Penn State University Home

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D

Volume 31 MARCH 3, 1998 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 1997-98.

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Final Agenda for March 3, 1998---------------------------Pages ii-iii

A. Summary of Agenda Actions-----------------------------Page iv

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks---------------------Pages 1-30

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to March 3, 1998----Appendix I

B. Attached

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on Faculty

Affairs - HR-60 Access to Personnel Files--------Appendix II

Attendance---------------------------------------Appendix III

III. Tentative Agenda for March 31, 1998----------------Appendix IV

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 3, 1998

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

Minutes of the February 3, 1998, Meeting in The Senate Record 31:4-----Page 1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

(Blue Sheets) of February 21, 1998---------------------------------------------Page 1

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 17, 1998-------------Page 1

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR - ----------------------------------------Pages 1-2

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY - ---------------Page2

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS - ----------------------------------------------------------Page 3

G. UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS ------------------------Page 3

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

Committees and Rules

Student Membership on Senate---------------------------------------------Pages 3-4

I.ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

Faculty Affairs

HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks-------------------------------------Page 4

HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files----------------------------------------Pages 4-13

Faculty Benefits

Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Review Process------------------Pages 13-15

Graduate Council Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs

HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and Other

Members of the University Staff------------------------------------------Page 15

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Computing and Information Systems

Student Computer Fee Allocation, 1997-98---------------------Pages 15-17

Outreach Activities

The World Campus----------------------------------------------------Pages 17-30

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS - ---------------------------------------------Page 30

L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE

UNIVERSITY - --------------------------------------------------------------Page 30

M. ADJOURNMENT - -----------------------------------------------------------Page 30

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

The Senate passed three Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs – "HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks." This report asks that the "Proportional Distribution of Academic Ranks" section of HR-21 be deleted. It is a part of that policy that has not been enforced. (See Record, page(s) 4 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Faculty Affairs - HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files." This report clarifies what documents in personnel files are accessible to faculty and staff. (See Record, page(s)

4-13, Corrected Copy, Record Appendix II, and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Faculty Benefits - Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Review Process." This report contains two recommendations to reinforce the Senate’s stance in the Advisory and Consultative report on Status of Faculty Compensation at Penn State of 9/10/96. (See Record, page(s) 13-15 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

The Senate received two Informational Reports:

Computing and Information Systems – "Student Computer Fee Allocation, 1997-98." This is the annual mandated report on the appropriation of the student computer fee. (See Record, page(s) 15-17 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

Outreach Activities - "The World Campus." This report discusses the status and the faculty-related issues of the new World Campus initiative. (See Record, page(s) 17-30 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

One report was withdrawn by the Committee:

Graduate Council Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs - "HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and Other Members of the University Staff." This report proposed that the prohibition against the faculty, above the rank of instructor, to seek as advanced degree at Penn State be eliminated. (See Record, page(s) 15 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

One report was discussed, however, since this is a change in the Constitution, the report must lay on the table until the next meeting:

Committees and Rules - "Student Membership on Senate." This report proposes a change in the way student representation is allocated on the Senate. (See Record, Page(s) 3-4 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

 

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Louis Geschwindner, Chair, presiding. One hundred and fifty Senators signed the roster.

Chair Geschwindner: It is time to begin.

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting. You have received The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings, of the February 3, 1998 meeting. It was also 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 Geschwindner: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for February 21, 1998 in the mail.

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Also, you should have received the report of the Senate Council, the meeting of February 17. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council that are contained in the minutes attached to today’s Agenda, and I will avoid repetition of these items.

Along with the minutes of Senate Council in your agenda, you will see the report from Phil Klein, our liaison to Graduate Council. I want to call our attention to the new approach we are taking to our interaction with Graduate Council. Our liaison will be presenting to Senate Council a summary of the issues being considered by Graduate Council. Attached to his report will be the official Graduate Council minutes. Since these minutes are available to all faculty from other sources, they are not included in the full Senate Agenda that is distributed.

The Senate officers are continuing our visits to the units at University Park. On January 27 we visited the College of Health and Human Development; on February 12, the College of Communications; on February 19, the University Libraries; and on February 24 the College of the Liberal Arts. Our next visit is scheduled for April 7 with the Eberly College of Science.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on February 18. We discussed the 1998-99 budget presentation and reviewed the documentation being provided to the general assembly--the current enrollment picture which seems to show that our popularity and our yield are extraordinary. We reviewed post-tenure review and the Faculty Advisory Committee's desire that the Faculty Senate, through the Faculty Affairs Committee, continue to play the major role in developing a direction for Penn State in this area. We discussed the status of the general education implementation activities; the financial campaign and Penn State's yield on its endowments; and finally we had an update on dean searches which include science, education and the position of president of Penn College. The next Faculty Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for March 17.

I reported the appointment of the General Education Implementation Committee at our last Senate meeting. The charge meeting was held on February 6, and they have been meeting weekly since then. In my charge I asked that they provide some early guidance (that is by the middle of March) to faculty wishing to get started on proposals for the new requirements, including such issues as continuation of existing approved general education courses and grandfathering of requirements. In addition, I have asked that they provide guidance on the broad areas that will be expected to be reviewed in course proposals meeting the new requirements for such proposals as first-year seminars, integrating active learning and the new health and activity requirement. This guidance should come in the form of an informational report to the Senate for its April 28 agenda (which means the report is due in the Senate Office by April 3). Other portions of the charge will see results in the early part of the fall semester.

Recommendation #2 of the general education program on improving diagnostic instruments will be sent to the University Academic Measurements Committee, chaired by Ronald Koot, shortly. I am working with the Office of Undergraduate Education on recommendation #9, which calls for the establishment of a general education assessment interest group, and hope to have something to report on that soon.

The University ID Card Committee is progressing well with creating the new university ID cards, and I was asked to announce that the recarding at University Park will be done in White Building from April 20 to May 1. Formal announcements are forthcoming, but I wanted to ask you to announce this at your voting unit caucuses. The recarding at other locations is also being scheduled.

That concludes my remarks, and we move on to comments by the President of the University.

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

Chair Geschwindner: I am reporting that President Spanier and Provost Brighton are at budget hearings today. If President Spanier should arrive back in town during our Senate meeting, he will try to attend.

That brings us to the business of our meeting today. As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

Chair Geschwindner: We do have one Legislative Report from the Committee on Committees and Rules covering Student Membership on the Senate. You'll find this report is Appendix "B" in your agenda. Sabih Hayek will present the report. (Since this report is a change in the Constitution, it must lay on the table for a month. A vote will be taken at the March 31 Senate meeting. We can discuss the report at today's meeting but we will not vote until March 31.) Sabih…

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Student Membership on Senate

Sabih I. Hayek, Chair

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: Thank you. Good afternoon ladies, gentlemen and fellow Senators. We are proposing legislation to change the Constitution Article II, Section 5(c), student representation on the Faculty Senate. This change becomes necessary with the creation of new colleges. The current Constitution states that student representation is limited to less than ten percent of the elected Faculty Senators. However, the current elected Faculty Senate population is 204. Using that figure, the student representation for next year would be 20, whereas it would be 21 if we have student representation "one for each of the colleges" as listed in the proposal.

This is a small increase and we presume in the future the numbers will balance out.

Sabih I. Hayek: Mr. Chairman…

Chair Geschwindner: Anyone have any questions or comments for Sabih?

Effey Oz, Penn State Great Valley: You may find yourself in a position where no student volunteers for this. What happens to the seat then? Does it go to another location, or is it just left vacant?

Sabih I. Hayek: No, if the college does not elect a student Senator, they will not have a representative.

Chair Geschwindner: Other questions? Okay, this will stay on the table until our next meeting, at which time we will vote. Between now and then if you come up with any questions, please pass them along to Sabih so that they can either be addressed before the meeting or at least the discussion can be prepared so that they can be discussed here fully. Thank you, Sabih.

Chair Geschwindner: We now move to Advisory/Consultative Reports. We have two reports from Faculty Affairs. The first one is HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks, Appendix "C," and Murry Nelson will present the report.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks

Murry R. Nelson, Chair

Murry R. Nelson, College of Education: Thank you, Lou. You can see the legislation in front of you. The reason this came up--you may have found it surprising--the reason this arose was, when Dickinson Law School joined us there was a question raised about whether they were going to be held to the percentage…the proportional distribution of academic ranks, and when that was asked of Bob Secor, he was quite surprised that we had such a thing. And finding that, the suggestion was made that, since we don't follow this and have not in anyone's recent memory actually followed this proportional distribution, it seemed best to eliminate something rather than embarrass ourselves by maintaining something that we didn't do. Thus, this is what you see and that's the background to it. I'd be glad to respond to any questions about this particular piece of non-legislation, since it's advisory/consultative.

