Penn State University Home  

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 35-----MARCH 26, 2002-----Number 6

 

The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2001-02.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

   I.  Final Agenda for March 26, 2002

 

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

 

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

 

II.  Enumeration of Documents

 

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to

March 26, 2002

 

Corrected Copy - Faculty Affairs – Incorporating

The UniSCOPE Model into HR-23

 

Attendance

 

III.  Tentative Agenda for April 23, 2002

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 26, 2002

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

Minutes of the February 26, 2002 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:5

 

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                        (Blue Sheets) of March 12, 2002

 

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

 

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

 

E.  COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –

 

F.  FORENSIC BUSINESS -

 

G.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS -  

 

Committees and Rules

 

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

      Excessive Absences

 

H.  LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

 

Undergraduate Education

 

      Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College

 

      Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance

 

I.  ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

     Faculty Affairs

 

      Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23

 

J.  INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

 

      Computing and Information Systems

 

            Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD)

           

      Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report - 2002-03

 

      Senate Council

 

            Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03

 

      Faculty Benefits

 

            Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison

 

      Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

 

            Annual Report for 2000-01

 

      Intercollegiate Athletics

 

            Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01

 

      Research

 

            Report on University Research

 

      Senate Council Nominating Committee Report – 2002-03

 

      Student Life

 

            Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material

 

      Undergraduate Education

 

            Grade Distribution Report

 

K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.      COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE

      UNIVERSITY -

 

M.      ADJOURNMENT -

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

The Senate passed three legislative reports:

 

Committees and Rules - “Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the Senate – Excessive Absences.”  This legislative report changes the Senate Bylaws to provide voting units with the authority to replace Senators with three or more unexcused absences from Senate meetings during an academic year.  (See Record, page(s) 14 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)

 

Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College.”  This legislative report focuses on the following areas; 1) eligibility for admission and retention; 2) participation, advisement, research experience; 3) honors credit requirements; and 4) advisory committees.  (See Record, page(s) 14-19 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)

 

Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance.”  This legislation acknowledges that students miss classes for legitimate but unavoidable reasons. Faculty are encouraged to use strategies to minimize the problems associated with students’ absences. Students will be held responsible for contacting their faculty members in advance and using only legitimate, unavoidable reasons for requesting a make-up of an examination or other evaluative mechanism.  (See Record, page(s) 19-22 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

 

The Senate passed one advisory/consultative report:

 

Faculty Affairs – “Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23.”  This advisory and consultative report presents each of the three mission areas of the University—teaching, research and service, as a continuum of scholarship.  The report proposes the revision of the promotion and tenure dossier (the rainbow dividers) to reflect the expanded definitions of scholarship.  (See Record, page(s) 22-25 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

 

The Senate heard 10 informational reports:

 

Computing and Information Systems – “Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD).”  This informational report focuses on computer software utilization at Penn State and the opportunities for cost savings and “upgrade protection.”  ILSD supports 18 programs serving 2000 licenses to 102 administrative areas at the University.  (See Record, page(s) 26 and Agenda Appendix “GC.”)

 

Committees and Rules Nominating Report – 2002-03.  This report listed names of nominees (and the opportunity for nominations to be made from the floor) for the following three committees: Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.  (See Record, page(s) 26-28 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)

 

Senate Council – “Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03.”  This report is a listing of Senators by Voting Units.  (See Record, page(s) 29 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)

 

Faculty Benefits – “Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison.”  The report emphasizes comparisons of Penn State faculty salaries with those at other universities.  The university participates in three institutional faculty salary data exchanges.  These sources allow for comparison and interpretation regarding faculty salaries.  (See Record, page(s) 29-32 and Agenda Appendix “J.”)

 

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities – “Annual Report for 2000-01.”  This is the annual report of the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee to the Senate sharing types and numbers of cases examined during the year.  (See Record, page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix “K.”)

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for

2000-01.”  This informational report examines NCAA graduation rankings, academic all conference standings, and numbers of athletes screened for eligibility.  (See Record, page(s) 32-35 and Agenda Appendix “L.”)

 

Research – “Report on University Research.”  Expenditures for research and development at Penn State continue to increase, with a 7 % growth this year.  This is a review of new initiatives to strengthen activity in the life sciences and other interdisciplinary areas.  (See Record, page(s) 35 and Agenda Appendix “M.”)

 

Student Life – “Student Use of Web vs. Printed Materials.”  This report is a presentation of recent Pulse surveys of students’ use of the Internet and web-based services. Discussion of services that students use and obstacles to use of online services including system access, concerns for confidentiality and distrust of computers.  (See Record, page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “O.”)

 

Undergraduate Education – “Grade Distribution Report.”  This is an annual report presenting grades for baccalaureate and associate degree students by college, location, and semester GPA and discussion of a modest upward trend in grades.  (See Record, page(s) 22 and Agenda Appendix “P.”)

 

Senate Council – “Nominating Committee Report for 2002-03.”  This report listed names of nominees (and the opportunity for nominations to be made from the floor) for the following three offices/committees: Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary, and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.  (See Record, page(s) 28-29 and Agenda Appendix “N.”)

 

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

 

Chair Nichols:  It is time to begin.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the February 26, 2002 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  Are there any corrections or additions to this document?  All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

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

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for March 12, 2002.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

 

The Senate calendar for 2002-03 is attached to your Senate Agenda as Appendix “B”.  It is for information, so please make note of the meeting dates for next year.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of March 12, 2002.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.  There are a number of announcements in those minutes and in the interest of time I will not repeat them here today.  But if you have not read them, I encourage you to glance them over.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Nichols:  The Senate has received correspondence from President Spanier regarding the calendar report that the Senate passed at our last meeting.  President Spanier notes that he will “carefully review all of the information before making a decision,” and expressed his appreciation for the work the Senate did on this important issue affecting teaching and learning at Penn State.  He also said that he expected to announce his decision on this matter by the end of the spring semester.

 

In an effort to make better use of technology and time, the Senate Office this time around sent the committee preference form via email.  All of you should have received your committee preference form.  Make sure that you have received this and please respond to the email by completing your preference form and returning it online.

 

The Senate Officers have two visits remaining for the spring, and they are to the College of Communications on April 18, 2002 and the University Libraries on April 25, 2002.  That will complete the sum total of all locations and all University Park colleges.

 

The Senate Self Study Committee expects to have an interim report to the Senate at the April meeting.  The committee will continue to receive your feedback over the summer and then will submit its final report and recommendations early in the fall.

 

As you know, it is the practice of the Senate to occasionally invite those whose activities have brought credit to the university and remind us of the core values and mission of the university.  At about this time last year, I had the privilege of attending the awards ceremony for the Center for Adult Learners and I was really impressed by the stories of sacrifice and commitment to higher education of the award winners.  Two of the recent award winners are with us today.

 

The Outstanding Returning Adult Student Award Recipient for 2001 is Dawn Dishart, who I have had the pleasure of meeting on a couple of occasions.  As a young woman, Dawn put her husband through medical school while caring for their three children.  After graduation he left, and leaving her with the sole responsibility of raising the children.  Following another marriage, another divorce, and three more children to care for, Dawn worked two or three or more jobs to support and educate her family and to save enough money so that she too, perhaps one day could attend college.

 

In 1997 Dawn began her college education at Penn State Altoona commuting 40 miles each way to class while raising children ranging in the age from 8 to 18.  Despite family tragedies and legal entanglements, she continued her school work with such success that she became a Schreyer Scholar upon arriving at University Park.  And last year she graduated with highest distinction and a grade point average of 3.98 majoring in Spanish.  She currently is pursuing a masters degree in Spanish.  Dawn wrote, “My motivating factor has been a secure faith that the advantages of my education, particularly as an example for my children, will prove worthwhile in the end.  I cannot ask of them what I would not do myself.”

 

This year’s 2002 Outstanding Adult Student Award Recipient is Kimberly J. Cassidy-Miller.  She is currently pursuing a baccalaureate degree in Health Policy and Administration.  Kimberly’s nominator, Faculty Senator Dennis Shea from the College of Health and Human Development wrote, “When I look at her, I see the possibility that at least some of the problems our society has in achieving health and welfare for families and children will be resolved.”

 

Yet as a child, Kimberly experienced a very transitory and dysfunctional home life, moving more than eighteen times before her high school graduation.  Knowing that further education was the key to a better future, Kimberly enrolled at Penn State University Park as a transfer student in the summer of 1998.  Getting to this point in her education was not easy.  Both Kimberly and her husband, also a Penn State student, both work and share responsibility for raising their two young sons.  Until their younger son enrolled in kindergarten, they scheduled their classes so that one of them always could be with a child.  Despite these challenges, Kimberly is excelling academically and has a cumulative 3.87 grade point average in her Health Policy and Administration major.  She also finds time to volunteer for the Centre County’s Communities That Care and the Centre County Health Community Partnership.  Kimberly wrote, “I seek to overcome my past mistakes and alter my life’s direction, but I also try to consciously hold on to the lessons I have learned along the journey.  I do not want to allow myself to become distanced from where I have come, rather I want to be constantly aware of my past when reaching out to others.”

 

I would like to ask Dawn and Kimberly along with Charlene Harrison from the Center for Adult Leaner Services, to stand and be acknowledged by the Senate.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Nichols:  Agenda Item E, Comments By The President Of The University.  President Spanier is in attendance today and does have comments.  As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question of the president you need to be recognized by the chair, then you must stand, and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.  Thank you.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Thank you.  The Board of Trustees of Penn State had a very interesting and successful March Board of Trustees meeting.  We met in Washington, DC.  A lot of people forget that Penn State is very dependent on our relationships with and support from the federal government.  We tend to focus so much on state relations.  So it was great for the trustees to be in Washington, DC and to see our intense level of connections there and for them to hear first-hand reports from national leaders, heads of agencies, NIH, defense department, and national associations about Penn State’s role in the national higher education community.  I wish that all of you could have been there to hear some of the great things said about Penn State and the work that you are all doing and the importance of what we are doing for our nation.

 

Speaking about Pennsylvania and the budget, I think most of you have probably been following this and I’ll just give you a brief update.  Did any of you have the opportunity this year to hear my appropriations hearings?  Well, good for you.  Thank you so much.  In the middle of what night were you listening to the re-run of that?  The rest of you missed it, and I know you are seriously disappointed but actually they went extremely well this year.  We were very nicely received in both the Pennsylvania Senate and in the Pennsylvania House.  It is amazing how nice they are to you when they don’t have any money to give you.  This year in the Senate, we had a joint hearing with the four state-related university presidents, and it was very easy for us this time to be very supportive of each other because we all had a very common goal, which was “please don’t cut our budget.”  In the Pennsylvania House, we had our individual hearings and in both cases we had a good opportunity to talk about the great things happening at Penn State.  I think I answered their questions satisfactorily and made a very strong message about our situation.  Unfortunately, what continues to remain on the table at this time is a five percent cut in Penn State’s appropriation.  This is very significant for us and of course even a five percent increase if it swung the other way would still be a very challenging budget scenario for us given that we continue to want very much to give a decent pay raise to our faculty members, to keep up with employee benefits and to pay for the extraordinarily high level of premium increases in insurance that is affecting the entire insurance industry as a result of last September 11, 2001, and the rising cost of malpractice insurance.  We want to keep up with our traditional share of the cost of health care and other employee benefits for our employees and those are continuing to see double-digit increases.  We want to continue the progress we have made in our university libraries and in the area of information technology, but there are super inflationary operating costs in those areas.

