T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 38-----March 15, 2005-----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, 2004-2005.
publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building,
University Park, PA 16802 (telephone 814-863-0221). The Senate Record is
distributed to all libraries across
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory, and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports that have appeared in the Agenda for the meeting are not included in The Senate Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting, or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussions are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for March 15, 2005 Pages ii-iii
II. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks Page 1-11
A. Attendance Appendix I
FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 15, 2005
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING Page 1
Minutes of the February 1, 2005, meeting in The Senate Record 38:4
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
Senate Curriculum Report of March 1, 2005 Page 1
Elections Commission Revised Census
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of March 1, 2005 Page 1
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR Pages 1-3
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY Pages 4-8
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS Page 8
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Page 8
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS Page 8
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS Page 8
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Elections Commission Page 8
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2005-2006
Committee on Committees and Rules Page 9
Nominating Report for 2005-2006
Senate Council Nominating Committee Report for 2005-2006 Page 9
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
University Planning Page 9
University Long-Term Borrowing
Outreach Activities Page 9
Changes in the Outreach Organization
Undergraduate Education Page 9
Summary of Petitions by College, Campus, and Unit
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid Pages 9-10
Report on Enrollments and Admissions
Report on Faculty Senate Scholarship Awards
Faculty Benefits Page 10
University Travel Task Force Report
Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2004-2005
Libraries Page 10
Serials and Scholarly Communication
Senate Council Page 10
Summary of Spring 2005 Officers’ Visits to University
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS Page 10
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY Page 10
M. ADJOURNMENT Pages 10-11
NOTE: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday,
April 26, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112
The University Faulty Senate met on
Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112
Chair Steiner: Take a moment to think whether you have a cell phone in your pocket and whether it is turned on, and turn it off. We have a fairly full Agenda today, but I think we are going to make it by 4:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Chair Steiner: The February 1, 2005, Senate Record, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate Web site. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? May I have a motion to accept?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: Seconded?
Chair Steiner: All in favor of accepting the minutes of February 1, 2005, please say, “aye.”
Chair Steiner: Opposed, “nay?” The ayes have it. The motion carries, the minutes have been approved.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item B, Communications to the Senate: the Senate Curriculum Report, is posted on the University Faculty Senate Web site, and in Appendix B of today’s Agenda you will find a revised Faculty Census Report with Senate seats by unit for the coming academic year.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item C is the report of Senate Council. Inclement weather forced us to cancel the last meeting of Senate Council, but I had prepared some announcements for that meeting. Having prepared them, I did not want to lose them entirely, and they may be of general interest to this group, so you will find those near the back of your Agenda
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item D is announcements by the Chair. Among the ongoing items of activity within the Senate, I only wish to comment on the work of the Joint Committee on Curricular Integrity, because there is considerable interest in the work of this committee, and we have said nothing about it since the fall when it was originally announced. The co-chairs have kept their committee on a rigorous schedule of meetings and they have gathered a great deal of information from testimony and other sources. At this point, the committee members are working in small teams to develop draft recommendations that address the charge of the committee. The co-chairs, Rob Pangborn and John Nichols, hope to have a forensic discussion of the committee’s consensus recommendations this fall, probably at the September Senate meeting, and with any luck they will be able to move quickly after that toward a final report. We expect that many of their recommendations will have to be implemented through Senate committee action.
The committee preference request form for the 2005-2006 Senate year was sent to elected senators yesterday. We request that you complete this form through the online process by March 28. I also want to encourage senators to indicate their interest in serving as a committee Chair or Vice-Chair.
The Senate elections will occur in early April and you will receive an e-mail ballot when the online polls are open. As most of you know, our online balloting system is very simple and fast to use. I encourage you to jump on this task as soon as you get a few free moments when that e-mail arrives. I know many of you have used this, but some of you may not have. This is a lot easier than voting in a presidential election. Not only is it fairly fool-proof, but the candidates are more uniformly palatable, and it is quick. So I encourage you to go through with this. I have personally tried to beat the system, and I cannot do it, so I doubt that you can either, although Susan tells me many other people have tried. Please inform yourself and vote.
Every year around this time the University announces the recipients of the Faculty/Staff Achievement Awards for the current year. Three of our senators will be receiving one of these prestigious awards at a special luncheon next Monday at the Nittany Lion Inn. I would like these three persons to stand when I read their names, and I ask the audience to hold its applause until all three have been recognized:
The McKay Donkin Award recognizes
full-time members of the faculty, staff, or retirees who have contributed most
to the economic, physical, mental, or social welfare of the faculty at
The Milton S. Eisenhower Award for
Distinguished Teaching was created to underscore the importance of
undergraduate education at
The Award for Administrative
Excellence is presented annually to a member of the staff whose performance and
achievements exemplify administrative excellence. Eric R. White, Executive
Director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies, is this year’s recipient.