Chair Geschwindner: Any comments or questions? Are you ready for a vote? All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All those opposed, same sign. Thank you very much.

Now we next move to HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files, and Murry will present this report.

HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files

Murry R. Nelson: Thank you again, Lou. Some of you who were in the Senate last year may recall that we did pass a report last year that came out of Faculty Affairs that had to do with access to personnel files. It was sent forward to President Spanier who had some reservations and questions, both about definition and, indeed, some accessibility procedural questions. It went back to a committee which was an ad-hoc committee, which met throughout most of fall semester and addressed some of the issues. We met with Billie Willits, as part of this committee, Bonnie Ortiz and the University's counsel, in order to make sure that what we were doing indeed fit both the concerns that were raised by the President and the legal ramifications within the state of Pennsylvania. What you see here, I think, is something that both will be satisfactory to the Senate--of course I may be surprised, you may disagree with me--but will clearly identify both how people have access to personnel files and what is a personnel file. Last year there were questions about, "is this included?" and there were a number of things that were included and defined. Rather than defining them, we just said these are things you cannot have access to, everything else is open, and you do not have to say specifically what you want, because one of the problems is, if you don't know what you want, you don't know how to ask for it. So everything is open except those things you see. I guess that's all. We spent a lot of time on this, and I think it closes a lot of gaps that were there before, and with that I will stop.

Chair Geschwindner: Comments or questions?

Kenneth A. Thigpen, College of the Liberal Arts: At our council meeting we found that the report was fine except for on Page 3, Item 3. We found the language, especially grievance procedures, vague and undefined and felt that a possible amendment could be proposed. May I make that?

Chair Geschwindner: Of course.

Kenneth A. Thigpen: I'd like to propose the amendment for number 3 to replace the existing language reading "other information and documents required by law to remain confidential."

Chair Geschwindner: Is there a second?

Senators: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: It's been second. Discussion on the amendment? Murry, do you want to comment on it?

Murry R. Nelson: Yes, one thing I should say about this, that this is the language of the Commonwealth. This came out of--was produced by--our legal counsel. That is, he didn't produce it, he brought it and brought the statutes and that's what this comes from. So we did not create this for any particular reason other than it fits with what the state law is for such things.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: But the problem is, particularly the expression "grievance procedure" is very vague. And if I read this correctly, any information involved in whatever is defined to be a "grievance procedure" can stay in your dossier indefinitely, and you don't know anything about it, and there's no requirement that you know what's in it.

Murry R. Nelson: Let me add that…

Philip A. Klein: In legal cases, if you're charged with something, you know everything about your charge.

Murry R. Nelson: The other thing that should be raised is that the committee also had a question about this same issue but not quite what you're raising. It was if we kind of turn it about 45 degrees. The committee was concerned with how one gains access to something, or how long something would be in your file, if, for example--this was raised by Peter Deines last night at our chair's meeting--if, for example, one has a particular complaint filed against one and it's never…and there's no …does that stay there? Who decides whether it gets destroyed or maintained? That is not the focus of this particular document. This explains access; however, we agree with the question there. What does happen to these things? And because of that the committee will be entertaining this particular issue in a different form, because it really is put in a different form. We do not have anything to say about that. There are different offices on campus who are responsible for this. We're not familiar with the data gathering procedures that they use, and we do not know the retention records that they have. Thus, it is not a part of this legislation, but I can tell you that we will be dealing with that. We decided this morning in committee these particular details will be included in another report which will come forth, I'm assuming at the beginning of next year--probably not at the end of this year, though it's possible.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments on the amendment?

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: May I ask that you then raise that particular issue, and I asked this issue on the Senate floor a couple of years ago: documents and files are generic terms. I asked a couple of years ago, what happens if allegations of some kind of misconduct are brought against a faculty member, and I asked the head of the Affirmative Action Office at that time. The answer given to me was clearly: not only do you not have access to our files, but we will not even tell you if anybody has brought any grievance against you, and that these will be retained for quote "statistical pattern searching purposes." Now to me that seemed to be…and that ended the discussion. That to me is a very sensitive issue, and again, my knowledge of American criminal law is limited, but I do understand that according to the Constitution one has the right to confront one's accuser. It would seem to me that, to give that type of answer, there may be something somebody's filing in other files and you don't even know about it, that seems to me to violate a basic concept of what I think of American justice. If the committee goes over this, I, at least, would like to have an answer to this question of what files does this report speak to? Are there other files that are outside this report? Are there other federal or state rules that supersede university rules and things of this particular nature? Thank you.

Murry R. Nelson: Let me say, Peter that those are questions that I think we would be interested in also, but they are not…they're related to but do not pertain to this particular report, but they are generated from this. Those are things that we do want to pursue.

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: If it really is the intention of the committee to ask…Section 3 there, simply establish Pennsylvania law as a rule of the university and the document leaves open the possibility that these procedures could be interpreted more widely at the university. Would you be willing to just accept the Liberal Arts proposal as a friendly amendment?

Murry R. Nelson: I can't because I think we would have to go back to committee and consider that. It may seem to be friendly; I don't consider it unfriendly. I do consider it friendly, but I can't say. I would want to check with the committee and with legal counsel to make sure that what we were saying did not put us in a position that was inappropriate. I can't say…

Robert G. Price: Would you like then to table this for a month and come back to us?

Murry R. Nelson: I don't particularly want to, but that's your decision.

Chair Geschwindner: I think we have a motion and I'd like to at least complete the discussion of the motion and vote on the motion. I don't see any reason to do anything other than that.

John W. Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration: After serving on Faculty Affairs when this issue first came through, and then after serving this past fall on the HR-60 review committee, I believe that this report represents a balanced compromise. Nevertheless, I urge this Senate to be mindful that the scope of the key term here "personnel file" is probably much narrower than the scope of the commonly held notions of terms like--employment records, employment documents, employment data and the broadest, employment information. Indeed employment decisions and disciplinary actions are frequently based on information that's outside of that narrow term of "personnel file": for example, such records as our local, long distance, toll free telephone records; our incoming, outgoing emails along with their attachments; our complete Internet click stream from wherever we access through a Penn State user ID; parking tickets, athletic tickets, concert tickets; and, I believe sometime in the future as well, or near future, our health information as our health provider and university continue to become one. All IBIS, ISIS, ACOM files and all persons who access those files are part of this broader employment data notion. With some exceptions, this data is generally discoverable in pre-trial proceeding, and it's possible for it to be released in a Pennsylvania "open records" and maybe even in a federal "freedom of information" request. Therefore, this legislation addresses only a narrow class of concerns, and I believe that we do have some further investigation into the legitimate privacy concerns about that other information. Nevertheless, I support the legislation as originally proposed.

Peter C. Jurs, Eberly College of Science: I was just going to ask for clarification. Number 3 that we're talking about is not involved; therefore, it means it's not being changed from the current situation. However there's a word in the middle of that sentence "or" which is bolded. If you take that "or" out of there, the remaining sentence doesn't make sense. So exactly what is in the current edition and what's being changed?

Murry R. Nelson: I think it does make sense. "Information related to the investigation of a possible criminal offense being developed or prepared for use in civil, criminal or grievance procedures." Okay, it makes sense up until the end. I can't answer you because I don't have a copy in front of me, Peter. I'm assuming that there might have been a comma in there, and it was replaced by an "or," or something like that.

Peter C. Jurs: So, basically it's…

Murry R. Nelson: So I think it's basically editorial…

Peter C. Jurs: It's language that's been existent up to this time.

Murry R. Nelson: Right.

Peter C. Jurs: We're not changing anything?

Murry R. Nelson: No…

Peter C. Jurs: Even if we adopt the original motion?

Murry R. Nelson: Yes, it's what we passed last year also.

Chair Geschwindner: Phil.

Philip A. Klein: I accept what you say. But I'm still worried because nowhere in this document that I can tell does it define what it means by "personnel file." It can be interpreted any way that they want to interpret it, and I think that's very dangerous and very troublesome.

Chair Geschwindner: Others? Dennis.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: It seems to me that the language in the proposed amendment is a lot cleaner and places on those who would deny access the burden of demonstrating or being able to articulate that disclosure cannot be forthcoming because that would be a violation of law. The way it's presently worded, it seems to me, anyone so empowered can say, "I'm sorry you don't have access to that information because I've decided that it might possibly be used in a legal action." So the proposed amendment obligates one to demonstrate that access is illegal.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions on the amendment? Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of…

Senators: Could we hear…could you re-state the amendment, please?

Chair Geschwindner: Would you re-state the amendment?

Kenneth A. Thigpen: To replace the language under number 3, Documents not accessible for review in Appendix "D," Page 3, to replace that language with: "Other information and documents required by law to remain confidential."