 

Also, some of you may have seen this news, we have pledged to include in the budget that begins for the fiscal year July 1, 2002 the new higher level of health insurance benefits for graduate assistants at the university.  This will give them health care benefits equivalent to those you all receive as faculty and staff.  It will put us out in the lead nationally among universities and what we are able to do for our graduate students.  Our stipends are already quite competitive and this will be a great step forward.  This is something Eva Pell has been advocating since she came into her position.  When you put all of these things together and there is quite a bit of pressure on our budget and the five percent cut doesn’t help at all.  We can offset that to some extent in our basic educational programs because we can raise tuition as reluctant as we are, we have said that principle number one must be to maintain the quality of what we are doing at the university and if we have to raise tuition to keep up we will.

 

But, there are other parts of the university budget for example, in the College of Medicine, in our Cooperative Extension Service and our agricultural research programs, where there is no offsetting revenue stream.  So what it means is, truly a reduction in the number of employees.  We are looking at about 100 employees right now and that is a very real consequence for us.  One of the things that we have decided to do is to appoint a task force—it will be a small task force that is co-chaired by Rodney Erickson and Gary Schultz—which is basically the budget cutting task force.  That is not quite the right title but their assignment is to look very, very hard at the university budget from top to bottom and look for places to tighten our belts.  Yes, we know we are going to raise tuition and we are looking at a double-digit tuition increase, but at the same time, it is very incumbent upon us both for the legislature and citizens of our state and for our own students to look in every nook and cranny of the university to look for savings and there may be some out there.  If you have any ideas about it, send them to Rodney Erickson.  All good ideas will be welcomed and we hope to do some trimming so we can moderate the overall tuition increase that we are faced with.  If you have any other questions about the budget, ask them later.  There is a lot more I could say but I don’t know how much you want to hear about that right now.

 

I have received the calendar report.  Rodney Erickson, John Cahir and I are taking a close look at it.  We are starting the process of analyzing it from our end, everything that was discussed here.  We had the entire Senate Record transmitted to us and in addition, you must have been invited to send in emails because we got about 300 emails.  No, you didn’t?  Well, we got 300 emails anyway.  We got lots of emails from students and some faculty members writing us directly with additional comments and those actually have been pretty helpful.  Many of them are thoughtful, but many of them, however are just one issue emails like, I don’t really care about anything having to do with the calendar except this one thing.  We have to look at the entire picture and we will try and do that as well as we can.  Some of the feedback has been very helpful because it has raised aspects of this that we do need to take into account as we look at the whole thing.  This has been the only issue I can remember since I have been president where every official communication on the matter says, “however, the final decision will be made by the president.”  Now, while that is officially true on most issues I suppose, few people are willing to acknowledge that on other issues.  In this case, everybody seemed to be happy to acknowledge that I will have to make the final decision because I think everybody is prepared to be mildly disappointed in the outcome and why should any of you take the blame, right?  So we will simply just do the best we can and try to come up with something that works well in the best interest of the university.

 

Rodney Erickson and Terrell Jones continue to be in the midst of meeting with all the relevant groups and task forces on the midpoint of the five-year updated plans to foster diversity.  They are working through comments sent back from the review panels and our goal I think is, by the end of the semester, is to have the plans themselves as well as the feedback posted on the website for people to look at.  I feel very good about the process.  People have taken it very seriously, and in the end I think the university will be better off because of it.

 

Our enrollment situation is just about where we wanted it to be.  We are pretty much on target with our admissions enrollment and paid accept profile for this coming fall at University Park.  The rest of the campuses are a little more variable—some up, some down, some on target.  Overall, the university’s enrollment profile should be about where we want it but, of course, there are campus variations.

 

One of the projects I have been working on which is very faculty oriented, I hope, and I just wanted to tell you a little bit about it.  I think most of you know that I try to find opportunities, as many opportunities as I can to spend time with students.  I stay in the residence halls, I eat in the residence halls, and I accept invitations to have dinners at fraternities.  I go to HUB Late Night and I try at least once every weekend to stop by there.  I meet with lots of different student organizations and honorary societies.  When I meet with student groups, I talk to them most often about undergraduate education.  That is a very common topic.  I ask them who the best professors are that they have ever had.  Some of you may have gotten a note from me somewhere along the way saying that somebody mentioned your name.  Over the last year, I have tried to engage students in a little greater depth in the discussion about the actual experiences they are having with faculty members in the classroom and outside of the classroom.  You come away with the impression that, for a large university like ours, given our faculty/student ratios, given the fact that we do have a lot of large classes, especially here on this campus and especially in the freshman year, we do a pretty good job.  But, in these discussions, you can’t also help coming away with the impression that we could probably do better and there are certain kinds of themes that keep coming up in these discussions.  I thought it would make a great topic for a speech I would give on “what is wrong with the faculty” or something like that, and my colleagues talked me out of it.  They said, that is a bad idea and you know it is not going to work if you make the theme of your state of the university address, “what is wrong with the faculty.”  After all, most of our faculty are working 60-80 hours a week, they have complex jobs, we are all trying to do the best we can, and what good does it do for the president to get up and say, here are the problems I am hearing.  But I wanted to find a way to somehow let you hear some of the things I was hearing.  So here is what I did.  I invited a random collection of students, none of whom I knew before—10 or 12 students.  I let somebody else go through the process of identifying them and inviting them in.  I am not sure if they actually knew why they were coming, but I just wanted to have an evening’s discussion with them, except I had the discussion at the WPSX-TV studio in front of cameras.  So it was me and them just talking for the evening and we videotaped it.  We videotaped about an hour and a half of it and I basically talked to them and interviewed them and asked questions about their experiences as students.  They were all students on this campus, but some of them had spent time at other campuses, but they are all now at this campus.  We have taken that video and edited it down to under 20 minutes and we are having copies made, not 5,000 copies for all the faculty, but maybe enough for one per department or something.  We are going to get these out to you and I hope you will look at them.  I hope you just see what a random group of students had to say.  It wasn’t a complaint session at all.  They said some wonderful things about the faculty but if you listen carefully you do hear some things that might cause you as Faculty Senators in particular, to want to think about what we can all do collectively to improve the educational experience for our students.  That was one of my projects.  You will be seeing this video and I hope you will find some value in it.

 

You may have seen a tiny little news story--it was only about one sentence long in the Intercom and we will do another feature about it, but I wanted to tell you that we have hired a new dean for the Dickinson School of Law who I think is one of the great hires in the history of Penn State.  We are very fortunate to attract someone who is a brilliant legal thinker and an expert in broad areas of international law, intellectual property law, just a fine human being and a great leader and educator who we were able to attract here from the University of Illinois.  I think it is just a fine hire and you will see a little bit more about it but that is a recent success story I wanted to tell you about.

 

I just wanted to tell you that I will not be at the next Senate meeting for two reasons.  That happens to be the day where the presidents of the AAU institutions meet in Washington, DC once a year.  I am actually chairing a session that morning on graduate education and the changing prospects for doctoral graduates and post-doctoral and so on in different fields.  Then, that afternoon, I am on the board of something called the URA—University Research Association.  That is the organization that oversees a number of large national research facilities, like Fermi Lab and some of those projects relating to high-energy physics and astronomy and such.  If you want to know anything about “Quarks” just ask me I will give you a sociologist analysis of high-energy physics, do we have any physicists here?  Yes, we have a couple so I could talk to you about those things.  Anyway, I have to do those two things so I won’t be here, but Rodney Erickson will be giving you a report on some things and I will get caught up from the Senate leaders on what transpired.  These are a few things that I wanted to mention and now I would be happy to open it up for your questions and comments.

 

Steven Koeber, Substitute Student Senator, Penn State Altoona:  I just have two comments.  You have probably been around this campus a lot but this is the first time I have seen you.  Could you think about coming to other campuses, like Altoona?  I would like to go to see the president like some of the other students.  My next question is about the calendar.  When you make your decision, if you decide to cut the number of days of school, I would like to know how that would look to the current students and the students who are looking to come to Penn State if you increase the tuition and cut the number of days?

 

President Spanier:  Well, just let me say I have been to the Altoona Campus many times and I have not seen you.  I don’t know where you are hanging out, but I’ve been there.  I make about 15 visits a year to the campuses.  In the first couple of years I visited every campus every year at least once, but it’s hard to make it to every campus every year now, but we try our best to get around and now it’s often in conjunction with some special event or fund raising or something like that.  How long will you expect to be at the Altoona Campus?

 

Steven Koeber:  Probably for another year.

 

President Spanier:  So I might see you.  As far as the calendar goes, the main pressure on the calendar is in the fall semester.  In the spring semester there seems to be enough time for everybody to do pretty much everything they want to do.  The pressure is in the fall semester and people like to end before Christmas and they do not actually mean December 24th, they mean like the 20th or 22nd, but not right up against Christmas.  And there is also pressure on the other end, particularly as tuition goes up, summer jobs are very important and some of our students are losing out in certain kinds of summer jobs because we start so much earlier than a lot of other schools.  So there is some pressure on the number of days and the trick is how do we fit it all in.  I think I received about 300 emails from students and 299 of them really only dealt with one topic—don’t cut fall break.  That was the total scope of the commentary and the president of student government and the chair of the academic assembly visited me with a resolution from the undergraduate student government, which was to be on the calendar except that the key part of the resolution only had just one point—don’t cut fall break.  The other one email from the student I recall said, “I don’t think you ought to be shortening the calendar because we paid for so many days and we would like that”.  That didn’t seem to be the main concern of most of the students.  I suppose indirectly the concern might be if you cut any days shouldn’t we have a break on tuition or something like that.  The number of days in the calendar doesn’t affect the budget that much because all of the people are still on the payroll and you still buy the same number of library books, and the buildings are open and very little changes.  If the calendar were shortened by a day or five or whatever it might be that could affect board rates.  At the margin you would probably need a little less food because there might be fewer meals so, in the overall scheme of things that might be adjusted along the way.  To me, this is not a budgetary issue.  It is really about what makes sense from an educational standpoint, from a logistic standpoint, and even from a competitive standpoint.  We are trying to balance a lot of different things and in the end, whatever we come up with, we want to ensure that we are providing a high quality experience for our students that is appropriate given the normal rules by which universities do their calendars.

 

Michael J. Cardamone, Penn State Schuylkill:  There was a report in this past Sunday’s Harrisburg Patriot concerning the concept of having a tiered tuition increase.  It said that ongoing students would pay a different percentage tuition increase than new students would.  While this would have probably very little effect at University Park, it could have an extreme detrimental effect on those elements of the university that depend heavily on new students all the time like the campuses, for instance those where there is a great deal of competition for students.  Would you just comment?

 

President Spanier:  What several of our peer institutions have done and every year more and more are doing it, to deal with the declining state revenues and therefore the declining state appropriations for public universities, universities are having to go to extraordinarily high tuition increases.  We are not in that four or six percent zone anymore.  We are at another level up.  That does not represent tiered tuition so much as a phase-in of a higher tuition, that is what it really is all about.  The concept there is, which the task force is looking at among all the other concepts that are out there, the idea would be to say, all of our current students came here with a certain expectation of what their tuition was going to be.  They knew tuition was going to go up every year but they were not expecting it to go up 12 or 14 or 20 percent, and it might be a little unfair to spring that on them while they are already here.  But if you give more than a year’s notice people who have not even applied yet, but you put right in the admissions literature here is the zone, tuition is going to be in when you start, then they are applying knowing what it will cost and there are no surprises.  So the idea is that the new freshmen come in at the new rate.  The others get the normal annual increment but not this higher level that it is going to take given the direction state appropriations are going in.  Then all subsequent new freshmen groups coming in would be at that higher level so it is a phase-in.  By the time you get through the cycle, everybody is now at that higher level.  That is one of the things that we are looking at and they have already done it in Illinois and Minnesota.  I think Ohio State is looking at it.  I think there were three Big Ten schools already and another one looking at it, and we are studying it and others will be studying it.  So that’s the concept there.

