Penn State University Home  

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

Volume 34-----MARCH 27, 2001-----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 2000-01.

 

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.

 

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

   I.  Final Agenda for March 27, 2001

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to March 27, 2001

B.    Attached

Door Handout – Faculty Benefits Committee –

Adoption Benefits

           Door Handout – Curricular Affairs Committee –

           Status of Re-certification for General Education

           Door Handout – Joint Committee on Insurance

           and Benefits – Annual Report – 1999-2000

           Door Handout – Research Committee – Report

           on Graduate Education

           Attendance

III.  Tentative Agenda for April 24, 2001

FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 27, 2001

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –

      Minutes of the February 27, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:5

 

B.   COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                                                                              (Blue Sheets) of March 13, 2001

 

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 13, 2001

 

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

 

(H). LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

      Senate Council

            Resolutions on Free Speech

 

E.   COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS –

 

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student AiD

 

Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement

 

      Faculty Benefits

 

Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries

 

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

      Faculty Affairs

 

Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments

 

      Faculty Affairs

 

            Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure

            Procedures and Regulations

 

      Faculty Benefits

 

            Adoption Benefits

 

      Student Life

 

            Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures

 

J.       INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

 

      Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002

 

            Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

            Standing Joint Committee on Tenure

            University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

 

      Curricular Affairs

 

            Status of Re-certification Process for General Education

 

Elections Commission

 

      Roster of Senators for 2001-2002

 

Faculty Affairs

 

      Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000

 

Faculty Benefits

 

      Penn State Travel Program

 

Intercollegiate Athletics

 

      Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001

 

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

 

      Annual Report – 1999-2000

 

Research

 

      Graduate School Update – Annual Report, Eva Pell, Vice President

      of Research/Dean of the Graduate School

 

Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002

 

      Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary, Faculty Advisory

      Committee to the President

 

Senate Council

 

      Commission for Women – 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State

       

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:

 

Senate Council - "Resolutions on Free Speech.”  This report consisted of two resolutions.  The first was the Senate stance supporting the fundamental principles of free speech; and the second, commending President Spanier for his reasoned defense of free speech.   (See Record, page(s) 4-7 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement.”  This report changes the admission requirement for foreign/second language so that students shall receive credit for taking a course making up for this admission requirement.  (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

 

Faculty Benefits – “Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries.”  This report was presented to standardize the format, detail and focus for future faculty salary reports.  (See Record, page(s) 11-17 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

 

The Senate passed three Advisory/Consultative Reports:

 

Faculty Affairs – “Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments.”  This report proposes a policy that acknowledges that faculty members are entitled to receive royalties on certain kinds of course materials.   (See Record, page(s) 17 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

 

Faculty Benefits – “Adoption Benefits.”  This report recommends adoption assistance benefits in the form of reimbursement for incurred costs and paid parental leave.  (See Record, page(s) 17-26, Door Handout Record Appendix II and Agenda Appendix “H.”)

 

Student Life – “Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.”  This report recommends six steps to clarify disciplinary procedures at Penn State.  (See Record, page(s) 27 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)

 

The Senate heard ten Informational Reports:

 

Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities; Standing Joint Committee on Tenure; University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.” This document lists the candidates for the Senate general election for the committees listed in the title of this report. (See Record, page(s) 27-29    and Agenda Appendix "J.")

 

Curricular Affairs – “Status of Re-certification Process for General Education.”  This report summarizes the college plans as submitted and shows how well the colleges have succeeded in meeting their goals.  (See Record, page(s) 29-30, Door Handout Record Appendix III and Agenda Appendix "K.")

 

Elections Commission – “Roster of Senators for 2001-2002.”  The report lists the members of the 2001-02 Senate. (See Record, page(s) 30 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

 

Faculty Affairs – “Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000.  This report summarizes the promotion and tenure decisions made in the academic year of 1999-2000.  (See Record, page(s) 30-35 and Agenda Appendix "M.")

 

Faculty Benefits – “Penn State Travel Program.”  This report provides an update of the status of the travel program at the institution.   (See Record, page(s) 35-40 and Agenda Appendix "N.")

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001.”  This report focuses on the NCAA eligibility numbers as reported each year to the Senate.  (See Record, page(s) 40-41 and Agenda Appendix “O.”)

 

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits – “Annual Report – 1999-2000.”  This is the mandated yearly report updating the University community on the work of this committee.  (See Record, page(s) 41-44, Door Handout Record Appendix IV and Agenda Appendix “P.”)

 

Research – “Graduate School Update – Annual Report.”  This report highlights the major trends in graduate enrollment, the diversity efforts, the technology efforts, and the funding programs of the Graduate School.  (See Record, page(s) 45-51, Door Handout Record Appendix V and Agenda Appendix “Q.”)

 

Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – “Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.”  This report lists the candidates for the positions and committee listed in the title.  (See Record, page(s) 51-52   and Agenda Appendix “R.”)

 

Senate Council – “Commission for Women – 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State.”  This report offers an overview of the status of woman at the University over a 20-year span.   (See Record, page(s) 52-56 and Agenda Appendix “S.”)

 

One Advisory/Consultative report was defeated by the Senate:

 

Faculty Affairs – “Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations.”  This report makes recommendation to include quality indicators in the assessment of faculty publications and creative activities.  (See Record, page(s) 17-26 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and sixty-two Senators signed the roster.

 

Chair Schengrund:  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 27, 2001 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and 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 Schengrund:  Opposed?  The minutes are accepted.  Thank you.

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for March 13, 2001.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

 

Note that the Senate Calendar for 2001-2002 is appended to your Agenda as Appendix “B”.  These dates are also listed on the Senate’s web page.  So if you are returning to the Senate for next year, you might want to mark those dates on your calendar now, so you have no excuse not to be able to attend.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of March 13, 2001.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Schengrund:  The Faculty Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, March 13, 2001.  Please refer to the Senate Council minutes of March 13 appended to your Agenda for the topics discussed at our last FAC meeting.

 

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 2001.  If anyone wishes to place an item on the FAC agenda, please contact one of the Senate Officers, or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Peter Rebane or Gordon De Jong.

 

The February forensic session at which the proposed courseware policy was discussed has resulted in the joint committee making some changes to the document.  The new version of that document will go to Senate Council in April, and in all likelihood will come to the Senate for its April 24, 2001 meeting.  I’m telling you this now because you might want to go to the web site to look at this document, because some of you may have your caucuses meet between now and Senate Council, while other units may meet between Senate Council and Senate.  And the web site at which you can find this is

http://gfb.cas.psu.edu/scor/scor.htm.  Now if you didn’t get that, I could repeat it, but you might be wise just to go online when the Senate Record is posted, and it will be there.  Also each person that serves as a Senate Council Representative received a hard copy of that document at the last Senate Council meeting.  It was just made available that day and since people hadn’t had a chance to look at it we postponed it until April.