Chair Geschwindner: Okay does everybody understand the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: The "aye's" have it, so we now have the report from the committee as amended. Any discussion on the report as amended? Jake…

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: I've always been puzzled by Item number 1, under Documents not accessible for review, letters or memoranda of reference. If, for example, an administrator at any point has a personal concern and wishes to put something in one's file--as kind of a memo to file--would that basically say that that could be read by others, except not the person who's the subject of the memo? Essentially it would be, possibly, an accusation without an opportunity to respond.

Murry R. Nelson: First, I cannot tell you--and John may have some comment or Mike from a legal standpoint--but this is not the intention. These refer almost exclusively, though not totally I'm sure--nothing is exclusive in the law is it?--in terms of external letters of reference that we do not have access to now. Could you do that? Could you call something a memoranda of reference and thus negate someone's possibility? I guess? A lot of things can be done under the guise or subterfuge of doing something else. Whether it would be legal or not, again, is not what we're determining here; we're dealing with hypothetical questions. But could this happen? These are procedural questions, and although what we presented here is what you want access to--can administrators or someone else operate in that manner?--they very well might. But that's really not what we're dealing with in this particular document. We're dealing with, this is what you have access to and what you don't. Can we define this better? Can someone use it to circumvent the intentions? Absolutely, I'm sure they can, but that's not something that we've really addressed here, and that's not something I think we're capable of addressing.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments on the motion. Yes…

Michael Navin, The Dickinson School of Law: Murry, I'm concerned that you said the article had been reviewed by University counsel, and now we've changed it. I think having spent the university's money, retaining the university's counsel prior to voting on this, it might be a good idea to go back and ask counsel again whether as amended it satisfies the requirements of the commonwealth's laws.

Murry R. Nelson: I'll tell you Mike, my response was that--the first thing, I wrote a note here--is that, if this were to be passed immediately, check with counsel, because if we had done something that indeed is inappropriate, we'd have to meet again and we might have to go back to the language and return here. You could be right, that it's best to withdraw it and do that. I'm not adverse to that, nor would I have suggested it, but I did want to make sure to check with counsel.

Chair Geschwindner: Remember that if we pass this, this is advisory/consultative, we're making a recommendation to the President. He can do with this like he did with the last one and say, "it isn't going to work," and he can reject it and send it back. So if you choose to continue and to approve it, he still has that opportunity and undoubtedly it will be checked and reviewed by the university attorney, because the President will not approve it until he is satisfied that it's okay. So keep that in mind as you decide what you want to do with this. Carey…

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I think that especially as amended this is a good report and wish you'd support it. But I'm just seeking reassurance that somebody sometime will define a "personnel file." Is that the file in Human Resources…

Murry R. Nelson: It's anywhere there's anything that you can get, anything you want, other than the things you see here from anyone.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: But does that include all files anywhere in the university…

Murry R. Nelson: Yes…

Caroline D. Eckhardt: Does that include only those official files…

Murry R. Nelson: No, there's a discussion about where do we have personnel files, where are they located. Obviously, this includes your college, this includes your department, so that's clearly within your own college. Are there things in human services? Yes, there are, most of which are pretty boring stuff that you already know, but you have access to that also. Anything that is included anywhere you have access to, and if you request your personnel file, you will get everything that is there, other than those things that are listed here.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: I was recently in a grievance procedure and ran into some difficulties. The word that came out to me was the very last one in this, and that was a "reasonable request". I represented, basically, a staff member in that process, and the question was what was and who decides what a reasonable request is in the process of private access to information.

Murry R. Nelson: At this point, again, we discussed this, and because of the fact that we've said that your personnel file is everything other than those things that are listed, it changes the tenor of what would have been done under a certain procedure before. If someone wanted to say, "I want to see everything that Joe Blow has put in my file," or, "I want to see all," this says you can get everything. Thus, a reasonable request, I would think--and I'm speaking only for myself from the committee's discussions--would be if you didn't ask every day, "Is there anything new? I want a new file." That would be probably seen as unreasonable, but anything that fits a reasonable time length, who says that? I would guess it would be something that is subject to negotiation. If someone says, "I don't think I can do that," then it would be raised as why, and you would have an opportunity to appeal that. But I don't think we would be likely to define a reasonable request, nor do I think we can identify any one person. The Office of Human Resources might be able to define a reasonable request. I think…

Wayne R. Curtis: That was one of the problems. In working with human resources, they basically said, "Have a lawyer contact us." That was the response of what a reasonable request was.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments?

Richard A. Wilson, College of Agricultural Sciences: I'd like to bring up here, Murry, that the content of information put into the file pretty well describes it. And it also says in there if there's unsolicited material change and an employee is included, the employee should be informed so that they know it's been included. So we have to keep contacting our file manager, because it says that these files are going to be different depending on which office maintains them. It's a very loose description…

Murry R. Nelson: And that would be the person in your college who's the human resource person, the college administrator…

Richard A. Wilson: But it also says the information contained is that which is relevant to the employee's status and performance as an employee and to the commitment made to and by him/her, which covers only information the university is required to know for the performance of valid and necessary university functions. So I think it is defined.

Murry R. Nelson: It's defined, but we'll never know what reasonable is.

Beno Weiss, College of the Liberal Arts: I was somewhat surprised by the comment. I knew that big brother was watching over us, but I had no idea that big brother was watching over us to such an extent. You mean to say every phone call I made to someone at Penn State has been recorded and such a recording is being maintained by the university? When I take a library book from the library it's in my file? Every time I send an email? I find this very frightening…

Murry R. Nelson: No, it's not in your file. What John was saying is, it is libel to be accessed if need be. It is not in your file.

Beno Weiss: You mean the university maintains these records for say two to three years? I'm frightened by this…

Murry R. Nelson: John, you want to respond?

John W. Bagby: The retention policy that this university has for holding records is: the indication of incoming/outgoing calls, number called, time of day called, duration of call--that kind of information. The actual content of the telephone call, I would doubt that they have the storage capacity for that--especially if they follow my calls--but the storage capacity for the click stream seems highly probable.

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: There is no such series of records. In fact, I came back from a CIC meeting where legal counsel asked: find out how many years your computer systems back up your email, has copies of your email, on that system. I went to Gary Augustson and John Harwood separately, and they said our policy is that we do not have any copies of anybody's email. Your own hard disk has copies of your email, as Monica Lewinsky is finding out, is discoverable under law and a retainable email message can be considered part of your personnel files.

Senators: Laughter.

Robert Secor: And under discovery the opposing lawyers can say they want to see that hard disk. That is part of your file, anything that they can get their hands on is part of your file. That's why 'file' can't be defined. Now, in your experience with Human Resources, I am surprised they gave you anything. Because the document as it previously stood, if you look at it, says you can only see part of your file, and can have copies only of documents you previously had and lost. It makes no sense that you can take all the notes you want but you can't get a copy of any of it, you can't get a Xerox of it. So we in the committee said, "Let's say, yes, we'll allow copies of everything." But what if you have someone who says, "Give me copies of the whole file," every week? So, we have to say requests have to be reasonable.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments before we have a vote? Okay, we have the original motion from the committee with the amendment to HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files, Appendix "D." All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. Thank you, Murry. We next move on to the report by Faculty Benefits, Implementation of the 1996 Salary Equity Review Process given in Appendix "E". Diane Brannon will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Review Process

S. Diane Brannon, Chair

S. Diane Brannon, College of Health and Human Development: The advisory report bears Recommendation #2 from the report on Status of Faculty Compensation at Penn State that was issued in September 1996. The recommendation that this report is responding to is the one regarding a review of the bottom one-third of faculty salaries within rank, within each unit, for possible unjustifiable disparities. Faculty Benefits reviewed the table that is on the back of the memo from Provost Brighton to Lou that was in your report. We reviewed that data, and basically our findings were that the response of the Provost and the Deans were the first of the three-years of the recommended implementation was positive but certainly incremental, and the amount of salary increase funds which were used to respond to equity problems was so small as to result in trivial increases in many cases. Therefore, our first recommendation was that the full 25 percent recommendation that was in the original suggestion be adhered to in the remaining two years. I wanted to make one point of clarification which was pointed out in the committee this morning, which some of the caucuses had raised as a concern. I looked at some of the wording in here, where we referred to an amount being set aside under the first paragraph where it says recommendations. We say that the amount of funding set aside for these equity adjustments was quite small--$330,000 for the entire university. We want it to be clear there was no extra money set aside. That set aside was taken out of the units' allocation for salary increases for the year. There were some suggestions that perhaps certain units got extra salary increases owing to this, and we do not believe that to be the case.

