case it appeared to me that the committee was trying to get even with me because everything it recommends is for me to do something. But among those things is one that would address exactly the issue Dennis has raised because it asks the Chair of the Senate to ask the appropriate Senate committees to make information about the improvement you're talking about available and to ask Curricular Affairs to do something similar. So once those things are done you will have the information that you asked for, and let's move on with the discussion.

Dennis S. Gouran: Well, I'm sorry, but this said we are actively improving the process rather than being in the process of trying to streamline and expedite, and if indeed this is true, then I'd like to know what the evidence is that in fact streamlining is going on with the course approval process and whether it has been revised in ways, speeded up, and if the consequent effect would encourage these other more important kinds of developments?

John W. Moore: Let me answer that question by saying that the special committee was well aware of the fact that, central to any effective general education program that is going to be receptive to the formulation of new courses, is going to be an efficient curricular approval process, one which will respond quickly to the requests of the faculty for new courses. The special report understands that the curricular approval process is like that. It was re-described as central. The question for us was how to deal with that injunction from the legislation. So we worked out an arrangement with the chair of Curricular Affairs: that Curricular Affairs agrees to make a report on the specific recommendations inside recommendation five and recommendation ten and to present that to the Senate, so that you will be able to see in what way the process, once it is complete, is more streamlined and quick and efficient than it is now in its entirety. That is from the departmental to the college to the Senate level. That's what the implementation committee, as the committee trying to represent the special committees' ideas, concluded: that the best way we could achieve the goal of an improved curricular approval process was to encourage such a thing, and to ask then whoever is at that moment chair of Curricular Affairs to make a report to the Senate indicating just exactly what is the curricular approval process and in what ways it meets the goals that you all legislated in December 1997.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there additional comments or questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for that report. Our next report is an informational report from the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. It's the annual report of academic eligibility and athletic scholarships, and John Coyle is here to present that report and answer any questions. We just postponed the meeting long enough to make sure your class was over, John.


Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98

Charles E. Yesalis, Chair, Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

John Coyle, National Collegiate Athletic Association Representative: Thank you very much. Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. I refer you to Appendix "H," which I'm sure most of you have. It's page one. I'd like just to make a few brief comments about each of the five items that are listed there on that first page. First of all, as the introductory paragraph indicates that number of 1534 includes some double counting since Penn State screens its student athletes twice per year. Even though we're only required to do it once per year in the fall by the NCAA, we do it twice per year because we have found over time that improves our graduation rate and keeps everybody on target. Number two, the total number of student athletes not approved for participation--item number two--that means student athletes who did not meet either the normal progress requirements, either a qualitative requirement or a quantitative requirement, the qualitative being a grade point average, the quantitative being credit hours. Or they may have not been eligible because of the NCAA transfer rule or some other NCAA requirement, but that number was 43 last year. We are allowed to make exceptions to normal progress requirements if our standards are higher than the Big Ten and NCAA. And as most of you know, I'm sure we do have higher standards for normal progress than both the Big Ten and the NCAA, and in a selected number of instances where it can be demonstrated that making an exception of up to three credits will not in any way be negative as far as a student athlete is concerned in reaching their graduation requirement, we do make exceptions, and last year that number was 30. And then item number four is the total number of scholarships awarded last year. Now that includes both full scholarships and partial scholarships and represents about 55 to 56 percent of the total number of student athletes that actually participated. So we have many students who participate at Penn State who are non-scholarship athletes. Item number five obviously is the trend benchmarks over the previous four years to give you some idea, and the only thing that would appear to be an anomaly would be the athletes screened last year 1996-97 was about 200 plus larger than this year and some of the years before. And that's because last year we seemed to have an unusually large number of student athletes that walked-on, if you will--non-scholarship athletes. If you would look at what probably could be considered the third page, I have provided here data for the class entering in 1991. The NCAA requires that we report our graduation rates and we report them every year but this is the most recent data that we reported last year. We just recently have completed a report that's not yet public but last year's report, this is the group entered in 1991, scholarship athletes and then six years later that they graduated. As you can see we can be proud of our graduation rate. It is the second highest in the Big Ten, both in terms of last year and based on a four year average. The anomaly here would be the fact that last year the 1991 entering class was lower than all students at University Park but that was unusual. Typically it has been equal to or greater than. So you'll see that the four-year average is the same for scholarship student athletes as it is for all students at University Park campus. Now the data is reported this way because that's what the NCAA requires. They only require us to report scholarship athletes. We do our own internal checks and our non-scholarship athletes graduate at a rate equal to or greater than the scholarship athletes. If you look at the last page of the report, it gives you some data for all NCAA institutions, and again as you can see looking at that bar chart we have much to be proud of as far as our graduation rates are concerned. They are significantly greater in terms of the class of 1991 entering and the four-year average. At this point I'll be glad to answer any questions you have either about page one or any of the other subsequent illustrations.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any questions for John?

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: I was just wondering, John, if you broke it down by sports would there be any significant variations?