Eric has been at
Congratulations to all three senators. I think we are all pleased when members of the University Faculty Senate receive these awards.
I have just one more thing I want to convey. Later this afternoon, we have a report prepared by Bonnie MacEwan on the escalating price of scholarly journals. I want to tell you I am going to be on a soapbox for the next couple of minutes. I want to say that I think this is an issue the Senate could do something about. I want to say this in advance of Bonnie’s report, so you can be thinking about these things as she presents it. I have watched during my career as the number of journals and research papers in my field has grown at a geometric pace over the last 30 years. When I say geometric, at least in my field, I think it really has been geometric. I think that your experiences are similar. I have published my share of those papers, but frankly I believe that this profusion of publication, which our libraries must pay for to stay current, has been out of proportion to the actual progress of science and scholarship over that period. I think we can attribute much of this to the emergence of the very peculiar idea that virtually every faculty member, at every American university, should be publishing. That to me is a strange idea. What can we do?
The Senate defeated an Advisory/Consultative report four years ago this month that would have very subtly tipped the balance in Promotion and Tenure decisions toward quality, and very subtly away from quantity. We would have done this through some modest additions to the administrative guidelines for HR-23. Part of the reason I am on this soapbox is that I presented that report that was defeated on the floor of the Senate exactly four years ago and I am a sore loser. I still think it was the right thing to do, and maybe it was not exactly the right thing to do, but I think the Senate can figure out the right thing to do with the same aim in mind. I have often said that there is something wrong with a system that would not have given tenure to Charles Darwin —28 years and one lousy book! Now maybe we cannot come up with something that would have given tenure to Charles Darwin, and maybe we should not, but that should give us pause to think about what we are doing is really the right way to do it. We need to have some special guidelines in the Promotion and Tenure administrative guidelines that will address this.
Bonnie will also discuss digital publication as an antidote to the current stranglehold that the publishing industry seems to have on scholarly publications. We have not yet completely figured out how to handle electronic publication of research in a way that ensures quality. I think this is another area where the Senate could help by providing special guidelines for properly crediting, and perhaps encouraging, electronic publication in Promotion and Tenure decisions. That is all the comments that I have.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item E is comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today and I would like him to come forward and address the Senate.
Spanier: Thank you very much. I hope you all had a wonderful spring break.
Now it is time for the serious
stuff. I think we have mentioned on a couple of occasions that we are looking
at the organizational structure of the University—ways to be more efficient,
maybe redefine some things; look at changes we might make to better position
Penn State for the future; and we are busy at work on that. I expect that about
this time next week, we will be in a position to make some announcements,
specifically, about what we are doing. What has been very interesting is to
follow the rumor mill on all of this. I have to tell you, you are a creative
bunch, coming up with all kinds of wild ideas. I can assure you that this is
not as dramatic as it might seem. We are not closing any campuses; we are not
putting people out of work; we are not doing any of the more extreme things
that I think people are worried about. This really focuses on day-to-day
administrative and structural issues of the University, and as I have said, how
we can best position ourselves for the future. We will want to continue to
fine-tune our plans. We will be able to talk to you about this in some detail
at the next opportunity. I think we have a meeting scheduled next week with the
leadership of the Faculty Senate to brief them. We will be talking to the
members of the Board of Trustees between now and then. We will also be meeting
with deans, vice presidents, and vice provosts along the way as well. So stay
tuned to that, but I think everybody here, who is a member of the Senate, and
is familiar with the inner workings of the University, will see these very
positive changes ahead will be very good for
Recently, I had my hearing before the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate hearing was cancelled due to the weather and I did not beg them to reinstate it. I thought we could probably get by without that. I was given my full three hours at the House Appropriations meeting, so I think we had a chance to say most of what we wanted to say. Of course, we will be following up individually with legislative leaders. We have been in touch with members of the Governor’s staff on a number of issues. Was it on TV this year? Did anybody see it? High ratings, I am sure.