The second recommendation had to do with what was reported to us and that it appeared a little over 500 cases were reviewed, and by our count of other sources of information on how many of us there are on the Penn State faculty, that appeared to be closer to one-sixth of the faculty rather than one-third of the faculty having been reviewed at the deans' level. Our discussion suggested that different units handled this process differently, and in some cases the dean may have actually reviewed one-third of the cases. In other cases it was left more at the discretion of the department head about which cases would be brought before the dean for review. So we're recommending that in future years greater attention be paid to standardization, both in the process of implementing the system and in the way it's reported next year and the year after. That's it…

Chair Geschwindner: Any comments or questions?

William C. Ellis, Hazleton Campus: I have two concerns about the way in which this report was implemented. I'm concerned primarily because it seems that traditional sources of inequity have in-fact been perpetuated in the implementation of a report that was intended to report that. First of all, did you take the total amount that was put aside for raises? And you divided by the number of raises granted. You come up with a figure that system-wide the average raise was $1,425; however, some departments or colleges are more than twice that in the average raise: business administration, $4,550; science $3,405; liberal arts $3,069. Some other colleges are considerably less than the average--communications $677--and for the faculty that seem to have been grouped together, disregarding the recommendation of the report, the CES received an average rate of $412. That's less than one-third the system-wide rates. Even granting that there were 14 faculty of below professorial rank that were included in that, if we assume that each of those received an average raise of something like $.50, then you still get an average raise of $566 per person, which is still the lowest of any college in the system. It seems to me that to make this system equitable we need to go back to the original report recommendation, which is that salary inequities by location be handled in an inclusive manner and the salary be compared among "faculty within the appropriate discipline regardless of location." My second concern has to do with the procedures followed. According to the report, the original report, departments were charged to clearly define the way in which these merit raises were given and, "to ensure that faculty participates in its design." Despite repeated requests for information within the CES, I am unable to find out whether or not I am in-fact in the bottom third tier of salaries, even within the CES. I was unable to find out whether my name was put forward or not for salary increase. I was unable to determine what criteria were used to determine whether people were entitled to an increase or not, and I was unable to determine what salary increase, if any, I was granted. It seems to me a minimum of procedures need to be put forward that gives all faculty at least this information. Thank you.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions?

M. Susan Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: In view of the fact that the implementation of these recommendations falls so far short of the Faculty Compensation Committees recommendations, I would suggest that the committee not assume that the first year of implementation has even passed, but that the remaining two years be increased to the remaining three years.

S. Diane Brannon: Is that an amendment?

Chair Geschwindner: That's a comment. Any other comments or questions? Are you ready for a vote? All those in favor of the report--remember this is an advisory/consultative report to the administration--all those in favor signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Motion passes. Thank you, Diane.

GRADUATE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDENT & FACULTY AFFAIRS

HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and Other Members of the University Staff

Regina Vasilatos-Younken, Chair

Chair Geschwindner: In your agenda is a recommendation from the Graduate Council, and that report has been withdrawn. Let me ask you to look over what you have in front of you. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, communicate them to your representatives on the Graduate Council. They will be looking into this again. This will come back.

We now move on to informational reports. We have a report from the Committee on Computing and Information Systems, Student Computer Fee Allocation. John Harwood is here to present the report.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Student Computer Fee Allocation, 1997-98

John T. Harwood, Chair

John T. Harwood, College of the Liberal Arts: I'll apologize in advance for the length of the report--it's four and a half pages, lots of zeros, lots of numbers. One of the things that makes this a little bit more complicated to read this year than last year is the changes within the CES system. So for the sake of clarity we retrofitted numbers back onto the past so that you can see how Abington would have done under the old system, how it did under the new system--point number one. Point number two, for the first time this year, the University Park colleges got a small portion of the student computer fee. The exact amount is $540,000. If you divide it by ten colleges, and it includes the university libraries, you're not talking about a huge sum per college. The Provost's Office distributed those funds based on--among other things--the size of the college and other needs that he was aware of. I do not have that, nor is it a part, formally, of the computer fee report. It's certainly not secret information. I know that the colleges themselves, then, did a request for proposals and did an internal allocation of the sums that they had. I was not at Senate Council when this draft was presented by the committee, but I have had a couple of questions, so perhaps I could just anticipate those. One, was there any guidance on how colleges should use their portion of the funds? And the answer is, no--only very general guidance about using the fund to improve academic computing within the colleges and colleges vary sharply in terms of what they have and what they need. I'll stop there and try to answer any questions you might have about the report.

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: I understand what you said in terms of the funds being allocated to the different colleges, then the colleges pretty much coming up with their procedures and there being a fairly wide latitude in terms of how the procedures were followed…

John T. Harwood: Yes.

Brian B. Tormey: Since this is monies that are raised each year as a result of the implementation of this fee, and the committee did move the legislation forward to raise the fee…

John T. Harwood: The committee didn't do that, it's the trustees that set the fees…

Brian B. Tormey: To simply set the process in motion, suggest that…maybe I'm incorrect. The issue, I think--still the fundamental issue--is that these monies are distributed to the colleges, and definitely there should be some student input into how they're used. It seems to me that in addition there should be some input by faculty into how the funds are used as well. So I would ask that your committee and the Senate Officers perhaps look into the possibility of providing a guidance function in that capacity, just so that the instructional aspect--instructional value--of the funds is ensured.

John T. Harwood: Thanks.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments? John…

John J. Cahir, Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education: That comment had come up in Senate Council, and we did do a little checking on the student input on the allocation of these fees, and I can tell you that at our campus colleges there is a fairly well established practice of consulting with the students. Of the 15 campuses that I was able to survey, 14 reported that there was formal student input. In some cases the majority of the committee members who are involved are students, and in five of the 14 it's a student government operation. At the other campuses student input is sought. It's somewhat less clear at University Park, and in fact, I would say there is less student input at University Park, and I think that's because that $540,000 item was irrelevant and a new item this year. I think that will be handled differently in the future.

Mark H. Munn, College of the Liberal Arts: I just want to raise the question on behalf of a small constituency, but one that might be growing in concern with the issue, and that is students studying abroad in overseas campuses where the question has come to my attention that students being abroad for a semester are required to pay this fee but do not have equal access to any sort of computer facility. Is there any consideration as to how those funds might mitigate that situation, or the question of whether funds might be--or fees in those cases--might be waived, in cases where there is no access to computer facilities?

John T. Harwood: Interesting question, and there is no way I can answer either part of the question. It is a good one, having had two children who did study abroad for a year and who paid the fees, I'm familiar with what that is. The larger question, I think, is there access to computers, and depending upon the university and their country it is very sparse, interesting question.

John Baer, Student Senator, York Campus: I have a comment and then a question for you. At CCSG, the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments, we have been working on some legislation, hopefully to make a computer fee, such as the student activity fee. We've been working on this for over a year. It should be ready by the next time we have a meeting. I can bring a copy of that along if you would like. My question: is the breakdown the same for the campuses--the same percentage that had been passed last year--49.3 percent or something? When the fee was $70, 49.3 percent came back to the campus, 50.7 or something stayed here. Is it the same percentage now?

John T. Harwood: I think the percentages are very, very comparable, yes.

John Baer: Comparable or…

John T. Harwood: I haven't done the math. I did quickly look at that and it looked very similar to what it was last year.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments? Okay, thank you very much John. Our next informational report is a report from the Outreach Activities Committee on the World Campus, Appendix "H," and Jake De Rooy is here to present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

The World Campus

Jacob De Rooy, Chair

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. We're referring to Appendix "H" on the world campus. The world campus is a new resource of the university intended to extend to students throughout the nation and the world the strongest programs that Penn State has to offer. The unique resource that will be utilized by the world campus is the new communication technology including the Internet that now is available to us for the delivery of instructional material.

The world campus is a device for reaching a large market place, beyond the borders of Pennsylvania, beyond the borders of the United States--a large market place of students who otherwise cannot participate in a resident instruction educational delivery system. The world campus is being administered by the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension. The Outreach Committee, your Senate Outreach Committee, is closely monitoring and gathering information about this new mechanism for the delivery of instructional material. Eventually, all distance education may, in fact, conform to the model being established by the world campus. We have in your Appendix "H" raised some specific issues. First of all, we've discussed the issue of which programs have been selected for initial offering by the world campus. We've listed the programs currently being offered and those which are likely to be offered in the near future. They are programs that clearly are ones in which Penn State has a distinct comparative advantage with respect to other universities. It's important to note, incidentally--and my notes are a little bit out of place here--it's important to note that other universities throughout the country and throughout the world are developing similar initiatives for offering their programs using modern technology of communication. We are not trying to play catch-up. We're trying to position ourselves as being a leader in this world-wide market place. We have a lot of competition, and the earlier we enter this market and develop strong products for distribution to the world campus, the more effective we're likely to be in positioning ourselves in this highly competitive market place.