 

Several memos were received from the president regarding implementation of reports passed by the Senate at its meeting of January 30, 2001.  Please refer to the Senate Council minutes of March 13, 2001 (appended to your Senate Agenda) for the details of these memos, and for additional announcements made at Senate Council on March 13, 2001.

 

An administrative/faculty committee has been appointed to look at the calendar, and will be charged at the beginning of April.  James Smith, from Abington College is chairing that committee and other faculty members include:  Jane Sutton, Penn State York; Anthony Baratta, Engineering; and George Bugyi, Senate Office and the College of Health and Human Development.  If you have any concerns regarding the calendar, please feel free to contact one of these individuals.  Since they will be carrying out their work over the summer, my recommendation is that if you have a problem with the way the calendar is set up now, or a concern, or if you’re happy with something, they always like good news.  Contact them now before the end of the spring semester, so that they have that information to work with during the summer.

 

With regards to the coalition of students that your officers have been meeting with, they are working out details of their proposal, for a diversity component during orientation, and they are continuing to look at the diversity plans of the different colleges.  I think that I can speak for John Nichols, John Moore as well as myself, when I say that we have learned a lot from the students.  And I think they have also learned a lot from the work that they have put into this.  It’s also an issue…or there are issues that we expect we will continue to address, well past the end of the current academic year.

 

Recently, many of the good things done by students throughout the university, such as THON, and the volunteer work students did during spring break, and the graduate student research forum that was held this weekend, have been overshadowed by such things as the incident during the governor’s conference, hate mail, and most recently the riot in State College.  Today I have the privilege of introducing a student who should make all of us aware of why we entered the education profession.  Zachary J. Battles, a 21-year-old State High School graduate and current Penn State senior, is one of 32 students from the country this year to be a Rhodes Scholar.  He is only the second Penn State student to achieve this honor, and as I recall he is the second student from his high school to achieve this honor.  He accomplished this through an admirable combination of intellectual curiosity and I was told, pure spunk.  In May he will graduate with two bachelors degrees—one in computer science and in math.  He will also receive a masters in computer science and will have a minor in French, and he will have done this within a four year time span, and with an almost perfect GPA.  He plans to move to London next year, and to study numerical analysis at Oxford University.  And he indicated that one of the first things he plans to do when he is there, is to take a course in theater.  What I like in his philosophy is that he doesn’t want to devote his entire life to the study of one thing, I think that’s great.  I think we can all draw some inspiration from Zachary, not just because of his obvious intellectual abilities, but for his zest for life, and his willingness to work hard each day against obstacles that many of us, most of us I think, would find daunting.  So Zachary, would you like to say a few words, we’d like to hear from you.

 

Senators:  Standing ovation.

 

Zachary J. Battles, Rhodes Scholar:  Thank you for such a warm welcome.  It’s really exciting to be here and to be supported by so many people.  And if there is one thing that I’ve learned in my lifetime, and it is that one’s life isn’t built upon accomplishments but it’s built upon others investments in you.  And I’ve learned that along the way, during my lifetime and as a Rhodes Scholar, and of course I’ve known this before, but more so now as a Rhodes Scholar.  I know that I need to continue to pass on what’s been invested in me and to invest in others.  The Rhodes Scholarship was not a single handed effort on my part.  It was a lifetime of investment of other people willing to give me a chance, and encouraging me to pursue what I’ve always wanted to do.  Now as a Rhodes Scholar, I have the obligation and responsibility to continue to pass on what has been invested in me to others.  I’ve already started by for example, spending time in Costa Rica exchanging ideas with disabled Costa Ricans, so that we can better understand each other and their condition can improve in that country.  I’ve also spent time in the Ukraine teaching English; helping the Ukrainians who suffer from economic difficulties, gain a foothold in today’s world as English is becoming more and more important.  And now as I look to the future, I not only have a chance to study at Oxford under a Rhodes Scholarship, but I have the chance to interact with many different people who come to such a diverse university and intellectual environment.  Of course I will be spending most of my time studying numerical analysis, but there are many other things that I’d like to do in England as well.  I’d like to travel Europe, and continue work with the disabled communities in that continent and I’d also like to enjoy myself, I suppose in a little lighter note, and to learn how to play a few card games like Bridge, and really find out what the English do for fun.  In light of all of this, I’m excited to be taking the next step, and I look forward to knowing where my future and anticipating what steps will follow after my stay at Oxford.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Thank you for coming.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Schengrund:  I think now you know why we wanted to have Zach come and talk to us today.  Thank you very much.  At Senate Council there was a vote to adjust the Agenda, so that we have a legislative report coming prior to Comments By The President Of The University.  These are listed as Resolutions on Free Speech, in Appendix “C” and John Nichols will present these resolutions.

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COUNCIL

Resolutions on Free Speech

 

John S. Nichols, College of Communications:  Chair Schengrund, Senate colleagues, the silver lining of recent troubling events is that it has forced us to refocus our attention on the core principle of free speech.  The free exchange of ideas and opinions is not just a nicety, rather it’s indispensable to the educational mission of the university.  Students cannot learn, scholars cannot discover without the intellectual process of comparing truth with falsehood.  Comparing good ideas with bad ideas, an enlightened perspective with an unenlightened one.  If new alternative, and sometimes troubling ideas are not constantly explored and debated, the university is merely in the business of indoctrination rather than learning.  Reaffirming our commitment to free speech is the primary purpose of the first resolution before you, however it also acknowledges the potential for abuse of the right of free expression but the antidote for bad speech is more good speech.  In other words, the solution to bad speech is education not regulation.  The intent of the second resolution is to applaud President Spanier who during our last Senate meeting was in a less welcoming place defending free speech at Penn State under difficult circumstances.  The Bylaws do not require the full Senate to endorse the resolutions passed by Senate Council, Council has the authority to speak for the body and the faculty at large under these circumstances but Council felt that even if redundant the full Senate should have the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to free and responsible speech and to commend the president for his efforts to defend that principle.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any questions?  As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.

 

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture:  We have absolutely no comments on the second resolution.  On the first resolution the wording in the College of Arts and Architecture has us somewhat concerned in the way that its been laid out.  Is there opportunity for substitution at this point?

 

Chair Schengrund:  No, at this point these are presented to be affirmed or not affirmed as written.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  So is there a point in discussion?