 

Now how does it affect the campuses?  Now there is also the question and it is a separate question of whether we go to a system where we recognize that our 24 campuses are in different market places so to speak, attracting different types of students.  We have some commuter campuses.  We have residential campuses.  We have some campuses that draw from a national or international market place.  Other places are going much more locally or regionally and so should we raise everybody at the same level, and there are many people who believe that should not be the case and that there is more price sensitivity at a campus like Schuylkill, for example.  If you bought that philosophy and that is another thing that is being studied, we might very well have a lower tuition level at some campuses than we have at University Park.  Everything is on the table right now and in the end we will try to do what is in the best interest of Penn State and is fair to our students.

 

I should also say, I am not aware if anybody in the media has picked up on this, but every budget scenario that we are building has built into it an additional commitment of significant university resources for student financial aid.  So we have in our preliminary planning scenarios for the budget for the next fiscal year $1 million of new money for institutionally sponsored financial aid.  Now that is not going to make a world of difference by the time you split it up against all the needy students.  But the concept that we are trying to follow is absolutely a fundamental concept in my mind, no matter where our tuition ends up, I want to be able to say, and I will be able to say this, that no student will be prevented from coming to Penn State because of their inability to afford an education.  Through some combination of scholarships, grants and loans no matter what our tuition is my goal is that every student is able to come here.  Even if it means we have to raise tuition even a tad bit higher for everybody to build more money into the financial aid pool.  If we put $1 million of new money in the budget let’s say every year for the next five years, now we are up to $5 million a year of new additional money in the budget—that begins to be real money—that is our goal.  A majority of our students do now have financial aid and the majority of our students have loans and the loan burden will increase.  I am not saying that this is all going to be a gift of new money to everybody.  Yes, there will continue to be lots of students with loans but I believe in a Penn State education.  Last year, our surveys showed that 98.3 percent of our graduates were employed within six months.  So they may have loans, but they can pay off those loans if you have a Penn State degree and their lifetime earnings are going to be something like double what they would have been had they not come and gotten a college education here.  It is not going to be smooth sailing for everybody but you will be able to get from here to there under the scenarios that we are looking at.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos Delaware County Campus:  Since you are looking at these differential tuitions at non-University Park sites, will salary increases therefore be detrimentally affected by those incremental increases?

 

President Spanier:  Only if you are judged to have goofed off that year.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Compared to University Park?

 

President Spanier:  No.  In case you have not noticed and I think most of you noticed, and I was not around here for ancient history, but since I have been president, every year we have put exactly the same percentage from the salary pool into every unit’s budget.  Every college, every campus has had the same percentage salary pool and I believe in that.  I think maybe you have an agenda item on this later that is not to say that salaries are the same everywhere.  There are differences by discipline, location, merit, and every other way, but in terms of what I inherited, we have tried to treat everybody fairly and put the same amount into the salary pool.  We are committed to continuing to do this.  I do not buy into this idea that people are more important one place or another and that our money should be focused somewhere.  The deans and campus executive officers have to deal with market forces and all the other variables but from our standpoint, we are handing the money out in a more evenly distributed way and that won’t change.

 

Eric B. Cowden, Student Senator, College of Agricultural Sciences:  What is the likelihood of this phase-in process happening and if it did occur, would it happen this fall semester coming up?

 

President Spanier:  If it happens, and as I say we are seriously looking at it so yes, it is the trend.  We have to be in one of two modes.  One mode is everybody, everywhere gets a large tuition increase—15 percent, 18 percent whatever the number has to be to deal with the overall situation.  The other mode is the existing students will get let’s say six percent and you start phasing it in at a much higher level, a double digit type level for those coming in.  So we are going to end up being in one of those two modes and all I can say is, we are seriously looking at it and this is a possibility.  To answer the second question, no, we would not do that for this fall because the whole idea of that kind of system is to give people notice.  So the earliest that could happen would be fall 2003.  Now what that means for this year however, is we are in the first mode I described.  This year everybody is going to have to have a pretty good size increase.  It is just the way all the variables have conspired to force our budget right now.  So yes, this year we will kind of be in that other mode where everybody…unless something dramatically changes in the legislature and we are still working real hard.  We are going to be at some double-digit level.  If the state economy at the end of April reports that things just turned around and there was great news all of the sudden and the state decided to give us an increase in our budget—even two or five percent, I don’t think we would necessarily have to be in a double digit zone but it just does not look like it is going to be that way right now.  Every bit of news we get is forcing our planning scenarios into higher numbers.  Every meeting I have with the folks who work with the budget every day, come out of that meeting saying, maybe we have to go up a little higher.  It is not a good situation but we just have to cope with it.

 

James A. Strauss, Eberly College of Science:  If you look around it is just sort of a reminder that this is kind of like looking at Congress and sometimes you get bad budgetary scenarios and yet they are voting for themselves big salary increases, not that our salary increases are huge but the question is unpopular.  If we really are in a financial crisis and we really are saddled with the burden of making this deficit up with tuition dollars for a record tuition increase, should we as faculty really expect to have a salary increase this year?

 

President Spanier:  That is very generous of you to make that offer.  Here is my philosophy, in that spirit I would love for any of you to take your pay increase and to donate it back to a scholarship fund at the university.  That is how you could individually make such a statement and of course we encourage you to do that anyway.  As you know, we send you these forms and hope you do that and a lot of our faculty do.  Or, when you retire you just leave your estate to Penn State and we can help you with that also.  I would rather see you do that than to have us get into a mode of saying, look we just cannot afford pay raises this year and I will tell you why.  I think our faculty would be understanding and we would not have some catastrophic moral crisis because we tried to treat people pretty well the last few years, if we said no we just cannot do pay raises this year.  But I do not think that is the right solution for a couple of reasons.  First of all, we are in a competitive marketplace and one year doesn’t make or break somebody’s loyalty and commitment to the university but we do operate in a competitive marketplace. 

 

People think faculty and staff at universities should just work for free and we are all so altruistic but we all have families and we went to school for 10 or 30 years to get to where we are and people ought to expect to be able to make a decent living and so there are competitive marketplace forces to which we have to be sensitive.  Secondly, the fact is that our salaries have slipped relative to our peers over the last several years.  We have been losing about a percent a year so in any one year if you got a three percent raise and the rest of the schools get four percent, you don’t worry too much about the one percent.  But then at the end of five years you say hey, wait a minute I am five percent behind.  There is a point at which you keep heading down that road and now you are way behind. 

 

So public university employees are way behind private university employees.  That gap has gotten very bad.  That is over 20 percent now nationally and we are about five percent behind our peer group.  Now we can say, but we have got Mount Nittany and we have got the Pennsylvania forest and I am on this beautiful campus at Abington and I love looking at that pond out my window or whatever it might be.  That only goes so far.  It just seems to me not only do we not want to head down that slippery slope, I think you may know that the Board of Trustees endorsed my goal that I outlined for them last year to actually go one percent above the peer group every year for five years.  Now that is our goal.  I don’t know if we can do that.  At this point if we can just stay even that might be good enough and maybe we will get that extra percent in another year but I think that is what we have to do because we do not want Penn State to be in a zone below our peers. 

 

We want to attract and retain the best faculty and it is particularly an issue for current employees, because new employees come and you just have to pay them the market rate.  If the University of Iowa is offering them $40,000 you have to offer them $40,000, and then hope they will come here, so we already have to do that for new employees.  Then, you get into salary compression issues for existing employees and at some point that bothers me when salary compression is too great.  We understand why it happens, we try to deal with it but it’s not a good long-term strategy.

 

David W. Russell, York Campus:  Last Thursday we had some transfer meetings at our campus and I was told by my college representative that some of the majors are starting to reduce the number of credit hours required to earn a bachelors degree.  We were also told at the time that one of the pressures toward reducing the number of credit hours is, in fact, the expensive nature of the tuition at Penn State.  My question is, at what point do tuition increases, though regrettably necessary given the state’s evacuation of its responsibility, at what point do they begin to impact potentially the academic integrity of our degree programs?

 

President Spanier:  On the subject of the state evacuating its responsibility let me just go on record saying that I am grateful for the $300 million that the legislature does send and there are fine people in the legislature who care very much about Penn State and are doing the best they can.  Nevertheless, I do understand what you just said.  I think with regard to the transfer thing there is about half of that story that sounds right to me, but not the whole thing.  I don’t think there is anything about the financial pressures relating to tuition that has to do with that discussion, because there are some public universities, and there are some peer institutions that charge students on a per credit hour basis.  The institution I was chancellor of before coming here did that.  You paid by the credit hour.  We do not do that here.  Once you are a full time student it does not matter whether you are taking 12 or 20 credits, you are paying your semesters’ tuition.  I think that discussion has more to do with the fact that over the years we have allowed--you the Faculty Senate because this is a Faculty Senate curriculum thing as much as anything else—that we have allowed some of our major requirements to get too great.  In some cases, we are way beyond what is really required by the profession or the accrediting bodies or what maybe makes good sense.  And these things happen for a lot of reasons. 

 

Look, you have got a lot of faculty members, they have got Ph.D’s and are leading experts in their field, they want that student when they have a bachelors degree to know everything.  And so you start adding on some extra courses and also sometimes you get into departmental politics.  I know when I was teaching in my department if a student did not have my course, they were not required to take my course, then they had a serious intellectual deficit and so you get about 10 faculty feeling that way and every course has got to be loaded into the curriculum.  We have some majors that are 128 or 136 credits.  They are way off the charts.  They do not have to be that way and what that is doing is, maybe, slowing some students down.  It is forcing them into that extra semester.  They are getting their money’s worth and they are getting a good education and so we are encouraging departments to go back and take a fresh look at just what do you need, what is appropriate for a baccalaureate degree and that in turn does affect some of the transfer questions.  Now that is my interpretation.  I have got John Romano here, Jim Wager, others who are probably involved in that discussion and could tell you more so if you just switch one seat there John will whisper the whole story to you.

 

Chair Nichols:  I don’t wish to cut off the president because this is his last meeting with us this academic year but we do have a long agenda so maybe one or two very quick questions.

 

Edward W. Bittner, McKeesport Campus:  When would the new calendar, if it comes about, when is the earliest it could come about?

 

President Spanier:  I would say in the fall 2003.  Nothing is going to happen this fall.  The earliest would be fall 2003, so I guess we should get ready for a lot of excitement in the fall of 2003.  There might be some changes.

 

Andrew K. Masters, Student Senator, College of Health and Human Development:  What can I tell the students that I represent that you are doing for the undergraduates in spite of the ten percent or double digit tuition increase.  Where the faculty are getting raises and the graduate students are getting increased health benefits, what can I say to my students that you are doing for the undergraduates so that they do not feel like they are just alone.