At the end of Appendix "H" you'll notice certain faculty-related issues that have been identified by your Outreach Committee--that's on page 3 of the report--one of which is workload. There is a concern as to whether faculty involvement in world campus programs will be on-load--that is, part of your normal compensated activity--or off-load, that is extra compensation. This issue is not yet resolved; it is one that we're going to be monitoring very closely. The second issue that your Senate Outreach Committee is quite concerned with is the recognition to be given to faculty members who participate in the world campus. We're quite concerned that, in fact, world campus participation, which involves a great deal of effort on the part of faculty members, will be recognized and, yes, perhaps we should use the word rewarded. We are concerned about peer review of faculty performance if faculty are to be recognized for their participation in offering world campus courses. We are quite concerned that, in fact, the quality of that participation is evaluated. One mechanism for doing so is peer review. Faculty participation should be encouraged, but it should be quickly pointed out that, in fact, when you talk about world campus offerings, those offerings require a collection of resources of both faculty and staff. We need materials design specialists; we need technicians. There is a need for teams, rather than individual faculty operating in isolation, in offering world campus programs.

Last, but certainly not exclusive to our list, we are concerned with the monitoring of quality of program content. Now it should be pointed out that these programs that will be offered through the world campus are initiated and designed initially by the departments. The department heads and the faculty of these departments are, we feel, responsible for the quality and the content and academic integrity of these programs.

The purpose of today's presentation is to gather ideas from you, Faculty Senate constituency, as to your concerns as we move forward in our deliberation on the activities of the world campus. The Outreach Committee is presenting this as an informational report which will be later on followed by an advisory/consultative report, and we're calling on you to help us identify the issues that will be addressed in that subsequent report. I should also mention that we are working cooperatively with another committee, the University Planning Committee. World campus is also on their agenda; unfortunately their chairman, Shel Alexander could not be with us today, but we are working very closely in formulating what will probably be an advisory/consultative report that is issued jointly by those two committees. So, we're really talking about gathering information that would be helpful in guidance to both committees. We are very happy to have two very important resource people with us today, Dr. Gary Miller, who is the project director of the world campus and also Dr. James Ryan, who is the Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension. So with that let me ask you if you would please serve us as our mc.

Chair Geschwindner: I would be happy to. Any comments or questions, input that…

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: As it is, at least my information would point toward this world campus being a misnomer. I would call it a what--Penn State tuition campus? I have tried to suggest a world campus course that would actually be of interest to German universities. I've tried to do that both in English and, by extension, in German, and I was immediately told, "well, of course, tuition would have to be paid to Penn State." My question is, has such a truly world-wide extension been addressed? Would we have institutions abroad that would be go-betweens, so to speak, intermediaries or whatever it is, and possibly tuition gatherers if that's the main driving force?

Jacob De Rooy: May I introduce Dr. Miller, who'll respond?

Gary E. Miller, Assistant Vice President, Continuing Education: Thank you. I think the question of what we mean by "world" when we say world campus is a good question to ask. What we mean initially is that the reach of the world campus is in fact, global, that the students that the world campus will serve will be students from all over the world. We've just launched this project in January, and in the first six weeks of its operation we got about 500 inquiries, and those 500 inquiries came from 44 states and 16 countries representing all six of the populated continents. So, in terms of being able to extend Penn State signature programs to global audiences, I think the world campus is already beginning to show its potential for doing that. The Turfgrass Management program, which offered its first course in January, has students from Puerto Rico and Chilé, for instance, in addition to students from four time zones in the US. Your speaking to I think another issue, though, and that's the issue of whether the world campus would be open to partnerships with other institutions, and I think it would be open to appropriate partnerships with other institutions. When we first started talking about the world campus, the issue was, should we partner right away or should we try to launch something, and I think the decision on the part of the university was, let's try to make this go as a Penn State entity, and once it's up and running, if there are reasonable partnerships to be made with other institutions around the globe, let's go ahead and make them. But even if we do make them, the world campus does have to support its costs, because it is a self-support entity of the university. So there would have to be some way of generating tuition income to cover the costs of offering instruction even in partnership with another institution. Jim, did you have anything to add to that?

Chair Geschwindner: Other questions? Peter…

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Reading over the list, I have problems with programs presently being offered. I guess some of them are programs that we have on the books, I would think? Some of them may be courses that were on the books. What is the general curricular procedure going to be? Putting things onto the world campus, do they parallel in any way or do they follow the normal curricular activities? What are the plans?

Gary E. Miller: The plans are that any…

Senators: Could you repeat the question?

Gary E. Miller: Yes, the question was what are curricular plans in terms of offering courses that are already approved by the university versus offering things that have not been offered in the past.

Peter Deines: What are the curricular procedures going to be? What processes will be involved for review by the faculty and by the colleges and finally by the Committee on Curricular Affairs?

Gary E. Miller: Okay. So the question is what policies will be required in terms of faculty, department and curricular affairs approval. Any program offered by the world campus will be a program of an academic department of the university, first of all. We--in the process of working with that department--would ask that the program get approval if it's a certificate program, like for instance a post-baccalaureate certificate requires approval at the department and college level. If it's an undergraduate or post- baccalaureate degree program, that requires further approval outside the college for that program for the world campus to be a site of the delivery. So if it's an existing program or a certificate that uses existing courses or an existing degree program, those procedures would have to be followed before we could offer the program. The department would have to approve it, it would have to get the approval of the college and then outside the college--either by undergraduate education or the graduate school--to approve that as a site of instruction. If it's a program that has not yet been offered, the same sort of situation would apply. Before it could be offered by the world campus, it would have to get the normal university approvals to offer that program.

Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: I'm really quite fascinated by this sentence here on the first page of your book: "The department of distance education envisions that eventually all distance learning will be offered through world campus, moving toward the creation of a distinctive campus environment, similar to that of resident instruction, as resident instruction exists on most university campuses." Isn't this concept of the world campus entirely different from resident instruction experience, or a culture that is resident-instructionally-oriented?

Gary E. Miller: I won't claim any pride of authorship for that sentence, but I will say this: that our goal with the world campus… As you know we've been offering distance education courses at Penn State for over 100 years now, distance and correspondence education back in 1892. Throughout that 100 years, distance education has been something for the most part that was done on a course-by-course basis. What's different about the world campus is that we are trying to use the technology not just to bring people together to take a course, but to bring people together around programs--around certificate programs and degree programs. That is what we're already seeing. Those people are coming at us from a very broad geographic range, and our responsibility to the university is to try to create as dynamic a learning community among those people as we can using the technology that's available to us. That is what underlies the statement that you just read--that it's not enough, ultimately, for the world campus simply to offer course A, course B, course C, but if we're going to give the students who are enrolled in that program the right kind of academic experience there has to be other things. There has to be the opportunity for informal interaction with faculty. There has to be the opportunity for students to work with each other, both inside and outside of courses. And there has to be the kind of intellectual environment opportunities to get other kinds of ideas that we do find on a campus. So are we going to re-create a resident instruction environment? Certainly not in a physical sense, but we are going to try to create the idea of a learning community for these people who are spread out, but for whom the technology is really how they experience their Penn State education. We're going to do our best to create that kind of environment.

Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering: It seems that these new programs are commendable; however, looking over the last 10 or 15 years, traditional independent study courses, etc., have languished. They haven't done very much, they don't seem to be doing much, and students that wish to take advantage of them have a hard time finding anything new that's happened in the last 10 years. Does the administration of this program feel that that's blasé, that should be gotten rid of at this time, and so we go on to this new thing and put all the resources into the world campus rather than into traditional continuing ed, independent studies?

Gary E. Miller: Everybody hear that question? The issue is, we have a long standing history of independent study by correspondence, what we call independent learning, and the question is, do we maintain that and build that or is that what is sacrificed in order to build the world campus? First of all, I would debate your first assumption--which was that the independent learning program is languishing. For the past three years independent learning enrollments have grown annually, and the number of students who are admitted to the university into associate degrees and certificates offered through independent learning have more than doubled over the last two years. So it is a program that is being revitalized. Our feeling is that program is, in many ways, the base on which we're building the world campus. We've developed a very strong student support system, for instance, to support independent learning over the years, and we have a large number of students enrolled in our independent learning program world-wide in over 20 countries, in every state in the union. What we want to do with independent learning is not abandon it, but instead what we want to do is enrich the environment in which independent learning happens. We've added email for instance, to about 30 percent of our independent learning courses. We're starting to establish web sites for some of them, again, to give the students in these programs a chance to interact with each other and have a richer experience in terms of interacting with their faculty members. Our job is not to trade independent learning off against the world campus as an opportunity, but to build the independent learning environment into a richer kind of learning community while we're building the world campus, and eventually see them becoming very much the same kind of environment. Does that answer your questions?

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: This may be a little bit of a follow up. On page 3 you have a sentence, "some existing distance learning programs may be moved to the world campus if approved by their academic units." Does that imply you already have a working list of just distance learning programs and if so, which programs have been identified?