 

Chair Schengrund:  Well the only thing was if you had any questions regarding it you could make your comments known and they would be in the Senate Record and might serve as guidance to people regarding issues of free speech.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  Then I just might say this about that.  Most of us in the College of Arts and Architecture really understand that intolerant and uncivil behavior is not something to be desired, however some of the stuff that we do in the College of Arts and Architecture can be considered offensive either on stage, or in art, or in a ceramic, or in a sculpture for that matter.  The third part of the first resolve is not worded in such a way that it is clear to us in the College of Arts and Architecture as to when something is offensive, and what the necessary antidote might be.  What we do is sometimes not…it might be considered offensive, to conventional ways of thinking.  We wanted to make that point, and I make it now.

 

John S. Nichols:  Travis I want to be…first of all, I suspect that you, and most everybody else in the room have had the experience of writing by committee, and what you see is draft 42 or 43 I suppose—that’s an exaggeration.  It’s a difficult process to write something, particularly when you’re talking about core principles, but I want to make it abundantly clear, that the intent of the first resolution is that if there is abuse of free speech, the solution is more free speech.  As I said, the solution is education, not regulation.  If some person feels that a particular message is offensive, or intolerant, or uncivil, the solution is counter speech.  To say why he or she thinks that that is the case.  The solution to bad speech, is more free speech.  Does that alleviate your concerns?

 

Brian A. Curran, College of Arts and Architecture:  Just to pursue the point of ‘bad speech or what’.  In our discussion, the issue of hate mail, and harassment, and other things came up as evident examples of very bad speech.  Actually, when I first read this, language is not what I got from it, but rather a much more misconception of what might be considered bad speech.  I guess I’m trying to get a sense of what bad speech would constitute?  This could be a very subjective thing.  It could apply to almost any speech it seems.  I guess I was wondering how are we to understand the conception of or Senate Councils conception of bad speech?

 

John S. Nichols:  Implicit throughout the document, and the core of free speech theory is that what is bad, and what is good, is determined through the intellectual process of you comparing it to contrasting good idea with a bad idea and good speech with bad speech.  You determine that.  But if we’re in the business of…even if some authority such as the government could with perfection sensor out all the bad ideas, all the untruths, then still you hold truth only by bias and preconception, as opposed to going through the individual intellectual process of comparing good and bad, and determining for yourself which is which.

 

Rebecca L. Corwin, College of Health and Human Development:  John, I wonder if you could just, and maybe you just did, clarify too what you meant in the second, whereas and the third resolve and the use of responsibility in the exercise of freedom of speech, in an academic institution that we need to responsibly exercise our right to free speech.  I had concerns that this, as I mentioned earlier, that this might be interpreted by some as you’ve got to be nice about it, and I don’t think that was the intent that Senate Council had.  If you could clarify the responsibility angle a little bit?

 

John S. Nichols:  I don’t know what more I could say.  The famous Mark Twain quote, he sarcastically contended that there’s three unspeakably precious things that we have in America--freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the good sense not to exercise either one of them.  His point clearly was that we have these rights, but people can use those rights to hurt other people, and it’s not a good thing to do.  But again, I go back to, yes people should exercise their rights responsibly, but when they don’t, the solution is not for censorship or government regulation.  The solution is more speech.

 

Rebecca L. Corwin:  All right, so Senate Council is not advocating don’t go out and hurt anybody’s feelings.  Council is saying if your feelings are hurt, your response should be more speech?

 

John S. Nichols:  I hate to speak for Senate Council, but I think that probably is a fair statement.

 

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine:  I’d like to comment that PCN network ran numerous replays of Dr. Spanier’s torment by the legislature, and I think everyone here should wholeheartedly support resolution number two.  I do want to point out that resolution number one, perhaps the Senate leadership should be prepared for questions from the press.  The first resolution could be construed as being in direct contradiction to the widely known booing policy, that was passed by this Senate a couple of months ago.

 

John S. Nichols:  To refresh the Senate’s memory, not withstanding media coverage, the Senate did not legislate against booing, and certainly did not threaten to take away tickets or incarcerate people that did boo, as was reported in some media.  To refresh the Senate’s memory, the Senate endorsed an existing statement read at the stadium to give a warm welcome to the opposing team.  I think it would be very difficult if anybody goes back to the Record to confuse the two.

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  I don’t think it was the intent of anyone on Senate Council to pass the resolution to try to specify what would constitute “bad” speech.  I think we made it very clear that the intent behind this legislation is to honor people’s rights to say what, within legally permissible limits, they wish to say.  And if those who are offended by that wish to respond, the appropriate response is not censorship or prevention of the exercise of free speech, rather it is as you were suggesting coming up with better speech.  The ideas seems to…or bad ideas or better ideas rather than trying to keep ideas out of the marketplace, however offensive and unenlightened they may be.

 

John S. Nichols:  I guess it takes a Speech Communication Professor to make it clear what I could not.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other comments?  Seeing none, all those in favor of the first resolution, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried.  I’m assuming we discussed both resolutions together, so I will just call the question on the second one unless anyone objects.  All those in favor of the second resolution, please signify by saying, “aye.”

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried, and I want to thank John Nichols for the time he put into this, and John Moore for his wordsmithing and their collaborators.  Thank you very much.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Schengrund:  At this point, I’d like to ask Dr. Spanier for his comments. 

 

Senators:  Standing ovation.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Well that concludes my report.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate the resolutions, and your gesture very, very much.  Well, I guess I’ll start with my appropriation hearing.  Thank goodness it’s over.  I had hoped very much to be back here in time to catch the end of the last Senate meeting, the discussion that you had on intellectual property issues and other agenda items.  But as some of you know from watching it, the appropriations hearing ended up going four hours, instead of the 90 minutes that was scheduled, so I was not able to get back here that afternoon after all.  In the end we’re hopeful that the appropriations hearing itself does not have a strong connection to Penn State’s appropriation.  Unfortunately, with all of our efforts to focus on Penn State’s great needs and accomplishments, we did not have sufficient time to be able to do that.  Just to remind you of where we stand at the moment, what is currently on the table is the governors’ proposal for the university, which nets out to a recommendation of an increase of .062 percent for Penn State.  This is based on the removal of $7 million of funding from our budget, which we had anticipated would be rolled into our base and continued.  Two million dollars of that is at Penn College, and $5 million of that was for programs and initiatives at Penn State.  That money has been backed out of our budget, and then a three percent increase was proposed on certain parts of the base budget that remained.  Completely separate was the $4.5 million for the School of Information Sciences and Technology, which once again has been identified as a separate line item, not a part of the base budget, and with no inflationary increase.  We had asked for 4.25 percent increase to deal with inflation, faculty salary increases, employee benefits, utilities increase, deferred maintenance, and other routine issues, and commitments that we have at the university.  We had asked for all of those elements, I just referred to, to be folded into our base, and then for additional funding in special initiatives for the College of Medicine, Information Sciences and Technology and environmental compliance.  There were no funds identified for any of those initiatives.  So we are in a position now working very, very hard in the legislature to try and get the cut from our budget restored, to try to get the three percent moved up to 4.25 percent.  Even under that scenario, you may recall that we had proposed a fairly steep tuition increase by Penn State standards, and we’re very concerned right now that if we don’t receive an increase at least approaching what we asked for, that the tuition increase could be even higher.  Which would be very unfortunate, especially in a year when we’ve also had to increase room and board rates principally because of the need to sprinkle the residence halls over a period of years.  That is a $50 million budget item, and we have no option there other than to raise the room and board rates, since that part of our budget is done on a completely self-support basis.  So we are very busy in Harrisburg right now, working on our appropriations.  It is at this point in the hands of the legislature, particularly a number of legislative leaders, and in addition we are down there working on doing our best to receive a fair share of the tobacco settlement funding for Pennsylvania to come to the university for research and prevention activities.  So that is a bit of an update on our appropriation situation, and again I do want to thank many of you who sent me email messages following my house appropriations hearing, in particular with your expressions of support, and I deeply appreciate both of the resolutions that were passed here by Senate Council, and then at the Senate again this afternoon. 