 

President Spanier:  I would be willing to say that they will continue to get the highest quality educational experience that you can have at a university like ours.  That the whole idea behind increasing tuition is to maintain that quality level including all the current focuses we have on instructional improvement and that if we reward the faculty properly their spirits will be up, they will want to deliver a quality product.  If you give graduate students the benefits that they should have at that station in their life, they are going to feel better about their situation, they will meet their classes, and they will be dedicated.  We cannot really offer any better faculty/student ratios or something that is all that tangible because the truth of the matter is, we are not using that tuition increase to move up to an entirely new level where we haven’t been before.  We are using that tuition increase to maintain the quality that we have, to follow through on existing commitments, to keep the upward momentum going but at that level it is not going to allow us to move into a zone that we are not.  So I do not want to over promise anything but we can promise that the goal is to maintain that quality level and to have people continue to feel good about what is happening at the university.  Okay, thanks everyone.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you, President Spanier.  Agenda Item F, Forensic Business there is none.  Agenda Item G, Unfinished Business, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, this is Appendix “C,” Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7—Election to the Senate—Excessive Absences.  Jean Landa Pytel, Chair of Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will present the report.  You will recall that this report was discussed at our last Senate meeting but because it is a change in our Bylaws it had to lay on the table until this meeting for a vote.  So this is an action item today.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

None

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

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

 

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

 

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering:  Thank you.  You’ve had lots of time to look at it and I guess I’ll stand for last minute questions.

 

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine:  There is no mention in there of double- checking attendance.  I presume the only means of checking attendance is the attendance handout sheet which every once in awhile somebody does miss.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  That issue has been brought up and I think together with the staff of the Senate Office we will try to come up with an improved way of tracking attendance.  There is also the attendance on the minutes.  I think there is a way of checking there and then perhaps we can have something available that if somebody misses the clipboard they have an opportunity to sign in.

 

Chair Nichols:  Other questions for Jean?  If there are no questions on this report, are you ready for a vote?  It appears so.  All those in favor of the motion as listed, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it.  The motion is carried and the report is adopted as part of our Bylaws.

 

Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College and this is Appendix “D,” and Laura Pauley is here to present the report.

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College

 

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

 

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering:  The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education reviewed Policy 65-00 to update that policy to reflect current procedures of the Schreyer Honors College.  When the Schreyer Honors College was started there was just a change in name alone to this policy and now we have gone through and made the policy updated with the current procedures.  I can answer any questions.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner, College of Engineering:  I would like to speak against the proposal.  On page three, item number five, Review and Advisory Committees, the change states that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education and the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs shall provide regular review of the Schreyer Honors College insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs.  It seems to me that undergraduate programs in the other colleges are quite different than the program provided by the Schreyer Honors College.  That is quite obvious because we have this particular policy which is quite different than anything else we do for any of the other undergraduate programs.  So it seems to me, that is an inappropriate statement to add to that item.  If you would continue then on the next page, the dean of the Schreyer Honors College shall sit as an ex-officio member of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education.  Those two statements seem to me to be totally inconsistent.  We don’t say that the dean of every other college who is in charge of every other undergraduate program sits on the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, so I would move that the statement insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs be removed.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  That phrase makes reference to curricular reviews by the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and that is what we were referring to here.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  It just says regular review.  It doesn’t say anything about curricular or anything else.  The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education does at least, up to now, have a committee that reviews the Schreyer Honors College, right?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  We don’t have a separate committee but we do review the faculty advisory board and receive updates on the Schreyer Honors College.

 

Chair Nichols:  Lou, I want to be clear on this--are you introducing an amendment, or are you making a comment?

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Yes, I introduced an amendment to remove “insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs.”

 

Senator:  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  So the last clause on page three and the remainder of the clause on page four, is that the amendment?

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Yes.

 

Chair Nichols:  And it has been seconded.  All right, the floor is open for discussion on this amendment.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  I guess I disagree with my esteemed colleague.  I don’t really see the need to make that change.  I think this report has been imbedded in committee already and this refers to a regular kind of review that specifically complies on curricular and undergraduate matters and all other matters and that is what I understand this statement to mean is, “insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs.”  And so I really don’t see where we ought to make this in the original proposal, have accounted for, and provide the opportunity for regular reviews to be made on curricular and undergraduate programs matters as we do in everything else.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  I would just like someone to explain to me how section five says anything about reviewing curricular proposals.  There is nothing in there about curriculum or anything else.  It is talking about reviewing the Schreyer Honors College.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  The review of other undergraduate programs is a curricular review and that is what we considered to be described here.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  I would like to speak in favor of the amendment.  I am not really sure that the Schreyer Honors College has curriculum proposals that they put forward to curricular reviews.  After all the Schreyer Honors College is made up of the faculty from all the other colleges and made up of students from all the other colleges, so they actually do not have a unit that even has a college curricular affairs committee.  So the phrase really does not make much sense and I think that is the point here and I think the underlying issue is historical.  In that, the honors program was originated out of the Senate and therefore, the legislation had this provision for periodic review of the program by the Senate body.  And so now, we have reached the point in history and development of the Schreyer Honors College in which it has now become a college with a name to it and so we are at a point of division, do we turn it loose?  Do we say okay now you are on your own, you are another college, you are really no longer an affiliated program developed out of the Senate and have to maintain some strong contact with the Senate.  And so I think that is what the vote on the amendment comes down to.  At this point in the history of that program are we just basically turning it loose to become its own college?  Or do we still want to just maintain that review in there?  So I would speak in favor of the amendment to remove that insofar phrase because it is not really logical.  The Senate does not review other programs except in curricular affairs.

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg, Schreyer Honors College:  Thank you for this opportunity.  I would like to make a statement about what the intent of this proposed legislation is.  Very simply put, the Schreyer Honors College was made a college, was approved by our Board of Trustees in 1997.  The intent of this legislation then is to treat it as such so that it would conform as all other colleges do in all reviews pertaining to the Senate.  To treat it as an official college, to continue the reviews it already undergoes because as everyone on that Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education knows I am a regular part of that committee and that committee reviews the Schreyer Honors College programming, issues, policies and so forth that emerge on a regular basis.  We would continue that practice.  We were just entering into the legislation trying to clarify the legislation the way the college currently operates.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Perhaps the issue here that I think Lou is referring to, is the fact that the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs is included in that particular sentence and maybe you could clarify the intent here if we just cross out “and curricular affairs.”  Because the point you are trying to make is that there are more courses that are offered as such, simply by the Schreyer Honors College.  But I would also like to point out that the Faculty Senate reviews all academic programs anyway.  There is no program that comes on board or gets removed from any college without going through the Faculty Senate.

 

Chair Nichols:  Other comments or questions?  If there are no questions on this report, are you ready for a vote on the amendment?  It appears so.  The vote is to delete the phrase “insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs” at the bottom of page three and the top of page four.  The motion, if you vote “aye” is to delete that phrase.  All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  The nay’s appear to have it.  Is there a call for a division of the house?

 

Senators:  Division of the house.

 

Chair Nichols:  Division of the house has been called and ordered.  The tellers will be the Parliamentarian, the Chair-Elect, and the Secretary.  This is a standing vote.  All those in favor of the motion, please rise.  All those opposed to the motion, please rise.  There were 46 aye’s and 83 nay’s.  The amendment fails and now we are back to the main motion.  The floor is open for discussion on the main motion.

 

Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  This is a very important issue.  I am not an expert on any of these things, but to me if I see the chair of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs stand up and has a question about that and then I look for a proposal that only comes from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, I am concerned about the fact that the full discussion on this issue has not taken place.  So in my view, to bring up another motion, I would like to table this, so that the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs has a real good chance to look at this proposal with the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education before the general Senate has a chance to look at it.  I would be much more comfortable doing that.  So I move to table.

 

Chair Nichols:  Lou, do you mean table or do you mean refer it to committee?

 

Louis Milakofsky:  I refer to the Parliamentarian.  I don’t know what is right.

 

Chair Nichols:  I think what you would want to do is refer it back to committee if that is what you are proposing.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  This is an extremely important issue in terms of how we deal with honors courses, etc., so I really would like to see it tabled.

 

Senator:  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  So you are making a motion to refer this back to committee for further consultation with the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs?  Is that correct?

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Yes.  I would say to table this motion.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded to refer this report back to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education for further consultation with the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Thank you.  As much as I would like to see my position approved by the Senate, I spoke as an individual not as chair of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and I don’t think this is an issue that is particularly important to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs.  I think the Senate is ready to address this.  You have addressed my issue.  My only other issue then is, if this college is to be reviewed like every other college, then why is the dean of this college special and is on this committee, but I am not going to make that motion.  But I don’t think it is a Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs issue.  So I don’t think there is any need to send it back for that kind of consultation.  Now if some of the other members of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs feel that there is some issue here, then I will be happy to take it back to the committee but I don’t think it needs to go that route.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Then I am going to withdraw my motion.

 

Chair Nichols:  Lou has withdrawn the motion.  JoAnn, are you withdrawing the second?

 

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus:  Yes I am.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, we are back to the main motion.  Are we ready for a vote on the main motion?  It appears so.  All those in favor of the motion to adopt this report, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  The aye’s have it.  The motion carries.  The report is adopted.  Still at the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, Revision of Senate Policy 42-27:  Class Attendance.  That is Appendix “E” in your Agenda.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Revision of Senate Policy 42-27:  Class Attendance

 

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

 

Laura L. Pauley:  In Policy 42-27 addressing class attendance, there was previous mention of student activities, university activities, Martin Luther King Day, but there was no mention of procedure for illness, injury, family emergency, or unavoidable absences.  There was just one sentence dangling at the end as a separate paragraph and we have added some detail to that in this policy revision.

 

James M. Donovan, Mont Alto Campus:  In the report accompanying the legislation, what is meant by official validation for the reason of a student absence?  Does it include any documented proof of why a student is absent?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  In that first paragraph under background?

 

James M. Donovan:  Yes, first paragraph, background.  Since it is impractical and sometimes not possible for students to obtain official validation for the reason of their absence.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  Official validation might be a doctor certifying the person was actually unable to get out of bed or walk across a block to their classroom or was contagious.  We do not have any procedure for having some official certification that a student was actually unable to attend--that the funeral was actually the grandmother or whatever official validation.  We don’t have anything official.  The best thing that we currently have are pink slips which says, a sick student dragged themselves across campus, may have gotten others sick along the way and had a piece of paper signed saying they walked through the door.  It is not official validation that the person was unable to attend class and we felt the student should be in bed and getting better instead of going through something that is not really validation.

 

James M. Donovan:  Would this legislation prohibit any faculty member from asking for documented proof for absence from a class or from evaluating in fact?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  This legislation is encouraging faculty to treat students as adults and to have an adult discussion between student and faculty to come to an arrangement.  It does not disallow permission slips, doctor slips, and funeral notices.  I do not know what is official.  It does not prohibit that, but it is intended to move us toward a dialogue between two adults as we treat our other colleagues.

 

James M. Donovan:  The background of the report talks about simply trusting the students if they have legitimate reasons.  Early in my career at Penn State, I would do that.  When those students gave me reasons for not showing up for a regularly scheduled exam, I found myself giving a lot of makeup exams.  And some of these students I doubted had legitimate reasons for not taking a regularly scheduled exam.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  What do you consider as proof that they were unable to attend that exam?

 

James M. Donovan:  A doctor’s note for example.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  A doctor’s note from a private doctor or a Ritenour doctor?

 

James M. Donovan:  Any doctor.  It could be also from the campus nurse.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  The Ritenour notices do not say anything about their medical condition.  The pink slips do not say the student was actually ill, unable to sit in a class, unable to write or think.  The pink slips simply say that the particular student walked through the door and requested a pink slip.  There is no medical verification on that slip.  It just says that the student dragged themselves out of bed.  I would think of that as evidence they are really not so sick if they could have walked five blocks to Ritenour, they probably do not have the worst case of the flu because those students would still be in bed.  So it is not medical verification, it is merely verification the student walked through the door.