Gary E. Miller: Currently we offer five associate degrees and ten or so undergraduate level certificate programs through independent learning. We have a couple of post graduate programs that we offer through distance education, through interactive video and satellite. Our long term goal would be to say--to look at the associate degrees that we offer and say--"how can we enhance those associate degrees to make them meet the criteria that we've established for the world campus?" And if the academic units that sponsor those programs want to move them into that environment to put the resources into them, that would make that possible. As far as we're concerned all five of those associate degrees have the potential for doing that, and most of the certificates have that potential. We do have some certificate programs where the audience is not necessarily an audience that is right for this right now, in terms of their access to technology, and so forth. For the most part we'd be interested in talking about moving as many of those as possible into this richer environment.

John M. Lilley, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College: I have a question on page 5 on quality of program content. Given Peter Deines' question and your answer to that, given comments about faculty, what is the meaning of that last sentence there under "Quality"?

Gary E. Miller: Could you read that sentence, John? I don't have it in front of me.

John M. Lilley: "At present we have no procedures for oversight of world campus programs that parallels the Senate's oversight of resident instruction courses and programs." What's that mean?

Jacob De Rooy: Well, maybe I could answer that. What we meant by that was, of course, we have a Senate procedure for introducing resident instruction courses, and in fact as we've seen here the courses in the world campus that are currently being offered are those that already exist on the books. They are ones that Senate had approved. What we're getting at here is we have not yet established brand new courses that will only be offered on the world campus. So far we've been essentially borrowing resident instruction courses and materials. Perhaps that sentence was a little bit too cautiously written, because if courses were going to be devised that only will be offered through the world campus, then we presume they will go through--and our committee will look for this--would go through the Senate procedures, the curriculum committee procedures for the approval of those courses. So perhaps there is no need for a separate mechanism when what we're really referring to is that the Outreach Committee will want to be assured that in fact the same oversight is given to world campus offerings that are given to resident instruction.

Mehdi Khosrowpour, Penn State Harrisburg: You mentioned that other universities also have or are working on some other programs. Have you folks looked into benchmarking pertaining to other universities? My understanding is The University of Phoenix is one of the active ones offering that. Any benchmarking done as far as what their experiences were, what downfalls, benefits were, etc.?

Gary E. Miller: When the world campus study team was at work last year at this time, to try to develop feasibility plans for the world campus, we started a benchmarking process then. The University of Phoenix, Western Governors University, Stanford, Rochester Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech, lots of other institutions were looked at at that time. We continued that process, and now every couple weeks we put out a competitive analysis that looks not only at what our peer institutions and our competitor institutions are doing around the country and around the world, but also what's happening with technology, what's happening with work-force education trends, what's happening out in society that might give us some direction. And those competitive analyses, Jim there distributed pretty widely to all the colleges and are available to anybody who would want them.

James H. Ryan, Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension: I just want to add one quick comment here, Gary. The University of Phoenix is a private, for-profit college, and of the 50,000 students they have, less than 3,000 are on-line. They really are attracting students to residential centers throughout the country. If we look at benchmarking, I think Gary mentioned some universities that we are much more comparable benchmarking with, like Michigan, like Duke, like Minnesota, like Indiana. At least seven of the 11 Big Ten institutions really are moving vigorously in this area. Last summer when we had the International Council on Distance Education here, we had 1,100 people from around the world engaged in distance education, and I happened to have a phone call from the Chronicle of Higher Education during that week. That was from a reporter who was basically trying to get a response to the fact that both Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth had announced that they were developing distance education degree programs. They felt, now that those three institutions had moved in this direction, made that announcement, was that really adding credibility to this development? Well, I happened to have 1,100 people from around the world having been engaged in this for a very long time on campus at the same time. They wanted to know if the Ivy League had now really provided the credibility that this initiative needed. I guess what I did at that point was smile and invited them to join the 1,100 people here talking about that particular topic of discussion. There are enormous benchmarking opportunities and there really are some outstanding institutions taking part.

Cheryl L. Achterberg, Dean, The Schreyer Honors College: I'd just like to reflect a little bit on the statement about work load. The work load-related issues on page 3 of your document, that you state has not been determined by college, however it would be worked through, I'd just urge that this document reflect policy that has come out as a result--or due to come out any minute from a year and a half long process through the Provost's Office--that states directly some policies around work load and how they're going to be assigned, in the spirit of sharing information to make sure that documents reflect the policy that does come out of the Provost's Office relative to that issue.

Jacob De Rooy: Thank you very much, Dean Achterberg. We on the Senate Outreach Committee would rather take a pro-active stand in trying to help our administrators before they sit down and design a policy. We would like to give some suggestions rather than be a reactive body. That's one response. The other point I should mention is that we're not totally devoid of models for handling the work load issue. For example, the work load issue is handled through our research. People are given release time to work on research projects and, incidentally, carrying it one step further to the issue of faculty compensation, there are opportunities to earn extra compensation through research. For example, when I have a large research contract I sometimes can get a few extra dollars thrown in because it's above and beyond my normal load or perhaps involves work during the summer time. So that model is available in the research area, and we may derive a variation of that in establishing world campus activities. Incidentally, it is possible as the world campus grows that a world campus course offering may be part of a regular faculty member's regular course assignment load, that is on-load, but these models are to be developed and we would like to be at the initial stage of that development.

Peter Deines: This question has maybe some relationship with the work load issue. It has to do with what kinds of expectations are set in advertising these programs about faculty accessibility that we practice. One is the time, and the second one is accessibility. I have no idea what is being done presently, but what would be the expectations: 20 hours a day, 12 hours, what?

Gary E. Miller: I think that's always a concern when we're getting into something that's totally asynchronous, when you could get a question at 2:00 in the morning. When are you supposed to return the response? That's something that, for each program, I think it's partly a comfort level with the faculty member and it's partly how the course itself is set up. It's not assumed that every question, every posting that comes to a faculty member must be answered within a couple of hours of when it arrives, or anything like that. The idea is to create an environment where, if you've done a threaded discussion on-line like this before, you create an environment where discussion happens among the students so that not every question that's posed is in fact answered by the instructor, but instead it becomes a discussion where the instructor intervenes at appropriate times to keep that conversation moving in the right direction. The expectations in terms of how often you go on-line, how long you stay on-line, and all that, are things that are going to evolve through practice. We've been trying to benchmark that, but I don't think we've found anything that really emerges as a practice standard for that. I think that's something that the faculty are going to have to develop themselves as we progress. The question is finding the right pace.

Peter Deines: It is a matter, I suppose, of setting the expectation. It's one thing to go out and start a program and then have the faculty do what they've been told, or the faculty saying this is what we're comfortable with doing, and then somebody else saying, "yes this is what we can expect." Try to find what works.

Gary E. Miller: You know that those both happen simultaneously. When I've done this kind of thing before, I've been on-line an hour a day, maybe, working with students, interacting with students, that kind of thing. I think it's very quickly seen what the course is going to demand and what the particular dynamics are of a particular group of students. We need to apply our own judgement to that, I think. We have not created any absolute minimum standards, other than to work with faculty. Our designers, for instance, are part of the curriculum teams and they're very much involved in the delivery of the courses as well as the design of the courses, so we kind of monitor that, and they know that over time we're going to have to evolve some standards that will make sure across the board faculty are working to a common expectation, and I think that's really what our goal ultimately is. But we don't have it yet.

James F. Smith: In that case, accept this question. In an environment of enrollment-driven cost centers, if there are no limits to Penn State's world campus, I could imagine a situation somewhere down the road where Penn State locations could be competing not only among themselves for enrollment, and therefore tuition dollars, but also with the world campus. Therefore, I wonder what thinking has taken place on revenue-sharing or a portion-mended income if a degree program were to be offered simultaneously by the world campus and by one or several other colleges at Penn State?

Gary E. Miller: Of course that's a question that goes well beyond the world campus and I think has to do with the future of how we're going to work together as a multi-site university. The world campus is targeting programs where the majority of the people we expect to enroll are well beyond the state of Pennsylvania. I mentioned that, in the first rush of inquiries that we've had, that 80 percent of those inquiries have been from beyond the state, and we really do anticipate that the kinds of programs which develop will not be programs that will be in direct competition with the other campuses of the university, but in fact will serve a niche of its own that will attract students who are not going to be coming to other campuses.