 

I want to share with you a statement that I wrote on Sunday following the post-game riot.  It says, the Penn State Alma Mater contains the words “may no act of ours bring shame”.  But once again, we have most unfortunately experienced a disturbance that damages the reputation of the university, and the community that surrounds us.  Although most students celebrated our exemplary basketball season responsibly, there seemed to be no purpose celebratory or otherwise, for the post-game riot which police and observers report was clearly fueled by alcohol.  Such behaviors are not acceptable in a civil society, and I deeply regret that so many members of the Penn State family would ignore lawful orders to disperse and jeopardize the safety of fellow students and community residents.  I commend State College Chief of Police Tom King, and the dozens of other officers who put themselves in harms way, to restore order quickly in an environment of rapidly deteriorating public safety.  Penn State does not condone riotous behavior.  Students who have been charged with criminal offenses will face disciplinary proceedings within the university’s judicial affairs system, in addition to adjudication through the criminal justice system.  The university will continue to work cooperatively with the borough of State College, apartment owners and students to prevent such disturbances in the future.  Any suggestions that any of you would have would be greatly welcomed.  We are at the point of welcoming all good ideas of how we can deal with such situations.

 

I’m very pleased with the recent appointment and beginning of her work at the Berks-Lehigh Valley campus Susan Speece, the Dean of the Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley College, and with the Board of Trustees approval of Diane Disney as Dean of the Commonwealth College, we now have I think for the first time in quite a while, a full complement of more or less permanent deans at the university.  No interim or acting deans, and no searches under way at the moment.  We’re very pleased with the overall quality of the leadership that we’ve been able to attract to our principle academic leadership positions at the university.

 

I want to conclude my remarks before I open it up for your questions and comments with my thanks to several of the Senate Officers, who have been meeting regularly with members of the Black Caucus to continue discussions about concerns that they have that arose in previous meetings with members of the Senate leadership and me and others in the university community.  So thanks to all of you who are involved in that.  I’d be happy to take your questions and comments.

 

Peter B. Everett, Smeal College of Business Administration:  My comment might be a little off the wall but let me get it on the table here.  There’s a pretty good history in architecture of how environmental design can stimulate different kinds of behavior.  A good literature on different kinds of buildings stimulate crime, or suppress crime, different kinds of public housing stimulates or suppresses drug abuse, and so forth.  If I were to comment it might be this, maybe we ought to think about the redesign of Beaver Canyon.  I don’t know how 12 story buildings got built when we have a 85 foot height limit in downtown State College?  And I don’t know how these buildings got built that big that don’t have any set back from the street?  And I don’t know how a 12 story building for young people could be built with balconies?  And so maybe we ought to consider redesigning Beaver Canyon.  Thank you.

 

President Spanier:  Well, thank you Peter.  I don’t know how it happened either.  There’s no question that the architecture and environment of the area does contribute to the problem.  I received many communications from individuals making that same observation.  I’m not sure what we can do about it now, but discussions are underway and the architecture and the ambiance let’s call it, of that area are one of the variables that’s being looked at.

 

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington:  This is partly in light of the recent resolutions that we passed.  The University Faculty Senate, and the administration have addressed for years the impact of factors that might result in a chilly climate in the classroom.  The editorial in today’s Collegian points out the potential chilling effect of recent administrative guidelines related to the approval of the Safer Sex Cabaret.  A related concern would be how those guidelines might signal that events never planned as part of the event had been under consideration by the planners.  In that context what would you outline as ways in which the university administration will sustain the dialogue about free speech?

 

President Spanier:  I think that there’s been a very happy ending to the planning of that particular event.  We always have to walk a delicate line between the concerns of members of the community, and never waiver from our support of free speech.  I think the reason there’s a happy ending in the planning of that event is because here was an example where some students planned an event perhaps without thinking of how it was being described, or the way it was being communicated, and how it might be perceived by others.  And we then follow the procedure of asking our Student Affairs and Educational Equity staff to sit down with the students and talk about what was happening, and trying to educate them about the sensitivities of certain members of the community.  And fortunately they were very responsive to those concerns, and the students themselves sent us a letter assuring us that the event was planned to have certain characteristics and then the appropriate staff member in Student Affairs said well that’s great, by all means go ahead and have the event and we’ll assign a room.  That is, we hope, an ideal way for some of these issues to be resolved through dialogue between Student Affairs staff, and student organizations as they’re planning events and taking into account sensitivities that might exist in the community.  Where this will become difficult of course, is in circumstances where students really don’t care what the community thinks or what a particular individual thinks, and they’re going to plan an event that they want to plan exercising their free speech rights no matter what the reaction might be.  I hope we don’t see too much of that, because that puts all of us in the university community in a very difficult situation.  In a Faculty Senate like this I think we’re so used to dealing with free speech issues.  We understand it a little better and we don’t worry about it quite as much as the citizen or the parent or the alum who might be much, much further away, and they’re really not interested in many cases hearing what we consider to be the nuances of first amendment law.  So we hope that through just better dialogue and open communication between our staff in Student Affairs and student groups who are planning events that we can do this in a way that works for everybody.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other questions?  If not, thank you very much.