 

James M. Donovan:  In my case, at my campus we didn’t have pink slips.

 

Annette K. McGregor, College of Arts and Architecture:  If the problem that we are trying to address is the flood of ill and semi-ill students wandering into Ritenour to get a pink slip that says the students says they are sick, I think there may be a more direct solution.  I gave an exam on Friday, I have over 45 makeup exams to give as is, with documented university validated absences and I just don’t know how to cope with, “I didn’t feel like taking your exam that day and I am entitled to a makeup, whenever I do feel like taking it.”  I do trust my students.  If they come to me and say, I was sick and I could not get out of bed, I say fine.  But if I don’t even get to pretend that I expect validation of their absence and that there is a need to have legitimate reasons, because I am not just there to give makeup exams 24-hours a day, then I feel like you are taking away from me some control over how I manage my time and how I spend my time with my students.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  This legislation does not mention pink slips.  It does not mention doctor notices because we recognized that some faculty were not comfortable with making that step.  So this legislation still allows faculty, if they desire to request a pink slip or a doctor’s notice.  This was written as some guidance for the students and for the faculty that there should be a discussion between faculty and students.  This discussion should occur before the exam instead of a week later.  There is mention if the instructor is contacted after the exam the excuse may not be considered legitimate because it is a week later, a day later is not as convincing a case.  So we did not specifically dis-exclude written notice being required.

 

Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus:  This is a policy that came through the Senate Committee on Student Life before it went to Senate Council and it does receive support of the Senate Committee on Student Life.  I would just want to underline that this policy does not prevent faculty from requiring pink slips or some other form to verify the form of documenting these excuses.  In fact, for the first time it specifies that if a student comes up with a fabricated excuse, that student may be held responsible under the academic integrity policy.  So I think this does in fact constitute a genuine stiffening of the policy, although it does raise the issue of what do we do if we don’t have the dreaded pink slip?  Laura you mentioned this, but I just want to strengthen it, I think it is a catch-22 policy to require a student who is too sick to attend the exam, to leave his/her home and go to some other place and get a document signed to that effect.  If the student is too sick to attend the exam, then it is reasonable to expect that the student is probably too sick to go out and get a piece of administrative paperwork certifying that this student is too sick to go out and get this piece of paperwork.  So I think it is a policy that does throw this issue back to faculty laps, but I think justifiably so.  It doesn’t say what your absence policy should be but I think it is reasonable to expect it even when the absence policy is one that should involve some kind of adult dialogue between the faculty member and the student.

 

Chair Nichols:  The clock is ticking and we have a very long agenda.

 

Robert Secor, Vice Provost:  Unless I am misreading this, none of what we are discussing is actually in the policy statement.  What we are discussing is in the background statement which gives the rationale when it talked about validation issues.  The policy itself does not address any of this at all.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  In response to a concern about not allowing pink slips, the policy does not specify what the faculty member’s procedures are or what the required verification would be.  They are still allowed to require a pink slip if certain faculty feel that is necessary.

 

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg:  As I read this, almost everything on page two is actually the policy.  This is an awkward policy at best before it was modified and in my view it is made even more awkward and I think the discussion is focused on parochial issues at University Park, totally ignoring issues of instruction.  It says nothing about an attendance policy to be placed on the syllabus.  It ignores the situation where attendance is an important part of group work, discussion work, etc., and I, for one will vote against this because I think this is just elaborating a poorly written policy.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any questions about this report?  If there are no questions on this report, are you ready for a vote?  It appears so.  The vote is on Appendix “E” the recommendation section on page two.  All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  It appears the aye’s have it.  Is there a call for a division of the house?  Hearing none, the aye’s have it and the report is adopted.  Laura, don’t go away.  To streamline the flow of Senate business, given our lengthy Agenda, I intend to shift a couple of reports.  So without objection from the body, I will ask Laura now to stand for questions on the Grade Distribution Report, which is Appendix “P” in your Agenda.

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Grade Distribution Report

 

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

 

Laura L. Pauley:  This is a mandated report that we provide each year.  The last paragraph in the discussion and the figure at the end was something that we added to give some explanation, some possible reasons for a slowly rising grade point average.

 

Chair Nichols:  Questions for Laura?  Seeing none, thank you.  Moving right along.  Agenda Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports, the only one is Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23 and that is Appendix “F” in your Agenda and Andy Romberger is here to present the report.

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23

 

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

 

Andrew B. Romberger, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  The UniSCOPE 2000 Report presented to the Faculty Senate last academic year viewed the three mission areas of the university—teaching, research and scholarship as a continuum of scholarship i.e., those things that we do as a community of scholars.  The proposed changes are an attempt to be inclusive of our many activities as a faculty member at Penn State and are in the spirit of the UniSCOPE Report.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends this advisory and consultative report for your adoption.

 

Sallie M. McCorkle, College of Arts and Architecture:  Based upon a recommendation by the Faculty Development Subcommittee and supported by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs this morning, I propose the following friendly amendment.  On page six under Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession, under bullet item Service to the University, I propose that number six “other” is made number seven and that number six becomes “record of contributions to departmental, college, or university faculty to faculty mentoring programs.”  This is not about having lunch with a junior faculty member.  It is actually about providing a space for people to list and have it supported and that it is clear that they are involved in mentoring programs.

 

Andrew B. Romberger:  The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs as you said Sallie, agreed to accept this as a friendly amendment.  Two typos I need to correct before we continue.  On page six, the bullet that follows the amendment should read, “Service to Society as a representative ‘of’ the University” not “to.”  I want to publicly apologize to Mila Su for misspelling her name.  I did not have my fingers on the right keys when I typed it.  It should be Mila C. Su.

 

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries:  I just was going to add just one more little typo there.  Jacqueline Esposito’s last name is misspelled.

 

Andrew B. Romberger:  I’m also a lousy proofreader as you may have noticed.

 

K. Robert Bridges, New Kensington Campus:  When would this take effect?  This coming academic year or…?

 

Andrew B. Romberger:  I would assume that if this is approved and as soon as Vice Provost Secor can put the implementation guidelines together, it will take effect.  I presume next year.  Is that right, Bob?

 

Chair Nichols:  Upon adoption by the president, if it is approved by this body.

 

K. Robert Bridges:  But my question is, that people who are thinking about doing it for promotion next year are already putting dossiers together.  Would this change what they need to do?

 

Andrew B. Romberger:  I do not think the committee views this as a change as much as a clarification.  It is an attempt to broaden the areas to make it clear where people can put in items that they do for this university that would count towards their record of accomplishment.

 

Adrian J. Wanner, College of the Liberal Arts:  I am somewhat confused about your renaming of the three categories.  Essentially, just add the word scholarship to everything.  In the service category we now have “Service and the Scholarship of Service” so that could imply there are two different kinds of service.  One is the scholarship of service.  One is service to the community.  What is the difference between those two?

 

Andrew B. Romberger:  Some service items that we do such as my standing here really is not a function of my expertise in physics, but it is service to the university.  Therefore, there is some kind of distinction that we wrestled with and what we came up with is those two names combined, so the phrase service and the service of scholarship.

 

Adrian J. Wanner:  I would just like to be on record as being against this renaming.  I am not sure anything is gained by that and it seems to me our junior faculty are already kind of intimidated by this entire process.  But the old categories had the advantage of being relatively clear and simply by adding scholarship to everything just makes it more muddled and harder to understand.

 

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts:  I would like to agree with my colleague and also from another perspective which is, I think our current three categories work and that pretty well is what I see at other universities, would indeed create a confusion.  I do not think it changes much substantively to warrant the additional confusion that it will create.

 

Robert Secor:  We must understand where this report came from--it came from the UniSCOPE Report and the concern of the UniSCOPE Report was that we do all kinds of teaching, of researching and of service in ways that go beyond additional service and additional teaching.  But everything has to do with who we are as scholars.  In order to create that into what we do, to make sure that teaching is seen as valuable as it is, was to convey the fact that teaching is an aspect of our being scholars.  So the UniSCOPE Report, which we were asked to deal with, is the report that makes the recommendation that we use the term scholarship for teaching as well as for research and service.  But remember we once had four cells and one cell was scholarship separate from research and creative accomplishments.  There was a debate in the Faculty Senate at that point as to what to do with that fourth cell.  And in the discussion of that fourth cell should it be distributed as seen and incorporated in the other cells in ways in which you were being told to do that.  Instead, the Faculty Senate simply merged the two cells into research and scholarship in one cell.

 

So now it is coming back and we are looking at it in a different way.  Now when it comes to service and this is the way it is connected directly to what the UniSCOPE Report was trying to say, was that service itself is an aspect of scholarship and they suggested ending it with the scholarship of service.  So that when you look at page six, there was outreach service and we are now suggesting service to society.  But that was service to the public before and that service is actually a scholarly enterprise so that service to the public does not involve service to the Boy Scouts.  What it is, is using your scholarly expertise and bringing it to the public and that is why you limit that service to your professional expertise.

 

An example I will give at my workshops is that if you are a volunteer fireman, as much as we appreciate that, it is not something that is in the P&T dossier.  But if your expertise is combustion studies, as our previous associate dean of the graduate school Howard Palmer was, and you go talk to the fire department, you are bringing your scholarly expertise there.  So it is not something where you bring outreach or service to the public but bringing your scholarly expertise there.  So everything really in that bullet is service to the public.  Now when you are serving the department on the search committees, you are bringing your scholarly expertise.  UniSCOPE suggested that it should be the scholarship of service.  Our committee as Andy talked about, was thinking about service all the way through and came to a conclusion that there are some kinds of service that are not scholarly and we don’t want to exclude them.  If you go to service to the university and you are putting in a new bullet here, assistance to student organizations, that may not necessarily be faculty scholarship or the one above, “Record of contributions to the university’s programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity.”  To make it clear that there are other kinds of service, as well as service scholarship have the very awkward phrase of service and the scholarship of service and we tried to find a way of making that less awkward and we couldn’t.  But that is the reason for that and it came to the committee who transferred the UniSCOPE Report in ways in which it would bring greater value to the various cells.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you, Bob.  Are we ready for a vote?  It appears so.  All those in favor of this advisory and consultative report, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Nichols:  The aye’s have it and the motion carries.  The report is adopted and will be forwarded to the president as the Senate’s recommendation.  Forgive a moment of bias here, the UniSCOPE model has been a high personal priority since I was chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs several years ago, and it simply is an effort to equally and fairly reward all forms of scholarship.  But I do agree with Carey that there is a difference between changing the words and the symbols and actually making it a reality and that is the challenge for the Senate and the university to make these words a reality in the future.  Agenda Item J, Informational Reports, the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems, Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Programs (ILSD) that is Appendix “G”.  This report is self-explanatory and as such Senate Council did not allot floor time for it, but Sam Slobounov, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems is here with a guest and if there are essential questions they will be happy to quickly respond.

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

 

Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD)

 

Semyon Slobounov, Chair, Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems

 

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development:  Thank you.  I would like to introduce James Leous, Manager of the UNIX Systems and Technical Solution Group.  If you have any questions, please address them to James directly.