James F. Smith: If I can follow that up? We have a hard time in the Philadelphia area selling out Eagles games, and therefore sometimes they're blacked out in the region. Would there be any such assurance that you won't black out a degree program in an area where there is a live offering of that…

Gary E. Miller: Well, that's an interesting concept, but frankly I don't think that would stand up to much scrutiny. The real issue for us is to make sure that we're part of the system and not working outside the system. We've been talking with the campus college people and have sat on a couple programs where the real issue is to make sure that, if we're getting an inquiry from the Philadelphia area to use that as an example, and we know it's a program offered by campuses in the Philadelphia area, let's make sure that we've made the right referral before we take that student and give them a chance to attend the local campus. Let me say as glitzy as some of this stuff sounds most people would prefer, if they could, to go to a campus and to be physically in contact with their other students and their faculty members. Even in Pennsylvania the students who tend to come to distance education are students who can't come to your campus, and that's why they come to distance education. It's not a question really of competing; it's a question of us serving students who are otherwise location-bound and not able to attend.

James H. Ryan: In the world campus study group report, there is an explicit statement that indicates the intention of the world campus is not to become a competing entity for the rest of the locations at Penn State, but an alternative delivery system where those locations can use the world campus to deliver their programs--which are unique to the university--world wide. There are two ways in which that policy, that guideline, that principle is being addressed. One, through the Coordinating Council on Outreach and Cooperative Extension where every college has a representative, that group is currently looking at the issue of program coordination. Heaven knows there's enough competition out there that we really don't need to compete with ourselves. So that is a very important issue for that group to work through so that we really are looking at programmatic coordination in outreach activities. The second body is the World Campus Steering Committee, which also has broad based representation, and including the Commonwealth College, and what we're hoping is that there is school collaboration between and among colleges, so that they can see this as a network for dissemination of unique programs and certainly not for competition with unique programs that are not unique to one particular location. So this is an explicit guiding principle in the development of the world campus. There are enough unique national programs--or better yet, there are enough unique programs that have national if not international reputations--that we really ought to deliver through the world campus, and that's where the energy will be expended.

John J. Cahir: I'd just like to return to Peter Deines to assure him that he doesn't have to answer email after 2:00 am as long as he works his usual 80 hours a week.

Senators: Laughter.

John J. Cahir: On a slightly more serious point, I would like to point out that this is an informational report and of course the ideas of the committee are extremely welcome. On the issue of on-load compensation or summer salary or going beyond…those are very, very complex issues that involve many, many considerations, and so I think people would just take this as advice of the committee.

P. Peter Rebane: I don't have any difficulty in conceding certificate courses, and occasional courses that might have world wide or nation wide interest being offered in this system, although I think logically this is all very tricky. When we talk about offering degrees--bachelor's degrees, BAs, BSs--somehow to me what is being proposed is somewhat contradictory to what we have done before. We just had the general education program where one of the major complaints was that students did not come into one-to-one contact with their professors, and that's why we now have freshmen seminars. So my question to you is, if one proposes a BA or BS degree over this university of the universe (as I think it might evolve into), would there be some kind of residency requirement? I.e., I want to get a degree, a BA degree in some field, can I take everything on the web? Do I ever have to show up on any Penn State location? Will I download my diploma one day on the World Wide Web? It would seem to me that that is at the crux of the matter. I may be old-fashioned. I still think that there is a dimension of faculty-student interaction that can only be achieved in a face-to-face relationship that would require residency for people coming from other universities, because we presume that we want them to take 60 credits or whatever here with Penn State instructors. When you make these types of degree-program proposals, and you have already an associate degree, I'm a little skeptical, and it bothers me that one literally can get a degree without ever seeing a live instructor and have a Penn State diploma downloaded and you put it on the wall. So I wondered if you could give that some comment or consideration.

Gary E. Miller: Although you're asking the question at the undergraduate level, let me give you a response that grows out of the work of the Graduate Council. The Graduate Council has been dealing with the question of offering professional master's degrees in an off campus environment. How do you maintain the impact of a residency in an off campus environment? The Graduate Council--I think it was the Committee on Programs? okay, Committee on Standards--articulated a number of elements that a program should achieve in order to develop the level of socialization, professionalization and so forth that a professional master's degree would require. We then had a subcommittee of that group that defined the specific practices that would have to be incorporated into any program offered at a distance or an off-campus environment, to ensure that the right kind of interaction was happening, that the right kind of opportunities for out-of-class interaction, out-of-class experience, experience with the profession, and so forth, would be incorporated into that program. I think the same thing might be something we look at at the undergraduate level. For the most part, when we talk about baccalaureate degrees through the world campus or through distance education, we're talking about degree completion programs as opposed to assuming that a student is coming to our environment for the complete program, soup to nuts. Most of the students who seek a degree through distance education--and I think these are the kinds of students who are going to be seeking degrees through the world campus--are students who have already had a residential experience somewhere. They've already started their degree program somewhere--sometimes at a Penn State campus sometimes at another campus--and are coming back to us through distance education. So we have to assume that they have a variety of experiences that they bring to their study here at Penn State through distance education. So I'm thinking that perhaps the experience of the graduate school might be informative to answering your question about what kind of experiences do we need to build in to an undergraduate degree delivered at a distance.

Jacob De Rooy: A quick informational comment. We are aware of the new guidelines that have just been passed at Graduate Council. It is on the agenda of the Outreach Committee and we will be reporting to the Senate in the future on that. As far as Peter's comments and concern, certainly, I'm not speaking for the committee now, but it has come up in our deliberations. It is not unheard of that a distance education program which is lengthy may have a brief residency component to it, which of course the faculty involved would have to specify. But we are aware of what's going on in the Graduate Council, and it's a related issue.

Chair Geschwindner: Bob Price, do you still have your question? I guess not.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I'm not afraid of technology, and I've actually experienced community in a virtual sense through work with students, but I do have a sense that what is emerging in the world campus is a new college at Penn State. If I'm not mistaken, and I certainly don't understand the way things are funded well here at Penn State… At least I said that I don't understand well the way things are funded…

Senators: Laughter.

Jamie M. Myers: …putting my "well" in the right place. But I gather from this document that faculty are bought out by distance education, and that distance education needs to support the world campus based on tuition dollars coming in. Therefore, I have a sense that these tuition credits are really not credited to the college or the department in which the courses are located, but they're credited to the world campus and then of course funding within the world campus. I'm beginning to sense this college emerging. I do believe that the programs, the degrees, the courses are a qualitatively different experience than resident instruction. I think that it's possible that the amount of learning that takes place in both formats might be the same, but I really do think that someone in the Senate should ensure that these courses and programs do go through the curricular affairs process, because I think they are different, and in fact I think if you think about the world campus as the next college at Penn State--we need one this year--you can begin to think about that college then putting forth a proposal for this particular academic program.

Gary E. Miller: Do you want to comment, Jim?

James H. Ryan: I think the comment was made earlier, and I'm sensitive to your suggestion. I think the comment was made earlier that the world campus academic programs will follow all of the standing--both graduate and undergraduate--course approval processes. We should add--and we really haven't brought this on the agenda-- that it will never be a college. It really is a campus and really is seen as a delivery mechanism for the academic programs and existing colleges, which I think is very, very important. Credit hours will revert back to the college, and one of the things we have identified which we really should share with colleagues and Senators is in fact an income sharing mechanism so that after cost 80 percent of the net incomes generated through the world campus go back to the department, the sponsoring department. So there is a direct income flow back to the sponsoring academic department which allows that department to use that income discretionarily--whether it's for the addition of faculty support, whether it's utilizing some…but there are funds, net income funds, generated right back to the department.

Jamie M. Myers: Can I ask for a clarification then?

Chair Geschwindner: Yes, one final comment.

Jamie M. Myers: Thank you. At Penn State we have some duplicate degrees at University Park and other locations. If another location decides they'd like to deliver that degree by distance, because it's already been approved by Curricular Affairs, they do not need to seek approval to deliver that on the world campus, is that right?

Gary E. Miller: No, that's not correct.

Jamie M. Myers: They would need to send that through Curricular Affairs again…?

Gary E. Miller: Not necessarily send it through Curricular Affairs again, but both Graduate Council and (I think now) undergraduate education have procedures to approve the world campus and other off-campus delivery systems as locations. So if a degree is approved for a location before it can be offered on the world campus, it has to be approved to be delivered at that location, not as a different degree program but as the same degree program now being offered in a new location.

Jamie M. Myers: And the world campus is considered a location?

Gary E. Miller: That's right

Jamie M. Myers: Okay…

Chair Geschwindner: We have discussed this very important issue for 45 minutes, and as Jake pointed out they are anticipating bringing back an advisory/consultative report down the road. I would like to encourage you all to communicate with the Outreach Committee if you have additional comments, questions or concerns. They would be very happy to hear from you. They have a very nice web site, and Jake's email address is available, so I would encourage you all to communicate that way. Thank you very much. Is there any new legislative business?