I want to give you just a brief
update with regard to our plans for The Dickinson School of Law. We are moving
ahead on all fronts. What you tend to read about in the newspapers is some of
the stuff around the edges, like the lawsuit. Three of the disgruntled members
of the Board of Governors, who were on the losing side of the vote to move
ahead with the plan, filed suit against us. It is very unfortunate, because it
is expensive to defend lawsuits. The bill is high. It is very distracting; it
puts doubt in people’s mind and there is a lot of nasty stuff being said. The
lawsuit names Lucifer himself, me, as a defendant. I have given my deposition
for several hours and will be back in court for that in awhile. I think there
is very little merit in the lawsuit. We do expect to go ahead and people are
very excited: the students at the
Probably the most serious accusation that the plaintiffs made against me is that I had engaged in a program of mind-control to affect the outcome of all of this. I admit I do some magic here-and-there, so, if any of you see your arms going up when we re-vote on the physical education requirement, that is probably the force at work.
I am very proud of what has evolved
in the work of the faculty, administrators, and then the Faculty Senate, in our
efforts to start a new academic program in the area of forensic science. I
think maybe most, but not all of you, are aware that the Senate has approved
this new program. We think there will be strong student interest. It will be a
multi-disciplinary program involving a lot of different departments, but
administratively led through the Eberly College of Science. We think this is
going to be fantastic. We have every reason to believe that we are putting
pieces in place that will make it the top program of its kind in the country.
We are not in a position to announce it yet, but we are working toward having
one of the most eminent people in the
I have seen the latest report on applications and potential enrollments for next year. In the flow of applications, we are somewhere around two and one-half percent ahead. Overall, that is quite strong. Again, we expect to have 80,000 applications for all campuses at all levels. That is very positive. There is softness in the level of interest at some of our campuses, so it is not uniform across the University, but overall it continues to be a pretty good story to tell. We are working very hard this year to try to keep our tuition increase to a level that is more moderate than it has been in recent years. This is a very high priority for us, to the point where if we do not receive the requested appropriation, and it looks like we will not receive the requested appropriation, we are willing to go a smidgen higher on tuition, but probably not enough to make up the whole difference; which means that we might not be able to be quite as ambitious as we have been in the last few years in salary increases. We will still have an increase and it will be a reasonable increase, but it will not be as generous as it has been in the last few years.
We are in a very direct trade-off these days between salaries, employee benefits, and tuition. Tuition is the single largest source of income. Salaries and employee benefits are the single largest source of expenditures. So those two things are a pretty direct trade-off. The only way to offset it is if we get the kind of appropriation we are trying to get. It looks like the Commonwealth is not going to be able to do that for us. You need not be too concerned, but we might have to back off a half percent or so from where we had hoped to be. Last year for the first time, and it will be the case again this year, we are putting more money into increases in employee benefits than we are putting into increases in salaries. It is taking that much every year now to keep up with the University’s contribution to employee benefits. It will not be long before that seems to dwarf the salaries, principally because of the rising cost of health care, and because we continue to maintain the same formulas that we have for employer contribution to TIAA-CREF and, of course, the State Employee Retirement system. Our level of contribution is not determined by us, but by the Commonwealth actuary, and because of their investment performance we pretty much have to put into that whatever they tell us to put in. Those numbers are expected to go up. That is a little bit about where we are on things. Nothing to be concerned about, but things that we are continuing to monitor very closely, and it probably will not be until June that we get that all sorted out. Those are my announcements, and now time for your questions.
President Spanier: It sounds a little like “feel free to turn in your friends and colleagues,” but nobody should be worried about it if they are not stealing money from the University. Having said that, it is unfortunate that we are in an era where we have to do something like this. This is not some wild and crazy idea that we came up with. I think most of you have heard of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It is an act of Congress that is imposed on all kinds of businesses and corporations—a responsibility to tighten up everything they are doing in terms of monitoring abuses; establishment of internal audit committees; review of finances; CEO’s having to sign off on all kinds of financial things that they use to let people like Gary Schultz just worry about. It developed out of the scandals involving Adelphia, WorldCom, and Enron. Our government said, “that is it, we have had enough of that behavior,” so they put these new laws in place. While the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not explicitly relate to universities, like ours, the flavor of Sarbanes-Oxley Act has permeated the non-profit sector as well. The expectations by every governing board in the country—directors; trustees; and others—have to exercise a greater level of fiduciary responsibility, question the administrators, and be able to prove to them at anytime that we are in compliance.
The Penn State Board of Trustees has
now established an audit committee, and we never had that before. This is one
of the initiatives that is out there. It comes out of discussions within the
last year as the audit committee was set up, and our own Board of Trustees’
interest in a sense is being in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with the
spirit of Sarbanes-Oxley, if not the letter of the law in every respect. We
have contracted with an outside company that does this for lots and lots of
companies. When you call the 800 number, they have operators doing this for
many companies, and they submit a report back to us. So we do not know who is
saying what about anything. I do not think we are going to get very many calls.