 

President Spanier:  Thank you, again.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

Chair Schengrund:  There is no forensic business, and there’s no unfinished business so we’ll move on to the legislative reports, and the first one is from the Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid.  It deals with Revision of Appendix C:  Policies and Rules for Students, Re:  Foreign Language Admission Requirement, and JoAnn Chirico will present that report and it’s in Appendix “D”.

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Revision of Appendix C:  Policies and Rules for Students Re:  Foreign Language Admission Requirement

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus:  In December, the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid received a request from Dean Filippelli in Liberal Arts, on behalf of the foreign language department heads and the foreign language faculty for a change in the foreign language admission requirement that Senate had passed in 1996.  The only change that we are proposing in the policy is to allow baccalaureate credit when a student takes the “001” level foreign language course to complete that requirement.  The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid supports Dean Filippelli and the faculty in foreign language in that request and we’re bringing forth this legislative proposal.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there questions for JoAnn?  Seeing none I’ll call the question, all those in favor of the proposed change, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?

 

Senator:  Nay.

 

Chair Schengrund:  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried.  Thank you very much.  Our next report is from the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits.  It’s Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries.  It can be found in Appendix “E” and Leonard Berkowitz will introduce Jacob De Rooy.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

 

Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus:  Almost five years ago, the Senate leadership appointed a joint subcommittee of the Senate Committee on University Planning and the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits to look at the way we report faculty salaries to the Senate.  That joint subcommittee was chaired by Jacob De Rooy.  This year that joint subcommittee evolved into a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits to finalize its report.  What you have in front of you is the sixth major iteration of the initial draft.  There have been many substantive discussions, and many substantive changes in drafts this year.  You might get a feel for those discussions we had on market and justice in particular, if you consider the fact that the chair of the subcommittee is an economist, and the chair of the committee is a philosopher.  I do want to take this opportunity to commend Jacob De Rooy for his perseverance, hard work, and flexibility in developing the report.  Jake is here to introduce the report itself and answer any questions about it.

 

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg:  The recommendations that you see in front of you really center around a couple of very simple principles.  First we have had 20 years of history of salary reports being presented to the Senate.  This legislation is designed to make the formats of those more uniform so that they’re more easily comparable from period to period, and also to emphasize our appreciation of the fact that we receive both internal and external salary reports.  Too often we feel the emphasis has been on comparing salaries at Penn State with those outside of Penn State, so that we can retain excellent faculty and recruit excellent faculty.  We wish to highlight the fact that internally, salaries are important in motivating the behaviors of those who are not active in an external job market.  With that, let me present the 10 recommendations you see in front of you.  We’re going to ask that we vote on them as a unit of 10.  The only legislation that we’re actually voting on is that in bold face, the bold faced recommendations.  The text that is in regular unbolded face underneath is explanatory and gives information about the way in which these recommendations might be implemented.  What we are basically asking you to vote on as a group is the bold faced recommendations.  With that, we will entertain any questions.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  This is not a new comment to the speaker.  But I would direct the attention of my Faculty Senate colleagues to page 13.  And on page 13 I would further direct your attention to Footnote 22.  The only justification for not reporting average salary by rank is if there are 4 or fewer incumbents in that rank.  So this report suggests that by college or by unit and by rank faculty salaries be reported if there are 4, down to 4 or more.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Five…

 

Gordon F. De Jong:  It says four…

 

Chair Schengrund:  Four or fewer, so it would have to be five…

 

Gordon F. De Jong:  Five or more they will report a mean, a median and in a report range which is on the previous page, if you’re not statistically inclined give 25 percent and 75 percent figures for that.  Well as a professional demographer, and I can tell you that statistical series nationwide or in most organizations, would never report the use of that few if you were interested in confidentiality.  Ten would be an absolute kind of minimum.  So if you vote for this, and this recommendation is approved, then if you’re in a cohort of five professors or five assistant professors, people will know for that unit the mean, the median, the 25 percent and the 75 percent range.  The degrees of freedom get very small with those perimeters known.

 

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts:  I would like to support Gordon’s comment especially because on page 4 the Footnote there says, “statistics can be reported only for a group of 4 or more faculty members”.  It is unclear, is it four as on page four or five as on the page Gordon mentioned.  But my main concern that whatever we vote on not include that level of detail at the bottom of the page, because I don’t think that that’s particularly sound.  You said that all we’re voting on is the bold faced materials, and I just want to reemphasize that much of the other material in the report could use some rethinking.

 

Jacob De Rooy:  The practice of suppressing individual data on groups of four or fewer individuals has been well established in past reports received by this Senate.  I should also mention that this four or fewer is a standard used by many government agencies, including the census bureau in revealing or releasing information.  In order to guess individual salaries of a group of five people, knowing the mean and the standard deviation, and maybe even knowing something about the first three moments of the distribution.  I’m still unclear as to whether or not you can make reliable guesses about all of the individual salaries, without making some heroic assumptions regarding what the distribution of salaries are within the unit.  I would invite a statistician to comment on this, but it would seem to me that there would still be a preservation of confidentiality.

 

Henry O. Patterson, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  For recommendation number two on page four, there’s no explanation of why Penn College of Technology was excluded from this.  I just wanted to know the reason for that?

 

Jacob De Rooy:  I think it’s because that their salary structure is determined quite differently.  I’ll ask if Billie could comment on that?  Would you like to supplement, Dr. Willits?

 

Billie Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources:  The university database that we use to draw this data does not include that kind of salary information from Penn College.

 

Jacob De Rooy:  Thank you.

 

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  Jake, are the requirements that this report places on the reporting realistic?  Are we able to obtain that type of information from our sister institutions?

 

Jacob De Rooy:  With respect to the use of external data, first of all recognize that we are proposing a series of two biannual reports.  That every two years the Senate would receive as it has in the past, a report comparing salaries within the university for different units within the university we might call that internal comparisons.  And that on alternate years we would just compare university-wide average figures for Penn State with those university-wide figures for comparable institutions—peer groups.  I’m not certain which external comparison you’re referring to, although there is some external comparison in both reports.  Obviously, the comparison of Penn State with its peer institutions is an external report.  Within the internal report however, we have one item suggested in the recommendations that is unique with respect to past reports.  And that is since we have recognized that differences between individual unit salaries are depended upon not only the distribution of rank, but also the discipline itself, we thought that perhaps the interpretation of the internal averages between one college and another would be more enlightened if in fact we accompanied that with external information showing nationwide trends or averages with respect to discipline.  For example, you will receive an internal report salaries of let’s say the Smeal College of Business Administration.  In the same report you will get salaries of other colleges, and I don’t mean to pick on anyone, let’s just say the College of Education.  And people will say why aren’t the salaries for a full professor in the College of Education equal to that of the full professors in the Smeal College of Business Administration.  One possible explanation you might have for that is that on a nationwide basis the average salaries for business professors are different than those of education professors.  So we thought that perhaps that external information as a possible reference might enlighten the discussion of the content.