 

Chair Nichols:  Questions on this report?  Seeing none, thank you very much Sam for a good report.  Next informational report is Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, Report of Nominating Committee – 2002-2003.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Report of Nominating Committee - 2002-2003

 

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

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Appendix “H” contains the report of the nominating committee for the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules for 2002-2003.  The elected members of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules met as a nominating committee and made nominations for the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee.

 

Chair Nichols:  Before you volunteer any additions to the slates, may I remind you that, before you do so, you will need to have the permission of the person whom you would like to nominate.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with three (3) to be elected for two-year terms.  The nominees are listed in Appendix “H” and each nominee to run for this committee has granted permission to have their name placed on the ballot.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additions from the floor? 

 

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture:  I am a little concerned that the fine and applied arts are not represented here, so I talked to someone I would like to add and they said yes.  I would like to add the name of Mark Olsen.

 

Chair Nichols:  Is there a second?

 

Senator:  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded.  Any other nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  Moved and seconded.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, a three-year term.  Three (3) will be elected; one member and two alternates.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Seeing none, is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  Moved and seconded.  The slate is closed.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  For the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, these nominees are split into three categories:  faculty positions from University Park, faculty positions from locations other than University Park, and deans.  Of the faculty from University Park nominees, three (3) are to be elected; one member and two alternates with terms to expire in 2005.  Again, please refer to Appendix “H” for the nominees for the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?

 

Murry R. Nelson, College of Education:  This is not a nomination it is a clarification.  I think this does not speak to the character of the individual but it should be accurate.  Dorothy Evensen is actually an Associate Professor of Higher Education not language and literature and you should probably have that accurately portrayed.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Thank you, Murry.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Seeing none, back to you Jean.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Faculty Other Than University Park Locations.  Two (2) to be elected; one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2005.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Seeing none, Jean.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  For this same committee, deans.  Two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2005.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to approve the entire slate of nominees?

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded.  The vote is to approve the entire slate.  All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"  The motion carries and the slate is closed.  Without objection I would like to move another Agenda item at this time for efficiency sake.  I would like to move Appendix “N,” Senate Council, Report of Nominating Committee 2002-2003.  Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Committee Past-Chair and Chair of the Senate Council Nominating Committee, will present the report.

 

SENATE COUNCIL NOMINATING COMMITTEE

 

Report of Nominating Committee - 2002-2003

 

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Senate Council Nominating Committee

 

Chair Nichols:  The Senate Council nominating committee met and made nominations for Senate Officers and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.  You will find these in Appendix “N” of your Agenda.

           

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine:  Thank you.  For the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, one person will be elected for a three-year term to expire in 2005.  The nominees are listed in Appendix “N” and all nominees have given permission to have their names placed on the ballot.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Cara, go ahead.

 

Cara-Lynne Schengrund:  Do you want a motion to close?

 

Chair Nichols:  Our Parliamentarian says it is unnecessary.  Should we do it anyway?  Is there a motion to close?

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded.  Go ahead, Cara.

 

Cara-Lynne Schengrund:  For the office of Secretary of the Senate, we have two nominees from the Nominating Committee listed in Appendix “N”.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?

 

Cara-Lynne Schengrund:  For Chair-Elect of the Senate, we have three nominees listed in Appendix “N”.

 

Chair Nichols:  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to close?  Seeing none, we are ready to approve the entire slate.  We need a motion to approve the entire slate.

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded to approve the entire slate.  The vote for “aye” is to approve the entire slate.  All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Any opposed, "nay?"  The motion carries and the election slate is adopted.  Now we are back on track.  If you will return to Appendix “I,” the Election Commission, the Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-2003.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-2003

 

Chair Nichols:  This is included for your information and we are not going to take any action on that.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  A question on that.  Do we not have emeritus or retired Senators beginning next year?  You do not have to answer now, you can figure it out later.  They were not listed there in the roster and I just thought that was going to happen.

 

Chair Nichols:  We received a communication from the president regarding our legislation on this matter and we are seeking some clarification.  So the answer to your question is, I don’t know.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Appendix “J,” Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison, Keith Burkhart will introduce the report. Annie McGregor is here as well and they will stand for your questions.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison

 

Keith K. Burkhart, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

 

Keith K. Burkhart, College of Medicine:  Annie McGregor was the subcommittee chair and did a lot of work with a number of other committee members and I am introducing her to tell you a little bit more about the report and we will both answer questions.  Thank you.

 

Annette K. McGregor:  I feel like the report is self-explanatory so it is an external comparison of Penn State University faculty salaries with Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) sister universities.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  No, it is not self-explanatory.  What is the purpose of this report besides just conveying information?  What do you wish to accomplish with this?  Is there any analysis that accompanies this?  Did you do any statistical modeling that would help to show equity or inequity?

 

Annette K. McGregor:  No.

 

Gordon F. De Jong:  So seeing numbers is enough for you?  Is that right?

 

Annette K. McGregor:  I am not statistically literate.  The committee members who worked with me are, and they provided the analysis that they felt was appropriate to the data.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I think I will follow on the heels of that and encourage some additional future analysis.  If you look at table three, there are some interesting things going on there.  Ten years ago we were pretty competitive across practically all of the colleges at University Park.  Unfortunately, an awful lot of this report deals only with University Park, probably not enough of it deals with the entire system.  In the last five years is when we have made these losses in competitiveness particularly in Arts and Architecture, Business Administration and Education in almost all of the ranks in those areas.  What has happened in the last five years?  Why has the salary dropped?  Is it a matter of length-determined rank?

 

There are complex issues here and I really think that these reports coming forward should attempt to figure out some of these contextual issues that might explain these differences.  At least it ought to try to find out from the deans of the College of the Liberal Arts or the College of Health and Human Development how they were able to really go beyond the competition in the AAUDE during that same five-year time period. 

 

One of the things I was struck by today was the short memory of the Senate that President Spanier said that since his tenure he has given the same amount of salary increase to each unit.  Yet about five years ago in this Senate, we had a special committee that recommended some extra additional funds based on needs to reduce compression.  Therefore, some units were supposed to receive some additional funds for salary compensation.  We have not done a very good job of figuring out where those funds went.  Perhaps those funds might explain how some colleges were able to maintain competitiveness and even exceed it.  One last point I would like to make that I think really requires some additional interpretation, either in the future with these numbers and with the next report.  On table nine, I was really shocked at the number of full professors, I am just talking about the numbers, just forget the salaries, there are 691 full professors at University Park and there are 115 full professors in the rest of the system.  That is not comparable to the peer institutions that we are looking at.  There is much more comparable data in terms of the number of full professors at “satellite campuses” and main campuses.  This report, besides putting out the numbers should attempt to figure out why that is the case.

 

Annette K. McGregor:  I can address your concern about the other campuses.  That would be part of next year’s report.  Every other year we do an internal comparison.  This year was the external comparison so the issues of, for example, gender equity, of compression, of the numbers of professors at higher ranks or higher salaries at the various locations of Penn State University would be part of the internal report.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Thank you.  I still look at it in terms of a comparing in terms of other institutions.  I think we are out of balance and that is what I am saying, we should have some exploration.  I believe it is table eight, this is a comparable not just internal salary issue at Penn State.  If you look at the instructor rank, I assume this refers to Fixed Term I and it does not even include part-time instructors, and if you look down through the end at the number of instructors and you look at our peer institutions, you see absolutely nothing comparable about 187 instructors in the Commonwealth College and 195 instructors at University Park.  All of those other institutions that we are being compared to—81 at Purdue’s main campus, 61 Minnesota-Duluth--what is going on at those institutions compared to what is going on at ours?  I think this is a comparative issue that hopefully future reports will address more thoroughly.

 

Keith K. Burkhart:  Let me just address that a little bit further.  I think a lot of what we pulled together in that, we have got a lot of data that we worked with pretty quickly and a lot of what we start with in the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits is coming up with some observations.  I think it is just really the beginning of the discussion that can highlight some other issues that need a lot more in-depth analysis.  One thing that the committee has been looking at this year is the gender analysis and there is a lot of observations in that.  We have agreed to work with the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs to try to get a little bit more of that data analysis done rather than initially presenting the data.  But I think in this case, we are presenting some data that shows some of these discrepancies here, but in the committee structure as it is, we are not able to go to those deans and try to figure out why one is less and another college has been able to make some progress working within the same constraints.  We look for the body as a whole to give a charge to further direction and possibly bringing in other committees or a task force to address some of these bigger complex issues.

 

William A. Rowe:  Keith, I will put you on the spot here.  Why were the Colleges of Law and of Medicine excluded in these figures?  Granted the numbers would be different but…

 

Keith K. Burkhart:  There has been some issues as far as having the data mesh with the current programs that are working here at University Park as far as being able to create the data and put it in the same format.  It is my understanding and Mike Dooris can probably talk about this a little bit further, and we certainly owe him a lot of debt in generating this data, but I understand the issues have been worked out that the data should work pretty well for future reports.  It is also my understanding and we have been communicating with the College of Medicine that they are actually bringing in a consultant who is going to look through our entire salary structure.

 

William A. Rowe:  Because the external salaries are quite freely available from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC).

 

Keith K. Burkhart:  We actually had this discussion at the committee level many times.  In many ways within the colleges there are many departments in which the American Association of Medical Colleges actually breaks the colleges down into their separate departments, and that we can have discipline type of comparisons done very easily with our data.  I think that is one of the things that will probably be done by the special consultant.  It is not as easy to do that with the university data and as we mentioned in the report, if we are going to be able to do that, other mechanisms need to be identified.  In future reports the AAMC data may be used as a model.

 

Chair Nichols:  This is an informational report and does not require action so unless there are additional burning questions maybe we ought to move on.  Thank you, Keith and Annie.  Annie congratulations on your teaching award.  Those of you that didn’t know, Annie won the Atherton Award.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, the Annual Report for 2000-01 and it is Appendix “K” and Jim Rambeau is here and has a brief report and will stand for questions.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Annual Report for 2000-01

James M. Rambeau, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

 

James M. Rambeau, College of the Liberal Arts:  You have the report as Appendix “K” and I am happy to answer any questions.  It was that clear, was it?

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you, Jim.  Next is the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01.  It is Appendix “L” in your Agenda.  Our NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative, Scott Kretchmar is here to present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

 

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01

 

Murry R. Nelson, Chair, Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

 

R. Scott Kretchmar, NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative:  Before I begin, I do want to say that in some ways this has been a difficult spring as all of you know, for Intercollegiate Athletics, with the loss of two of our student athletes.  Michael Carter to an automobile accident; he was a promising young golfer on the men’s golf team.  And of course, Kevin Dare in that tragic pole-vault accident.  So in some ways that provides a lot of perspective for my report to say nothing of the win/loss records that we have had this year.

 

You have the data in front of you.  As Jim Rambeau suggested, I would be happy to answer any questions about that.  I do want to give a brief report on another matter, but will certainly entertain any questions about the numbers that you see here.  I do not regard the numbers as surprising or out of order in any way.  With regard to graduation rates, we are at 75 percent which is in the vicinity of where we have been in the past.  The only thing I would point out is that these do fluctuate, and last year the report showed an over 80 percent graduation rate.  Initial figures are in for next year already and we are probably going to show an 85 percent graduation rate next year.  So these numbers are not static and fit in the same slots year after year.  The third general point about the statistics is again we have good reason for pride and a lot of the academic achievements of our athletes.  One statistic that is not reported in these figures that you have before you is one that caught my eye.  This fall semester we had 21 percent of our student athletes with a 3.5 or better grade point average and that is a good chunk of the folks that are on the field for us.