Turner, Abington: Good afternoon, President Spanier. From recent news
reports, in fact I believe it is today, a group of
President Spanier: I wish the students well and I think it is marvelous that they are doing this. I think our student leaders are at a point where they understand that the administration is not the enemy. We are just not making up some arbitrarily large tuition increase to put the money in our own pockets, or do something frivolous with it. They understand the very direct connection between the legislative appropriation and tuition, and they are trying to be part of the solution. They know they need to talk to their legislators in their own districts, and make a statement in the Capitol, just like any other advocacy group does. So I think it is great they are doing that. They are doing that with the consent and advice of our Governmental Affairs offices. We have students from campuses all around the state participating. The legislators receive them very warmly. They are happy to have them there, and happy to have their interest. Also, it parallels our efforts with the Penn State Grass Roots Network that some of you are familiar with.
The Penn State Grass Roots Network
is an initiative that comes out of the Penn State Alumni Association. I think
we have 30,000 individuals signed up as advocates. We give them information
about what we are up to, why, and what we need. We ask them to be in contact
with their legislators. Does it make any difference in the end? It certainly
cannot hurt. Does it make much of a difference? I would say probably not a huge
difference, because the Governor has already put his budget out there. The
final budget is usually just the Governor’s budget, with some modest changes
around the edges. We will be making repeat visits back to
Right now, we are working on a few
things in the Governor’s budget that are disappointing to me. We have to give
the Governor credit for a few things. Remember, we had three years where there
were five budget cuts including two mid-year cuts. I believe Governor Rendell
really does care about the welfare of this University and about higher
education. At least he has us in there for a basic increase, but it is quite
modest. I know he is trying to help us with the
We are very disappointed that the budgets for the agricultural research line item, and for the cooperative extension line item were at zero. That is very hard for us to contemplate given that the education and general part of the budget is at two percent, and there is no offsetting tuition possibility for those two line items to make up the difference. We have to do something about that or we are talking about real serious cuts in actual positions that people now occupy, and why we would want to do that. It makes no sense.
Probably the most curious anomaly is
that the Governor, being an advocate for certain areas of higher education,
wants very much to improve the status of our community colleges, open the doors
widely, and promote people obtaining associate degrees. He has proposed a ten
percent increase in the budget for the community colleges, but at the same time
Chair Steiner: Are there any other questions or comments?
Spanier: I believe we have held the percentage of employer contribution at
9.29 percent, and it has been that way for a very long time. No, we do not have
plans to decrease or increase it. I do not know how we ended up at that
percentage (Billie Willits stated that it is determined legislatively). Then
that makes it even more unlikely that we would change the contribution. Thank
you all very much. As they say in
Chair Steiner: That brings us to Informational Reports and we do have some.
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2005-2006, Appendix C. This annual report gives the names of new, continuing, ex officio, and appointed senators.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Report for 2005-2006, Appendix D. Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair, Senate
Committee on Committees and Rules presented the slate of nominations for
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The floor was open for
additional nominations for these committees. On behalf of Committee on
Committees and Rules, Deidre Jago presented two additional nominations for the
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure: Gordon W. Blood, Department Head, Professor
Communication Sciences and Disorders,
SENATE COUNCIL NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT FOR 2005-2006
Nominating Report for 2005-2006, Appendix E. Christopher J. Bise, Chair, presented the slate of nominations for the positions of Chair-Elect, Secretary, and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. The floor was open for additional nominations for these positions. No additional nominations were made.
University Long-Term Borrowing, Appendix F. Senior Vice-President for Finance and Business and Treasurer, Gary Schultz, gave a presentation on the University’s borrowing patterns; debt policy principles; measures of credit ratings; sources of capital funds; and upcoming capital projects.
Changes in the Outreach Organization, Appendix G. Vice-President for Outreach, Craig Weidemann, presented the new outreach initiatives focused on increasing coherence, improving access and viability, and articulating a vision for Outreach.
Summary of Petitions by College, Campus, and Unit, Appendix H. This annual report gives an overview of student petitions for exception to University policy by type of petition and college/campus. Committee Chair, Arthur C. Miller, stood for questions.
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
on Enrollments and Admissions,
Report on Faculty Senate Scholarship Awards to Undergraduates, Appendix J. Lynda R. Goldstein, Chair, provided an overview of the 254 Faculty Senate Scholarship Awards given to undergraduate students during 2003-2004 year. Assistant Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Student Aid, Anna Griswold, stood for questions.