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

Chair Geschwindner: I have one. I have been asked to inform the Senate of the unexpected passing away this weekend of Professor Robert W. Ott. After his retirement as Professor of Art Education last June, he continued to serve the university as a Fulbright Adviser. There will be a memorial service this Friday at 3:00 p.m. in Eisenhower Chapel. Are there any other comments for the good of the university?

ADJOURNMENT

May I have a motion to adjourn? The March 3, 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:14 PM.

 

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO MARCH 3, 1998

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of February 21, 1998

Committees and Rules - Student Membership on Senate (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Affairs - HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Review Process (Advisory/Consultative)

Graduate Council Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs -

HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and Other Members of the University Staff (Advisory/Consultative)

Computing and Information Systems - Student Computer Fee Allocation, 1997-98 (Informational)

Outreach Activities - The World Campus (Informational)

 

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

HR-60 - Access To Personnel Files

(Advisory/Consultative)

INTRODUCTION

During the 1996-97 Senate year, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs responded to a concern regarding the access of faculty to their personnel files. The result of that was a report which came to the Faculty Senate and was passed last spring (February 25, 1997) as an Advisory and Consultative report and sent to the president. The president had some concerns in regard to the report and appointed an Ad hoc committee to reexamine the issues and present a report to the FA committee. The result of those deliberations is herewith presented for Senate consideration. Additions to

HR-60 that are proposed are marked in bold in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: November 15, 1976

THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: June 9, 1992

CONTENTS:

Purpose

Content of File

Request for Review

File Contents Accessible for Review

Documents not Accessible for Review

Review of the File

Security of File Material

PURPOSE:

To permit a regular or nonregular all faculty and staff members (or an agent designated by the faculty or staff member) reasonable access for review of the contents of his or her personnel file (as defined in Act 286 of 1978 as amended by Act 149 of 1990) maintained by the individual's employing unit or by the Office of Human Resources.

NOTE: For individuals covered by collective bargaining agreements, provisions for access to personnel files maintained in employing units are specified in such agreements for such individuals. The provisions that follow are applicable, however, to all individuals when access is sought to personnel file information maintained by the Office of Human Resources.

CONTENT OF FILE:

A personnel file should only contain that information which is relevant to the employee’s status and performance as an employee and to the commitment made to and by him/her -- i.e., only that information which the University is required to know for the performance of valid and necessary University functions. No other information should be included without the agreement of the employee concerned, except at his/her own initiative. If unsolicited material pertaining to an employee is included in the subject’s file as relevant, the employee should be informed that it has been so included. The employee shall have the right to append signed personal statements to any material in this file concerning its accuracy, relevancy, or applicability.

In as much as the organization of personnel files may vary from office to office, every office which has the responsibility for the maintenance of personnel files shall draw up a general statement of the nature and organization of such files kept by that office. Medical records obtained for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Family Medical Leave Act, or similar legislation must be maintained as confidential medical records in separate files from the usual personnel files.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW:

A request for access to review the file shall be made in writing in advance by the individual to his or her Human Resources Representative or campus Director of Business Services as appropriate on a Request To Review Personnel File form provided by the University. (See page 4.40 of the General Forms Usage guide.) The written request shall indicate a designation of agency for the purpose of file inspection and specify the particular parts of the file to be reviewed. A faculty or staff member, or agent designated in writing by the faculty or staff member, wishing to review his/her personnel file, or any part of that file, may make such request orally or in writing to his/her Human Resources Representative or campus Director of Business Services, or directly to the custodian of the record(s) sought for review.

FILE CONTENTS ACCESSIBLE FOR REVIEW:

The following types of documents, or copies thereof if maintained, shall be accessible for review upon request:

  1. Human Resources action forms (such as original appointment, transfer, promotion, leave of absence, layoff, change in salary, change of title)
  2. Loyalty oath/affirmation
  3. On-the-job accident reports
  4. Internal correspondence to the faculty or staff member
  5. Attendance records
  6. Letters of commendation
  7. Letters of reprimand
  8. Benefits plans forms
  9. Retirement forms
  10. Biographical Data form
  11. Employment application
  12. Dependent Grant-in-Aid form and Graduate School Tuition Assistance Program application
  13. Grievance forms and answers
  14. University performance evaluations
  15. Evaluations or reports prepared by executives, academic administrators, administrators or committees upon completion of promotion and tenure reviews.

DOCUMENTS NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR REVIEW:

All personnel file documents will be accessible for review by the faculty or staff member and/or the designated agent except for the following:

The following types of documents, or copies thereof, shall not be accessible for review:

  1. Letters or memoranda of reference
  2. Documents prohibited from review by HR-23, Promotion And Tenure Procedures And Regulations
  3. Other information and documents required by law to remain confidential
  4. Medical Records and Reports
  5. Materials used by the University to plan for future operations
  6. Information available to the faculty or staff member under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

REVIEW OF THE FILE:

The review of the file shall be made by appointment during the regular business hours of the office where the file is maintained. A representative of that office shall be present with the faculty or staff member and/or the designated agent during his/her review of the file. At the completion of the review, the representative of that office shall record in a log the employee’s name, the portions of the file reviewed, and date of the review.

SECURITY OF FILE MATERIAL:

A faculty or staff member and/or the designated agent shall be permitted to make handwritten notes from the file, but shall not be permitted to remove the file or portions thereof. A copy of any material in the file that, initially, had also been provided to or by the faculty or staff member, but which the faculty or staff member no longer has in his or her possession, shall be provided to the individual and/or designated agent upon request. A copy of the file will be made available to the faculty or staff member and/or the designated agent upon reasonable request.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Albert Anderson
John Becker
Melvin Blumberg
Meredythe Burrows
James Donovan
Amy Glasmeier
Margaret Goldman
Elizabeth Hanley
Catherine Harmonosky
Andrea Mastro
Louis Milakofsky
Murry Nelson, Chair
Amy Paster
Robert Richards
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Valerie Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair
Robert Zelis

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

MARCH 3, 1998 SENATE MEETING

 

Adams, Phyllis F.
Arnold, Steven F.
Asbury, William W.
Askov, Eunice N.
Baer, John W.
Bagby, John W.
Bakis, Charles E.
Beatty, James J.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Blumberg, Melvin
Brannon, S. Diane
Bridges, K. Robert
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Brunk, Quincealea
Burkhart, Keith K.
Burrows, Meredythe M.
Byman, David H.
Cahir, John J.
Cain, Julie
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casciani, Santa
Chirico, JoAnn
Christy, David P.
Comiskey, C. Michael
Coraor, Lee D.
Creyts, Timothy T.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Das, Jayatri
Daubert, Thomas E.
D’Ausilio, Michael
Davis, Dwight
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
Dempsey, Brian A.
Dempsey, Richard F.
De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn E.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, William C.
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Farber, Gregory K.
Ferriss, John A.
Floros, Joanna
Franz, George W.
Friend, Linda C.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Glasmeier, Amy K.
Goldberg, Marc D.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine
Hartwig, Nathan L.
Harwood, John T.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Howard, Robert K.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jurs, Peter C.
Kallas, Nabil
Kayal, David
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Khosrowpour, Mehdi
Klein, Philip A.
Kristine, Frank J.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lasher, William C.
Laubach, Julie
Lilley, John M.
Lippert, John R.
Lucas, Veronica Burns
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marshall, Louisa J.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Mastro, Andrea M.
McGregor, Annette K.
Michael, Erica B.
Milakofsky, Louis F.
Miller, Arthur C.
Moller, Leslie A.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Munn, Mark H.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Oz, Effy
Ozment, Judy
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Phillips, Allen T.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, Robert D.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Robinson, James W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Roth, David E.
Ryan, James H.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schmalstieg, William R.
Schneider, Donald
Secor, Robert
Smith, James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne
Spampinato, Carie
Stewart, James B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, Charles H.
Sutton, Jane S.
Testa, Donna M.
Thigpen, Kenneth A.
Thrower, Peter A.
Tormey, Brian B.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Wager, J. James
Ware, Roger P.
Watterberg, Kristi L.
Weiss, Beno
Wilson, Richard A.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Yucelt, Ugur
Zavodni, John J.
Zelis, Robert

OTHERS ATTENDING FROM SENATE OFFICE

Bugyi, George J.
Clark, Helen F.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.

141 Total Elected
3 Total Ex Officio
6 Total Appointed
150 Total Attending

 

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 31, 1998

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Articulation Agreements (Legislative)

Committees and Rules – Student Membership on Senate (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Establishment of a new position University Ombudsman (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Revision of Article II: Senate Committee Structure (Legislative)

Curricular Affairs - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 20, 1998

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - Final Report (Advisory/Consultative)

Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report – 1998-99 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Elections Commission - Roster of Senators for 1998-99 (Informational)

Libraries/Research – Economic Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications: Implications for Scholars, Libraries and University Presses (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1998-99 - Senate Officers-Chair-Elect and Secretary; and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)