 

I did want to give a brief report on athletic reform, something that you have read about in the newspapers.  You have seen perhaps, reports from a group called the Knight Commission.  The commission reported about eleven years ago and gave a fairly negative report on commercialism and lack of academic integrity in higher education relative to intercollegiate athletics.  They decided to get together again a year ago and came out with a second report that was much the same as the first one, and essentially reported after ten years that they had a hard time measuring much improvement over that period of the ten years.  That report and a number of other national efforts have spawned reform efforts and I wanted to very briefly report on one today.  It is by the so-called Group of Six—two chancellors or presidents from the six major conferences have met and have come up with five proposals that are in the process of moving forward now.  They look like this.  The six conferences are Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pacific Ten and the Southeastern.  Of course we were included in this.  One area of reform is in the area of continuing eligibility.  This has to do with students who are already matriculated at a university and the bar that we set for their continued eligibility.  Four improvements are recommended in this area and this again, is pending legislation.  This isn’t something that has happened.  More credits would need to be passed toward graduation each year.  A higher grade point average would need to be shown by student athletes as they progress through the system.  Fewer remedial courses would be allowed, and then finally, fifth year scholarship would be recommended for students that are on progress.  The net result of this would be that more students would graduate who come in as student athletes.

 

Second area is initial eligibility.  This has to do with how we let student athletes into institutions and there are two recommendations here.  The first one is over a five year period, incoming freshmen from high school would be required to show 16 core requirements from the 13 that are currently required and the hope here is that incoming freshmen would look more like the regular student body and the gap would be closed between the two groups of students coming in.  The second is that there would be no weakening of the admissions standards now.  That is some athletes who don’t qualify now, would not qualify in the future and would not be eligible at least as freshmen.

 

The third area is an interesting one that has been very controversial and it has to do with how we measure progress and the Group of Six is saying we need a better measurement that does at least two things.  It is fair to institutions in that, it doesn’t penalize us for people who graduate in good standing which the current method does.  The 75 percent graduation rate that you see now for Penn State includes people who left for good reasons, they wanted to major at another school or whatever, and they were not students who were failing in any sense.  The second thing is that these records would be more contemporary so that they would measure students now rather than students who were here four years ago and would give a better indication of how student athletes are doing at the present time.

 

It is linked to number four which is by far the most controversial measure from the Group of Six.  This has to do with holding coaches and our feet to the fire with regard to progress.  And there are speculations on whether this will ever come to pass at least in our lifetime, but it is linked to number three.  Once we have better measurement techniques that are thought to be fair, then we would hold the school to graduation rates or the new terminology, progress rates.  Schools that fail to show good progress with their student athletes would have one of two things happen to them—scholarships would be retracted—a disincentive, or post-season appearances would be eliminated—another disincentive.  You can see why this is very controversial because it would significantly impact on people if this legislation were put into place.

 

The fifth and last recommendation is that there would be some administrative restructuring, specifically that athletic academic support report to the president’s office rather than through the athletic director.  You may know that some difficulties occurred nationally with academic centers that report through athletic departments and they get into various forms of mischief that cause a great deal of embarrassment and difficulty for universities.  At Penn State, for a long time, our academic athletic center has reported through the academic side of the university, so we are already there, but at a number of our sister institutions that is not the case.  So this is the direction of reform that is going to be moving ahead hopefully, in the year ahead and I wanted to bring you up to date on that and I stand now for any questions that you might have.

 

David W. Russell:  Has any thought been given to making freshmen ineligible and allowing them to practice with the team, but not travel so they can get acclimated to college as a way of sorting out people who are serious about getting a degree?

 

R. Scott Kretchmar:  Yes, a great deal of attention has been given to that and that has to do with just a blanket rule of freshmen ineligibility.  Tim Curley, our Athletic Director at Penn State, is in favor of moving in that direction and he thinks that would solve a lot of problems.  The main argument against that I have heard is, that it unfairly penalizes academic all-stars that come in by saying that they cannot compete.  For example, at Penn State a good number of our freshmen that have come in are really highly qualified students and do not really need to sit out that year, but that legislation would keep them from participating, so that is some of the arguments on both sides.  But I think that recommendation is still in play to some extent.

 

William A. Rowe:  The total number of exceptions to the normal progress rule is 44 this past year.  Intuitively, these would be the students at highest risk for having long-term problems.  Is there any thought given to follow up on that particular group?

 

R. Scott Kretchmar:  The number is the 44, the third box down on the report.  Most of you know that Penn State has what is called the 67-00 rule.  So one bar is set for progress by the NCAA, a higher bar is set for progress by the Big Ten and then we at Penn State with our 67-00 rule, which is a Faculty Senate rule, have a third bar that is even higher.  So the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics authorizes me to provide exceptions for people who are marginally out of compliance with 67-00.  So normally these would be people who might be a credit behind normal progress and these students are ahead of what the NCAA requires and ahead of what the Big Ten requires.  So most of these students are not at severe risk in that sense, in fact, they are higher than what the two lower bars require.  If I ever have a more controversial case, say a student who is quite a bit below grade point average or quite a bit below progress, I take it to the committee and the whole committee looks at it to see if an exception should be made or not.

 

Chair Nichols:  Seeing no additional questions, thank you very much Scott, and thank you for your representation at Penn State and it is a very difficult job and Scott does a spectacular job of representing us.  Senate Committee on Research, Report on University Research, Appendix “M”.  It is my understanding that there is no formal report but Dean Pell and Guy Barbato are available to answer questions.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

 

Report on University Research

 

Guy F. Barbato, Chair, Senate Committee on Research

 

Chair Nichols:  Seeing no questions, thank you very much Dean Pell and Chair of the Senate Committee on Research, Guy Barbato.  The Senate Committee on Student Life, Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material, Appendix “O” and Bill Ellis will present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

 

Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material

 

Bill Ellis, Chair, Senate Committee on Student Life

 

Bill Ellis:  In presenting this report to the Senate, I would like to thank Nichola Gutgold who is the primary author of this report and who was unfortunately caught in an ice storm this morning and was unable to attend today.  The jist of it is that there is good news and bad news.  The good news is that better than 99 percent of our students have used the Internet.  Web based servers are popular with students, particularly registration and advising materials available through E-LION and students find the Internet a convenient way of getting information that they know they want.  The bad news is that when students do not know they need certain information, the web is ineffective in raising their consciousness.  Fewer than one in four students have used LIAS, the Penn State Library Information System.  Fewer than one in five are aware of important conduct regulations included in the web-based Student Guide to Policies and Rules.  So if we consider such information is worth knowing, then many sectors of Penn State will need to rethink how to get the word out and give students a reason to know about it and I will stand for questions on this.

 

Chair Nichols:  Questions for Bill?  Seeing none, thank you very much Bill.  We are at Agenda Item K, New Legislative Business.  Is there any new legislative business?

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  When Senator De Jong spoke earlier in the meeting about what the purpose of a particular report was, I was reminded of a feeling that I have had for a long time and that is that this body often requests information without having made explicit to those from whom they are requesting it, why they want it or what they are going to do with it once they have it.  And it seems to me that then to come back and criticize committees for requesting information that we do not know what we want to do with or why we want it in the first place is very unreasonable.  I would suggest that we discontinue that practice and we join the request of committees that when they invest in time, and what often is very arduous and time consuming work, that we have a pretty clear mandate for what is supposed to be accomplished, rather than sitting back and taking pot shots at people in front of the room.  Thank you.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  If I am not mistaken, Dennis, you have already submitted that idea to the Senate Self Study Committee and they are considering it?

 

Dennis S. Gouran:  No, but I will do it now.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The March 26, 2002 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:45 PM.

 

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO MARCH 26, 2002

 

 

Committees and Rules – Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 -

Election to the Senate – Excessive Absences  (Legislative)

 

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

 

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

 

Faculty Affairs – Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23 (Advisory/Consultative)

 

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

 

Committees and Rules Nominating Report – 2002-03 – (Informational)

 

Election Commission – Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03 (Informational)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Research – Report on University Research (Informational)

 

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report – 2002-03 (Informational)

 

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

 

Undergraduate Education – Grade Distribution Report (Informational)

 

 

C O R R E C T E D   C O P Y (page 6)
(Approved by President Graham B. Spanier on April 24, 2002)

 

Senate committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23

 

(Advisory and Consultative)

 

Background:

In September 2000 all then current Senators received a report entitled UniSCOPE 2000: A Multidimensional Model of Scholarship for the 21st Century. It is still available online at http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASPROF/keystone21/uniscope/pdf/Uniscope2000.pdf.

 

UniSCOPE stands for University Scholarship and Criteria for Outreach Performance and Evaluation. A small group of faculty and administrators formed a learning community to engage in a dialogue about “recognizing and documenting outreach scholarship in the University.” They decided to use the University’s promotion and tenure system as a broad guide and “quickly learned that outreach scholarship cannot be examined in isolation…” The group expanded its work to consider the full range of scholarship as presented in the Carnegie Commission (Boyer) report. (UniSCOPE 2000, page viii)

 

Drew Hyman, chair of the UniSCOPE 2000 Learning Community, addressed the full Faculty Senate in January 2001. (Senate Record of January 30, 2000 located on the web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/janrec3.html) The thrust of the report was to present a model that “conceptualizes each of the three mission areas of the University – teaching, research, and service – as a continuum of scholarship. UniSCOPE recognizes that discovery, integration, application, and education are inherent in the three missions and views outreach scholarship as an integral component of each.”

 

One of the recommendations of the UniSCOPE report was to “Revise the promotion and tenure dossier, ‘the Rainbow Dividers’, to reflect expanded lists as suggested in the report.” The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has reviewed the Rainbow Divider sheets pertaining to the three criteria (missions of the University) used to make promotion and tenure decisions, and presents its recommendations for incorporating the UniSCOPE model into these sheets. In addition, it is necessary to change the titles of these three criteria in HR-23 to be consistent with the recommended changes in the Rainbow Dividers.

 

Recommendations:

The Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the following:

1.      Renaming the 3 criteria in Section II of HR-23 to reflect the scholarship inherent in each (The complete HR-23 document can be found on the web at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr23.html), and

2.      Changing each of the Rainbow Dividers as shown below.

 

In every case a strike out is a deletion of the old wording. The recommended change is in bold type.

 

HR-23

 

II. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

 

RELATIONSHIP OF MISSION AND STRUCTURE TO CRITERIA:

 

Promotion and tenure decisions are based on the academic judgments of faculty and academic administrators. The general criteria or principles outlined here must be applied to promotion and tenure decisions in light of a detailed knowledge of the specific goals of an academic program or organizational unit (e.g., department, college, and the University Libraries) and the specific qualities and competencies of the individual. The University's complex organization and multiple missions make these academic judgments vital, since no one set of criteria can apply equally to all faculty members in all programs. Likewise, such diversity within the University entails promotion and tenure arrangements specifically tailored to the mission and organizational structure of its various academic units (e.g., department, college, and University Libraries).

 

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE:

 

Recognizing the University's manifold responsibilities, however, should not diminish the central importance of teaching and scholarly activity, both understood in their broadest sense, in the academic decision-making process. In tenure and promotion decisions, as in other areas of choice, the University best serves itself and society by affirming the primacy of academic excellence in all of its functions.

 

EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS OF EACH UNIT:

 

An important part of the whole tenure and review process for faculty members is that all parties to the process share common expectations and understandings. Since general statements of principles will be broad and inclusive, each academic unit may develop its own specific expectations and standards as the operational basis for tenure and promotion recommendations. Knowledge concerning these expectations and standards should be generally available, especially to newly appointed faculty members.