 

Peter Deines:  Jake, that’s exactly my point.  I think we can put something on the books that is very detailed and sophisticated, however we also need to accumulate the data in order to make the report.  Are we capable of obtaining this information in a routine way, in the detail that you’re describing what good is it to have this information if we in the end cannot produce a report that’s calling for these standards, because if we do adopt these standards, we will not have a report coming forward to the Senate unless it meets those standards.  So I think I would feel better about this report if there would be some indication that the committee has looked at, whether we have mechanisms in place to accumulate the data that’s required for the report, and that someone who would be responsible could stand up here now and say yes, we can do this.  I would feel better about this report.

 

Jacob De Rooy:  The only response I give at this point is that we know that there have been some published information for example, through the Chronicle of Higher Education, in their annual survey of salaries on some discipline specific salaries.  Whether or not we can get as many different discipline specific averages as we would like, that is something we’re going to have to leave to the number crunchers available for institutional research in the university.  I can’t guarantee you we’re going to be able to give you the degree of detail, or the variety of external data that you would like, but we can certainly work in that direction.  We do know that we can get some, perhaps not all of the comparisons we would like to make.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  I’d like to congratulate you Jake and your committee, for the many years that it took to get this together.  I’d just like to reflect a minute about the salary reports, and suggest that they only serve us as faculty.  They do not serve the administration, because the administration has access to all the exact numbers.  When a department head wants to award salary increases, the department head has access to the exact salaries.  Faculty has access to this kind of rough guide in terms of, “wow, here this might be where I stand” and now I can go to my faculty chair and say, “hey, I’m down here and this is below the average I’ve been here so many years why can’t I make more?”  But I’m not sure the department head listens to us anyway.  So perhaps the best solution…impartial solution to getting out for us as accurate information as possible is to open up salaries at Penn State, which I’m not sure what the administration would say about that.  There may be some sentiment among faculty but probably not even a majority there.

 

Dennis S. Gouran:  If I could pick up on that theme that Jamie just struck.  It’s not altogether clear to me what’s supposed to happen as a result of passage of these resolutions.  It strikes me as a bit unusual to legislate the form of a report.  There must be a larger intent behind the legislative action of purposes which all of us could infer, but it might be better to hear articulated.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Do you want to address that Jake or should Len?

 

Jacob De Rooy:  It’s a little bit broad for me to respond to.  I thought the justifications for each recommendation were clearly given in these recommendations.  Basically, we would like to share with the faculty as much information as is reasonable regarding two markets in which each of us are involved.  We are involved in a labor market for our services.  Most of us as a matter of fact, the only income we have to show, is the income we get from selling our time and our expertise and our talent.  So we’re involved in that external labor market, where we seek the best utilization of our efforts.  They’re also involved in an internal labor market, where we want to compare ourselves perhaps with our peers who teach under the same circumstances, that may relate to our concept of equity.  We’re not using the word equity actually, in our report--very deliberately so.  But we feel that perhaps in individual cases we might be more enlightened in utilizing our time and resources, if we had more information about this internal market in which you participate.  Now Jamie’s point that the administrators don’t always listen, I don’t think that’s a relevant point, because not all of our students listen either but we go on, don’t we.  So we’ll continue looking for that knowledge.

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz:  Let me add something, because I think Dennis asked an important question.  Keep in mind that we’ve been getting these salary reports in varying formats, varying degrees of depth and in varying looks for about 20 years.  And therefore, the Senate leadership said let’s step back a moment, and decide what this ought to look like, what would be most useful for faculty.  And that’s why the committee was appointed and that’s what we’ve come back with.  We think that if we regularize them in these ways, it would be most useful for faculty.  So what we’re doing is legislating to ourselves future formats, future ideas and future depth.  In response to some of the things that have come up before, keep in mind that we didn’t start, nor did this committee develop the idea of specificity of four or fewer and so on, that’s simply the practice of the university that’s reported here.

 

Mila C. Su, Penn State Altoona:  I think that this…it’s very important that some of these statistics are being recommended, because I’m also a librarian and the librarians have consistently been non-specifically included in the statistical reports that have been presented whether it’s in the Chronicle of Higher Education, whether it’s in Intercom, whatever news reporting resource is.  We’ve always been told that it’s because of the statistics that are being required at the national level and that librarians always fall into this amorphous little category.  And so I commend the committee for including us and that we’re represented as part of the faculty as we are.

 

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering:  I chaired the committee that prepared the external report last year, and we tried to follow recommendation five putting comparisons that are discipline-related.  The number crunchers you describe at Penn State saying that those salaries were not available and that all we had was university-wide averages.  I called up each college asking them for their comparison data and only received comparison data for one college, and everyone else told me they did not have comparison with other universities.  So I’m wondering has anything changed in the last year that we’re now able to find some of this information?

 

Jacob De Rooy:  Thank you Laura.  Please notice the way in which recommendation five is worded.  It starts with the statement, “whenever possible,” so indeed if we find out that we cannot get a suitable external comparison, we will try.  So please notice it’s “whenever possible”.

 

James E. May, DuBois Campus:  I was on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits last year and saw Laura work very hard to gather this information and she was confronted with a question about how to go about this.  Without set guidelines by the university I think she spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what’s the best way I should do this and asking the fellow committee members what’s the best way to do it.  So one message is that each year the person who is stuck with that job in some circumstances has to reinvent the process.  Secondly, the regularity will allow comparison of data over a sequence of years, whereas if people decide to shuffle data more differently this year it makes it difficult to compare 2002 with 1998.  And it helps a person like Laura, who in fact is requesting this information from the administrative source to twist that arm and to ensure that we do in fact get the information and the  University Faculty Senate requested in a general way for information, that as you know has been difficult to get.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other comments?  If not, all those in favor of the proposed change, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Schengrund:  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried.  Thank you very much both of you.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has three advisory/consultative reports.  The first one deals with Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments.  It’s found in Appendix “F” and Louis Milakofsky will present the report.