John Coyle: Well from year to year, Phil there are variations among teams and that might reflect sometimes a limited number of student-athletes that might enter. For example, in a sport like basketball you may only have three or at the most four or five athletes entering a class. So this is a simple input-output model, so who starts and who graduates. So if you have some student-athletes that transfer after a year or two to another institution, or someone who chooses to start their pro career early and you only have three or four student athletes and two of them leave, your graduation rate is significantly lower. So there can be variations primarily because of the size of the squad entering.

Philip A. Klein: I just mean in terms of where Penn State ranks and things like that?

John Coyle: Overall, our teams fare very well. In fact, our basketball program is one that is exceptionally good, because the last two years we've had a hundred percent graduation rate which is very unusual as far as Division I schools are concerned.

Chair Berkowitz: May I remind Senators to identify themselves before they speak. Phil, we recognize you, in any case.

John Coyle: I do, in particular. He's the only one sitting in this room that's been on the faculty longer than I've been. I've been here for 38 years and...

Chair Berkowitz: And it's still hard even to recognize Phil on the tape.

Gordon F. De Jong: I wonder about the issue of students that are transferring, and students who transfer in good standing and go graduate someplace else are counted against you. It always seems to me an anomaly of the NCAA, but what is the practice now?

John Coyle: Well, the practice continues to be the same, Gordon. You may recall when this was first started, there was an attempt to have two graduation rates, one that was the simplistic one we are currently using and another one that was modified. But it caused so much misinterpretation on the part of the public and the press and also was confusing other individuals that the NCAA decided to go with one standard graduation report, and everybody's treated the same way so there is a commonality if you will, because of that. But we would agree with you that we often have student-athletes, because of the competitive nature of some of our teams, that transfer in good standing, that they're actually counted against our graduation rate. Now the good news is they don't count for the other school either for graduation because they don't come in with that class.

Alan W. Scaroni: My questions are not about Penn State which has wonderful numbers here but about the institutions down at the bottom of this list and...

John Coyle: Are you looking at the Big Ten list?

Alan W. Scaroni: Yes, and your understanding, and I see that some of the student-athlete graduation rates correspond to the general student body that are low. Is it your understanding that these schools have an explanation for that? Are happy with that? Or is there some subtle pressure by the institutions at the top of this list to try and get others in the Big Ten to raise their graduation rates?

John Coyle: As usual you have a multifaceted question and I'll try to answer all the questions that you asked. Yes, there is some subtle pressure both by the Big Ten and the faculty representatives. The joint group reviews these graduation rates and the schools that are at the bottom of the list are questioned about their particular graduation rate. There's also a certain amount of pressure put on by the fact that these graduation rates are published in newspapers throughout the country, and we're sure that alumni at various institutions will write to their schools because we hear about that indirectly. The institutions themselves have some explanation for it. For example, Minnesota as you can see, compares with their general student body because of the requirements they have in the state with respect to admissions. They had a lot of walk-on students come in, try out for various teams, and then will either quit the team or transfer to some other institution before they graduate and so they attribute those numbers to that particular situation. They are required to meet the initial eligibility requirements of the NCAA, which as you may recall with from your experience with our committee, have increased tremendously since they were first initiated as so called Proposition 48. The initial eligibility requirements have increased substantially. Minnesota and Ohio State also feel that they have far more transfer students than we do. So that's their explanation. But there is a certain amount of subtle pressure.

Chair Berkowitz: Other questions. Thank you very much, John. We now come to the last of our committee reports from Undergraduate Education, the grade distribution report, and Art Miller is still here and will present that report.


Grade Distribution Report

Arthur C. Miller, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Arthur C. Miller: This is a mandatory report that the Undergraduate Education Committee puts out every year, and what I'd like very quickly to do is to go over just a couple of the tables. Table one presents the percentage of grades awarded in courses numbered 0-499. Table two is a summary of the grade distributions for resident instruction for spring semester 1998. Table three is the grade point averages of the dean's list for the baccalaureate and the associate degree programs, and table four is an all-university distribution of semester grade point average for baccalaureate students. In the past we have gotten into discussions of grade inflation. We've gotten into the discussions that the students are improving, and one of the things in lieu of that what we've tried to do is at least present some graphs that confused everybody last year, so I made the world this year much smaller so that you can't tell or distinguish on some of the graphs. The problem with trying to look at grade inflation and trying to decide if we have better students is, it's not a simple issue. And one of the things that we have is that we've gone through a plus and minus grading system, we've changed the late drop rules over the last 30 years three different times, and so the first figure that I have shows that population and makes it difficult in order to maybe do something statistically with that. What I had done in the past, and what I had done this year again, is make the worst case scenario and the best case scenario if you're looking at trying to look at grade inflation. One is to take the "Ws" and the late drops and not count them in the statistics and the other one is to throw them in and pretend they all flunked and so those are the two graphs that you really see. If you count them as though they flunked, there is no grade inflation. The line goes straight across, and if you count them that they're not in the distribution you'll see a slight trend. In the past we've plotted that to a different scale and it looked like it exaggerated it quite a bit. On the scale that I plotted here, it doesn't look like there's much inflation. What we have done is, we've formed a subcommittee this year that will report in the future however, that we are trying to look at a different way of approaching whether there are better students, grade inflation or not, and we've been working with the Registrar's Office and Admissions Office. We have some data, we're looking at SAT scores and some of the things that we were doing in the committee this morning was talking a little bit about Penn State's average SATs and we looked at only the math. How much they differ by the national norm as far as what the folks that take the SAT scores are. We're about roughly 100 points higher than that. That's about one standard deviation off the norm, and there has been an increase in the SAT scores since 1977 and it diverges a little bit from what you would see for the national average. So what we would hope to do is to come back to the Senate later on and talk a little bit more meaningfully about the grade inflation issue, and also we're talking about maybe doing something different with the late drops as part of that subcommittee. So, I present the report.