 

Candidates may include either a narrative statement at the front of the dossier that indicates their sense of their teaching ability and effectiveness scholarship of teaching and learning, research, creative accomplishments and scholarship scholarship of research and creative accomplishments, and service to the University and the public service and the scholarship of service to the University, society, and the profession, or separate statements in the relevant sections of the dossier describing the same items.

 

The review process for tenure and promotion is concerned with the academic and professional merits of particular candidates, judged in reference to all alternative candidates, including prospective faculty members. Tenure and promotion standards, therefore, cannot be fixed and absolute, but will reflect to some extent the varying competitive positions of the University in attracting faculty. Accordingly, evaluations will be influenced by such considerations of relative standing. Likewise, progressively more exacting scrutiny will take place as the faculty member advances in academic rank.

 

CHANGING NEEDS AND PRIORITIES:

 

Although the tenure and promotion process is geared, narrowly and properly, to evaluating individual performance, the changing needs and priorities of the institution may also affect the decision to grant tenure or award promotion. Both equity and the long-range interests of the institution, however, require directing primary attention to University needs and priorities at the time of appointment and careful intermediate and longer range academic personnel planning.

 

GENERAL CRITERIA:

 

The raison d'etre of the University is the discovery, synthesis, transmission, and application of knowledge. In light of these several goals, research and scholarship scholarship of research and creative accomplishments, teaching scholarship of teaching and learning and service service and the scholarship of service are the central criteria for the evaluation of faculty.

 

Promotion and tenure decisions shall be based on these three criteria, which must be applied in light of the mission of the academic unit and the professional responsibilities carried by the faculty member. The criteria have purposely been made general in the expectation of further definition and elaboration by each academic unit.

 

1.Teaching Ability and Effectiveness The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning - ability to convey subject matter to students; demonstrated competence in teaching and capacity for growth and improvement; ability to maintain academic standards, and to stimulate the interests of students in the field; effectiveness of counseling, advising and service to students.

 

2.Research or Creative Accomplishment and Scholarship The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments - competence, usually demonstrated through publication, exhibition, performance, or presentation of scholarly papers, to carry out research or creative work of high quality and scholarly significance and the ability to train students in research methods and practice; evidence of thorough understanding of the field; maintenance of high levels of academic performance; recognized reputation in the subject matter field; evidence of continued professional growth and active contribution to professional organizations.

 

3.Service to the University, the Public, and the Profession Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession - participation in the University, college, departmental, and unit affairs; competence in extending specialized knowledge to the University and to the public.

 

Promotion and tenure decisions shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor is sufficient to warrant promotion to associate professor. In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; however, the burden would be on the committee(s) or administrator(s) who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted.

 

 

 

The Rainbow Dividers

Teaching Ability and Effectiveness The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

·        List of courses taught in resident instruction, each term or semester from ____ to ____, with enrollments in each course

·        List of courses and workshops taught in support of outreach-based instruction including continuing and distance education, international programs, cooperative extension programs, and clinical assignments from ____ to _____.

·        List of advising responsibilities for the period

·        Concise compilation of results of student evaluation from multiple sources documented evaluation of candidate’s programs, activities, and skills in relating to clientele .

·        If student comments from such sources as students evaluations, formal interviews, or exit surveys are reviewed, the findings should be presented by a summary statement that conveys the students’ sense of strengths and weaknesses.

·        Faculty input concerning the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including any statements from colleagues who have visited the candidate’s classroom and evaluated his or her teaching, or who are in good position to evaluate outreach-based instruction or advising

·        Peer review shall consider a range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of materials such as case studies and class assignments, course or teaching portfolios, advising, research collaboration, and graduate student mentoring in the section

·        Any statements from administrators which attest to the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness

·        Other evidence of resident and/or outreach-based teaching and advising effectiveness (e.g., performance of students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits derived by clientele; recipient or teaching awards)

·        Supervision of graduate and undergraduate dissertations, theses, projects, monographs, performances, productions, and exhibitions required for degrees; types of degrees and years granted

·        List of case studies and materials, class materials, course portfolios, and teaching portfolios developed.

·        Membership on graduate degree candidates’ committees

 

Research, Creative Accomplishments, and Scholarship The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments

·        Research and/or scholarly publications

Listed in standard bibliographic form with the earliest most recent date first; citations should include beginning and ending page numbers or total number of pages, where appropriate; for multiple-authored works, the contributions of the candidate should be clearly indicated (e.g., principal author, supervised person who authored the work etc.). These publications should be listed as follows:

1.                  Articles published in refereed journals (include only articles in refereed journals in the section)

2.                  Books

3.                  Parts of books

4.                  Book reviews

5.                  Articles published in nonrefereed journals

6.                  Articles in in-house organs

7.                  Research reports to sponsor

8.                  Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance)

9.                  Manuscripts submitted for publication, with an indication of where submitted and when

10.              Manuscripts in progress

11.              Cooperative extension service bulletins and circulars

·        Creative Accomplishments

Exhibition, installation, production, or publication of original works of architecture, dance, design, electronic media, film, journalism, landscape architecture, literature, music, theatre, and visual art

Performance of original dance, literary, musical, visual arts, or theatrical works or works from traditional and contemporary repertories of the performing arts

·        Papers presented at technical and professional meetings (meeting and paper titles, listed chronologically in standard bibliographic form); indication about whether the candidate was the presenter

·        Record of participation in, and description of, seminars and workshops (short description of activity, with titles, dates, sponsor, etc.); indication of role in seminar or workshop, e.g., student, invited participant etc.

·        Description of outreach or other activities in which there was significant use of candidate’s expertise (consulting, journal editor, reviewer for refereed journals, peer reviewer of grants, speaking engagements, services to government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.)

·        Funded projects, grants, commissions, and contracts (date, title, where submitted, amount):

1 Completed

2 In progress

3 Proposed

·        Other evidence of research or creative accomplishments as appropriate (patents, licenses, new product development new art forms, citation index analysis, etc.)

·        Record of pursuit of advanced degrees and/or further academic studies

·        Record of membership in professional and learned societies

·        Description of new courses and/or programs developed

·        Description of new computer software programs developed

·        Description of new methods of teaching established courses and/or programs

·        List of honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity

·        List of grants and contracts for improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing and administering the grants and contracts

·        Applications of research scholarship in the field including new applications developed and tested; new or enhanced systems and procedures demonstrated or evaluated for government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.

·        Technology transferred or adapted in the field

·        Technical assistance provided

·        Other evidence of impact in society of research scholarship and creative accomplishments

Service to the University, the Public, and the Profession  Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession

 

·        Service to the University

1.  Record of committee work at campus, college, department and University levels

2.  Participation in campus and/or University-wide governance bodies and related activities

3.  Record of administrative support work (college representative etc.)

4.  Record of contributions to the University’s programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity

  1. Assistance to student organizations
  2. RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEPARTMENTAL, COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY FACULTY TO FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAMS

6.  7.  Other

Outreach service Service to Society as a representative to the University (limit the list to those activities that use the candidate’s professional expertise)

1. Participation in community affairs

2. Service to governmental agencies at the international, Federal, state, or and local levels

3. Service to business and industry

4. Service to public and private organizations

5. Service to citizen/client groups.

6. Testifying as an expert witness.

7. Other (e.g., participation in task forces, authorities, meetings, etc. of public, nonprofit, or private organizations based on the faculty member’s expertise, and as part of workload.)

·                              Service to the disciplines and to the profession

1. Organizing conferences, service on conference committees

2. Membership and active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities)

 

Promotion, Tenure, Absences and Leaves Subcommittee

 

Susan M. Abmayr

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

James M. Donovan

Margaret B. Goldman

David J. Green

Andrew B. Romberger, Subcommittee Chair

Robert Secor

Kim C. Steiner

Joan S. Thomson


 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Susan M. Abmayr

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Richard A. Carlson

Lynn A. Carpenter

Roy B. Clariana

Cheng Dong

James M. Donovan

Charles R. Enis

Jacqueline P. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Mary I. Frecker

Margaret B. Goldman, V-Chair

David J. Green

Janis E. Jacobs

W. Larry Kenney

Sallie M. McCorkle

Howard P. Medoff

Katherine C. Pearson

Andrew B. Romberger

Robert Secor

Kim C. Steiner

Mila C. Su

Joan S. Thomson

Vasundara V. Varadan, Chair

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

MARCH 26, 2002 SENATE MEETING

Abmayr, Susan M.
Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard L.
Atwater, Deborah F.
Aydin, Kultegin
Bagby, John W.
Barbato, Guy F.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Bazirjian, Rosann
Berner, R. Thomas
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Bollard, Edward R., Jr.
Bonneau, Robert H.
Book, Patricia A.
Boothby, Thomas E.
Bord, Richard J.
Borhan, Ali
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan T.
Brown, Douglas K.
Browne, Stephen
Brunsden, Victor W.
Burchard, Charles L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carlson, Richard A.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Arthur W.
Casteel, Mark A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Coraor, Lee D.
Cowden, Eric B.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
Dawson, John W.
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
DeJong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
DeVos, Mackenzie L.
Diehl, Renee D.
Donovan, James M.
Eaton, Nancy L.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Egolf, Roger A.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evans, Christine C.
Fisher, Charles R.
Floros, Joanna
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Geiger, Roger L.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Glumac, Thomas E.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gray, Timothy N.
Green, David J.
Greene, Wallace H.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hanes, Madlyn L.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harrison, Terry P.
Harvey, Irene E.
Harwood, John T.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hurson, Ali R.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Karen E.
Jones, Billie J.
Kennedy, Richard R.
Kramer, John H.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lakoski, Joan M.
Li, Luen-Chau
MacDonald, Digby D.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, Wayne K.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Masters, Andrew K.
Maxwell, Kevin R.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McCollum, Gwenn E.
McDonel, James L.
McGregor, Annette K.
Medoff, Howard P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Moore, John W.
Morin, Karen H.
Mueller, Alfred
Myers, Jamie M.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pazdziorko, Nicholas J.
Pearson, Katherine C.
Pell, Eva J.
Pezzuti, Dana R.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Probst, Ronald W.
Pugh, B. Franklin
Pytel, Jean Landa
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ritter, Michael C.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Rowe, William A.
Russell, David W.
Sachs, Howard G.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Staneva, Marieta
Sternad, Dagmar
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, James A.
Su, Mila C.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tikalsky, Paul J.
Tingo, Jennifer
Tormey, Brian B.
Troxell, D. Joshua
Vaccaro, Christian
Wager, J. James
Walker, Joshua D.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Willits, Billie S.
Ziegler, Gregory R.

OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Fisher, Eloise
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
Youtz, Susan C.

 

145  Total Elected
    4  Total Ex Officio
  12  Total Appointed
161  Total Attending

 

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 23, 2002

 

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees (Legislative)

 

Senate Council - Tuition Task Force, Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University (Informational)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Time to Graduation Report (Informational)

 

Senate Council - Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on the Penn State Calendar (Informational)

 

Senate Self Study Committee - Interim Report (Informational)

 

University Planning - Construction Projects – 2001-02 (Informational)

 

Report of Senate Elections

 

Senate Council

Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

Senate Secretary for 2002-03

Senate Chair-Elect for 2002-03

 

Comments by Outgoing Chair Nichols

 

            Installation of Officers

 

Comments by Incoming Chair Moore