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments

 

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  I want to say right off the bat I have lots of help on this issue.  The committee has been very helpful to me as chair and in particular Melvin Blumberg and Clay Calvert who have authored this report.  By way of introduction--at the request of the provost the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs began a review of AD-46 which is a policy on copyright clearance, and we found that the policy had serious concerns.  We were seriously concerned about general section “C” of that report and the provost agreed with that, and we therefore set out our task to design new recommendations for this policy.  We came up with two of them.  The first one was to delete a part of section “C” that was paragraph three, because that paragraph called for no royalty payments whatsoever on course materials, and replace it with a new policy which we designated simply as AD-XX--we don’t know what number to use, which allows for royalty payments for course material.  We believe this new policy is fair to the faculty, the university, and especially to students because it will improve we think, the quality of instructional material.  And without further ado, I’d like to introduce these two gentlemen who will answer any particular questions about this report.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any questions, or did everyone understand the report, and we don’t have any?  You must have done an outstanding job of putting it together.  Seeing none, I’d like to call for a vote.  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it, the motion is carried.  Thank you.  Moving on, the next report is the Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23:  Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations and it’s found in Appendix “G”.  This time it’s Louis Milakofsky and Kim Steiner.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23:  Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations

 

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Just a bit of background about HR-23 if you don’t know about it or…

 

Senators:  Laughter.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  I tend to be a little more glib about this because I’ve worked on this for at least since I’ve been on the Senate, and so for me it becomes like my left hand and my right hand, it’s pretty easy to work with it.  The general criteria for HR-23 the promotion and tenure policy reflects the university missions, that is to say teaching, research, creative accomplishments and scholarship and service.  These criteria are guided by the specific goals of each academic unit.  In HR-23 the general criteria for research, creative accomplishments and scholarship the emphasis is on quality.  To this end the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs united recommends this advisory/consultative report to the revisions of the administrative guidelines to HR-23, which outline special guidelines for the criterion of this research or creative accomplishment and scholarship.  The evaluation of this criteria will emphasize quality along with the quantity, and is reflected in the rainbow sheets on this criterion which we designated as bullet number three.  You will find at the end of the report the listing of this criterions bullet.  So without further ado I’d like to introduce Kim Steiner who’s subcommittee worked on this report over the last few months and he’ll be happy to answer any questions for you.

 

Kim C. Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I’m not sure whether to add to Lou’s introduction or not but maybe open it up for questions right now.

 

Lee D. Coraor, College of Engineering:  I’m Vice-Chair of the Senate Committee on Libraries.  The committee discussed this report, and I think everyone is definitely for quality and I can say that…

 

Kim C. Steiner:  It’s hard to argue against.

 

Lee D. Coraor:  …it’s hard to argue against that.  We certainly appreciate I think what we felt was the goal and intent of this legislation.  The Senate Committee on Libraries had a significant concern about this report, and it relates back to first of all a presentation that President Spanier made to this body about problems in publishing and specifically with libraries and the costs of those publications, and how we as faculty and academic community are contributing to that.  And also with respect to a document that came out of the Association of American Universities on the principles for emerging systems of scholarly publishing which Provost Erickson has signed.  It deals with a number of things related to publishing, but one of those is the cost and the need to promote new models for communication and evaluation of quality and so forth.  I think the members of the committee that met this morning and discussed this felt a universal concern that although it wasn’t the intent of the legislation, the effect in terms of how it would be implemented, if it was simply caught by what’s already done, and it would exacerbate that problem of a few publishers dominating the market, and a monopoly set. 

 

Kim C. Steiner:  Well, as a matter of fact, the reason our committee took this up initially was we were asked to respond to that report of the conference co-sponsored by the AAU.  And as our committee looked at the recommendations in that report which were sort of designed to deal with the problems that you folks are facing with the burgeoning number of scholarly publications and electronic media and things like that.  We felt that the one recommendation that we could very definitely address in our committee was recommendation eight, which is that the evaluation of faculty should place a greater emphasis on the quality of publications and reduced emphasis on quantity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing with this recommendation.  So I’m surprised that you feel we would be working against the recommendations of this report when really what we’re doing is addressing the one recommendation that we felt falls within the purview of our committee.

 

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington:  Those who know me know that I usually like to have legislation reasonably specific, less the subsequent guidelines change the intent of the original legislation, but let me take an exception to my usual attitude with this particular item.  As what is stated here in the Appendix “G,” HR-23 already states that the research and creative work should be of high quality and scholarly significant.  I wonder though if this legislation does not lead us to micromanagement?  The point is I know that in several disciplines there are quality indicators for magazines and journals and so on.  However, we also know that some apparently unknown journals, unappreciated journals is where people I’m presuming arts, creative arts especially do work.  They may not be recognized after you have passed away from the university.  I’m not so sure that this citation of the candidates work is really an indicator of quality and I’ve spent enough time on promotion and tenure committees where committees have argued whether the review by professor “x” in journal “a” is more important than the review of the same book by professor “b” in journal “y,” and we’ve argued about is professor “a” smarter than “b,” is journal “x” better than “y”.  And I’ve sat literally for hours listening to this debate which I think is quite pointless.  Secondly, this policy might be much more easily carried out at University Park where we have clearly distinguished lines of department heads and colleges.  It has been referred here frequently for instance, that departments heads or other appropriate administrators shall identify a reasonable number of the candidates most significant works and obtain for the dossier and so on.  At locations other than University Park very frequently your immediate administrator is a division head who may belong to a totally different discipline.  One may have a dean or not have a dean who knows perhaps less about your field in science than about your field in liberal arts.  And it concerns me that those individuals would be in charge of setting up some kind of quality indicator indexes.  I’ve also seen in my brief career of teaching where journals that were highly respected 20 years ago are not considered particularly good today, and new up and coming journals are considered more important.  So may I suggest to the committee and to the body at large that perhaps this is a case where we might perhaps leave the legislation exactly as it is in HR-23, and not engage in micromanagement when we will return three or four years later when people will come and complain that, “my division head simply doesn’t understand that my publication can be journal “x” really does something brand new or which is shunned by my college because it doesn’t appear on their list.”  And so may I make a suggestion that perhaps we are doing an overkill here in setting out these specific guidelines, and perhaps we might as well stay with what we have, mainly HR-23, Section II that work should be of high quality and scholarly significant and I would urge you to carefully consider these comments before you vote for it.  I presently at least do not feel comfortable in changing that and going to those specifics.  Thank you for your time.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I’m not sure whether I was being spoken to or not, in your presentation but let me respond.  I think you may be reading more into what’s here than is really intended.  When we talk about the department head or other appropriate administrator we’re simply talking about that person as defined in the guidelines who has responsibility for preparing the dossier.  In reality as we all know the candidate does most of the work on that, but nominally there is some administrator who has responsibility for preparing that dossier.  Now in the execution of this in practice I think what’s going to happen is that the candidate working with the department head or whoever that administrator is, will settle on a set of quality indicator criteria that fit the guidelines in which the rest of the committee will find useful.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  If I could just add one more thing to this last comment.  In the administrative guidelines there are certain sections which I won’t name or identify, where the faculty member does play a role in creating the dossier.  They certainly have input in preparing the dossier along with the academic administrator.  The candidate also can make a narrative statement, either at the beginning of the dossier, or in each of the sections—whether it be teaching, research or the service aspect.  And finally, lastly, to note any changes in the last review, in the six year review of tenure, or in the promotional review there are also external evaluators which can give some light to review committees as to the worth of the research publication for example.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I might add too, that I’ve served on many promotion and tenure committees, and I’ve never really encountered the kind of circumstance that you described.  I’ve chaired our college committee twice, and I’ve served on the university committee and speaking from those experiences, what we usually encounter, what I’ve usually encountered is a lack of information on how to evaluate the quality of the candidate’s contributions.  I really think this is an opportunity for faculty members to show what they are doing, and it’s not to be a problem for them.