University Travel Task Force Report, Appendix K. Cathy Shannon, Office of Business Services, presented the report. This report focused on changes to the University’s travel policies and procedures, and contrasts current practices with proposed revisions. Representatives from the Travel Task Force, and the Technology and Implementation Team, responded to questions.
Salaries, Academic Year 2004-2005, Appendix L. This annual report focuses
on comparisons internally among units at
Serials and Scholarly Communication, Appendix M. Richard Barshinger, Vice-Chair, introduced the report. Assistant Dean for Collections in the University Libraries, Bonnie MacEwan, presented a report focusing on price increases in libraries and how these increases are affecting acquisitions. In addition, she gave examples of cost-containment strategies.
of Spring 2005 Officers’ Visits to
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: May I have a motion to adjourn?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: All in favor, please say, “aye.”
Chair Steiner: Motion carries. The March 15, 2005, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Please note the next meeting of the
University Faculty Senate will be on April 26, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112
The following senators signed the attendance sheet and/or were noted as having attended the March 15, 2005 Senate meeting.
Abdalla, Charles Cheney, Debora
Alcock, James Chorney, Michael
Althouse, P. Richard Clark, Paul
Ambrose, Anthony Cohen, Jeremy
Anderson, Douglas Cole,
Ansari, Mohamad Conklin, Martha
Bagby, John Coraor, Lee
Baggett, Connie Costantino, Roselyn
Barbato, Guy Curtis,
Barnes, David Das, Rishi
Barshinger, Richard Davis, Dwight
Becker, Paul Disney, Diane
Benson, Thomas Donovan, James
Berkowitz, Leonard Du, Qiang
Bernhard, Michael Eckhardt, Caroline
Bise, Christopher Elder, James
Bittner, Edward Engelder, Terry
Blasko, Dawn Erickson, Rodney
Blood, Ingrid Evensen, Dorothy
Blumberg, Melvin Falzone, Christopher
Boehmer, John Feigelson, Eric
Boland, Donald Feldman, Harvey
Boothby, Thomas Fernandez-Jimenez, Juan
Bowen, Blannie Formanek, Edward
Breakey, Laurie Frank, Thomas
Brewer, Cynthia Frank, Russell
Bridges, K. Robert Franz, George
Brittingham-Brant, Margaret Freedman, Debra
Brockman, William Gates, Zachary
Browne, Stephen Glumac, Thomas
Browning, Barton Goldstein, Lynda
Brunsden, Victor Gorby, Christine
Cameron, Craig Gouran, Dennis
Cardamone, Michael Griswold, Anna
Carpenter, Lynn Hagen, Daniel
Casteel, Mark Hanes, Madlyn
Challis, John Hannan, John
Harmonosky, Catherine Miller, Arthur
Harris, Ashley Miller, Gary
Harrison, Terry Moore, John
Harwood, John Moses,
Heinsohn, Robert Mueller, Alfred
Hellmann, John Myers, Jamie
Hester, Anne Namasivayam, Karthik
High, Kane Naydan, Michael
Hilton, James Neiderer, Catherine
Holcomb, E. Jay Novack, Robert
Holen, Dale Osagie, Sylvester
Horwitz, Alan Osagie, Iyunolu
Hudson, Benjamin Page, B. Richard
Hufnagel, Pamela Pangborn, Robert
Hupcey, Judith Patchcoski, Justin
Jago, Deidre Petersen, Gary
Johnson, Ernest Pietrucha, Martin
Johnson, John Puzycki, Joseph
Kamp, Marie Pytel, Jean Landa
Kane, Eileen Rebane, P. Peter
Kephart, Kenneth Richards, David
Khalilollahi, Amir Richards, Winston
Kline, Michelle Ricketts, Robert
Koul, Ravinder Romano, John
Kump, Lee Romberger, Andrew
Kunze, Donald Rosson, Mary Beth
Le, Binh Roth, Gregory
Lee, Sukyoung Salvia, A. David
Leto, Dara Sandmeyer, Louise
Levin, Deborah Scaduto, Russell
Lundegren, Herberta Schaeffer, Stephen
Lynch, Christopher Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
MacCarthy, Stephen Schmiedekamp, Ann
Macdonald, Digby Selzer, John
Mara, Cynthia Semali, Ladislaus
Mason, John Shantz, Lisa
Maxwell, Kevin Simmonds, Patience
McCarty, Ronald Singh, Harjit
McGinnis, Michael Smith, Nadine
Middlemiss, Kenneth Sommese, Kristin
Wager, J. James
Yerger, Sara Total Elected: 178
Yoder, Edgar Total Ex Officio: 5
Youmans, Charles Total Appointed: 14
Zambanini, Robert Total Attending: 197