Dwight Davis: The change in the SAT scoring that occurred I guess, what four years ago? What effect did that have?

Arthur C. Miller: That has been brought back and been normalized. So I don't know how they call it? It's been re-constituted or re-centered, okay. So it's been re-centered, so supposedly that bias is taken out.

Peter D. Georgopulos, Penn State Delaware: Can you explain figure two and what you mean by cumulative GPA?

Arthur C. Miller: What figure two did is that it would take just making a cumulative average of the students, and what I dropped off includes the number of the students with those grades. So all it says is those students that would have had a late drop or "W," I gave them an "F" and zero GPA. I can't distinguish what people would have had, so what I've done is I've done a worst case/best case. If they all flunked, that's what you would see for grade point average. If they were all dropped and you don't include them in the grade point average, that's the other graph.

Bill Ellis, Penn State Hazleton: Could you just clarify what the relationship is between the dashed line and the solid line, please.

Arthur C. Miller: One is the raw data and then the dashed line would be the best fit curve.

Edward W. Bittner: Just one quick one on table three, page three: grade point averages and on dean's list, the percent. The second section where it has the individual colleges, the new colleges--Abington, Altoona, Behrend and so forth. The total enrollment in those colleges, can I interpret that as those being the students that are in each of those colleges for four years, they intend to be for four years? 5216 students are now enrolled in a four-year program?

Arthur C. Miller: It's those that are in the major at that location.

Edward W. Bittner: Who intend to stay that way? Obviously someone at McKeesport who wants a degree in chemistry in the College of Science would be included under Science up above. They would not be included in the Commonwealth College. That number 362 under Commonwealth College must be students who intend to stay at a Commonwealth College. Am I correct?

Arthur C. Miller: Yes. I'd like to thank Gary Hile for gathering all this data because without that we wouldn't have any of this.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you very much, Art, and I thank everyone for staying this long.






May I have a motion to adjourn? The March 2, 1999 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:34 PM.


Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of February 16, 1999

Undergraduate Education - Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 -- Multiple Major Programs (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - Addition to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 -- Withdrawal of Promotion Dossier (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Response to July 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits (Advisory/Consultative)

Computing and Information Systems - Year 2000 Computer/ Microprocessor Problem (Informational)

Computing and Information Systems - Information Technology Fee Allocation (Informational)

General Education Implementation Committee - Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5) (Informational)

Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98 (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Grade Distribution Report (Informational)


Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Anderson, Albert A.
Arnold, Steven F.
Arteca, Richard N.
Bagby, John W.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barbato, Guy F.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bittner, Eward W.
Blumberg, Melvin
Book, Patricia A.
Brenneman, Scott S.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brighton, John A.
Browning, Barton W.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph
Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnne
Christy, David P.
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Cragin, Kelly
Crane, Robert G.
Crawford, James P.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Daubert, Thomas E.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, Travis
de Hart, Steven A.
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Farber, Gregory K.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Frank, Thomas A.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Freeman, Emily K.
Friend, Linda C.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Haner, William E.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harwood, John T.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Holt, Frieda M.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jurs, Peter C.
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Kristine, Frank J.
Lasher, William C.
Limric, Sean C.
Lippert, John R.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marsico, Salvatore A.
May, Janet A.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McGraw, Kenneth P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Miller, Linda P.
Moore, John W.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Murphy, Lucia R.
Myers, David J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Nicholson, Mary E.
Nixon, Tracy B.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Phillips, Allen T.
Poch, Helena
Power, Barbara L.
Preston, Deborah
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor C.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schneider, Donald P.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Brady P.
Smith, James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Tormey, Brian B.
Tranell, Jeffrey R.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Vickers, Anita M.
Walters, Robert A.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.
Withington, Robert P.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Zelis, Robert
Ziegenfus, Ted
Bugyi, George J.
Cunning, Tineke J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

140 Total Elected
4 Total Ex Officio
6 Total Appointed
150 Total Attending


Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11(c) (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d) (Legislative)

Libraries - Resolution Supporting the Efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition) (Resolution)

Faculty Affairs - Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans (Informational)

Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report- 1999-2000- Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Curricular Affairs - Review of Recent Changes in Current Practices of, and Future Plans for, the Curricular Approval Process (Informational)

Elections Commission - Roster of Senators for 1999-2000 (Informational)

Outreach Activities -- Off-Campus Graduate Programs (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000 - Senate Officers: Chair-Elect and Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

University Planning - Master Plan and Plan for the Arboretum (Informational)