 

Michael J. Cardamone, Penn State Schuylkill:  Let me speak in support of Professor Rebane’s point of view.  I believe that what we are doing here is we are over-specifying what is required in the assessment of the quality of the candidate.  I think it was incumbent upon the faculty review committees and their reviewing administrators to determine what constitutes quality, and if they feel they can’t understand what is presented in the dossier as to whether that is a quality publication, or is not a quality publication it is their responsibility to find out from some other sources what that is.  I don’t even know if I could see the dossier itself specifying that these are good journals and these are not good journals or these are class “a” journals and these are class “b” journals…

 

Kim C. Steiner:  That’s already in fact done by many colleges and departments and what happens, I think is that the unit mutually decides on a list of publications that may be a first tier set of publications, and a second tier set, and sometimes a third tier set, that they mutually agree represent quality in their disciplines.  So it’s already being done.

 

Robert Secor, Vice-Provost:  Actually all the policy is doing is putting a place where people are getting together a quality list.  We currently don’t have a place at all right now.  The HR-23 document indicates principles, so it indicates a principle that quality of publication is what’s important.  It does not tell you how to implement that.  The guidelines tell you how to implement that principle.  Currently, all the guidelines tell you is (publications and research and creative activities) to present a list.  That is the way we evaluate quality in terms of what we can do within the guidelines.  That ought to be the same thing as saying we will evaluate teaching by listing the courses that the person has taught.  Where we do have the teaching currently is under Criteria Statement “C,” Special Guidelines for the Criterion of Teaching Ability and Effectiveness and this body has worked for years at talking about how to evaluate teaching.  We talked about it before we talked about it very recently in the interest of students, teaching portfolio whatever.  We’ve never talked about how we evaluate our research, or the place where you can evaluate research.  So currently our guidelines give you bullets as to where to place the research activity, and what to place there and it’s simply a list of publications broken down by referee, non-referee with no sense that we care about quality as well.  Now to go back to the campus situation, it is the campus guidelines where you have your own CES guidelines.  There is no reason the college can’t say that in that situation quality counts more than quantity, because for each one they are going to get some support for what we care about.  It is what we do, we can’t do less, the fact that quality material was produced.  But we never talked about how we know whether or not this is quality.  Nothing in this legislation tells any people what they should do.  The bold at the bottom of that first page says that…second sentence, “The evaluation of accomplishment in this category shall emphasize their quality, although sustained effort is…,” that’s the only shall.  After the shall, they can brainstorm what kinds of things any committee thinks they might make use of.  Then it’s a may.  It may be journal acceptance rates if you want to talk how good the journals are.  It may be the use of the publication, it may be citations or quality indicators deemed appropriate by the candidate’s unit, and there you didn’t say any of those things that would indicate quality.  And if they go out of date, your unit should be talking.  You ask every department head, look at their guidelines after every year.  So it’s just an indication that we do value quality, but to say that means you have to devise some way in your unit of measuring the status of quality.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  I have looked at this, and I tend to think that quality ought to permeate the majority.  Then they ought to start to think of what indicators there could be awards, invited talks, invited seminars and so forth associated with the work that you’ve done.  So I look at that as almost a redundant dot, especially when you consider there already is another dot, that other evidence of the creative.  And I was wondering did you consider specifically why not put the word quality in the other category?  Other evidence of quality research or quality research accomplishments and leave it at that.  People could then use that if they didn’t have some other place in the dossier, which I think there are ample places to document quality, they could put it under that other dot and not have another dot to wonder what am I going to put here.  If I don’t put something under my dot, there’s something wrong with my curriculum vitae, and it’s already 70 pages.

 

William A. Rowe:  I’ve worked under campus leadership with this document.  I think there may be some misunderstandings as to what the goals here are.  One goal is to essentially try to eliminate the concept of the least publishing agreement.  It has got a dataset, “okay how many papers can we get out of this dataset”.  And in terms of when that translates into promotion we’re trying to get away from the idea that “x” many publications means we’ll go up for promotion.  It’s not to say that no involvement of quantity at all it’s just to try and get away tagging a number on…if you have 20 publications you’ll be promoted.  Just to try and get away from that concept.  We worked very carefully to try to avoid getting very specific about exactly what constituted quality.  We deliberately left it to other “indicators deemed appropriate by the candidates unit.”  All that’s being looked for here is some independent assessment.  Now certainly the external reviews are part of their job during the promotion and tenure process, but as we’re looking through these things…I’m in medicine, if I were looking at an artist’s work or music person’s work or a presentation at Joe’s Bar and Grill versus a presentation at Carnegie Hall, okay those two I can distinguish, but many others in between I probably couldn’t.  And so it’s just looking for some independent correlation by another unit chair just to give some indicator of quality.  It really has two goals.  One is a move away from that least publishable unit and then how we…number one and number two just provides some help to the committees and yes this is quality work that the candidate has.  Those are the two goals.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  And I think Bill really helps to respond to Wayne’s comment.  The bullet is here because we were thinking first of all about publications and related kinds of activities that go in the dossier.  I think our subcommittee and committee are thinking that what will come out of this is not going to be an immediate change in the promotion and tenure process, because after all the promotion and tenure process is people.  And the next year’s committee is not going to be that markedly different from this year’s committee.  What will change is to have a bullet in the dossier, but over time hopefully, faculty can get away from having to be obsessed with running up the score in the number of publications, because of the conventional wisdom around campus that you have to have “x” many to get promoted to associate, and “y” many to get promoted to full.  Get away from that idea, and start thinking about how to put together a good solid body of quality research all the time.

 

Douglas K. Brown, Penn State Altoona:  I think this last comment is specially related to Dr. Rebane’s comment.  We’re expecting this to be an independent or somewhat objective measure of quality.  But then when it gets out to the campus colleges where the head of a unit is typically in a discipline not related to the candidate, and in my own review…if my review was processed through the campus colleges, I’ll guarantee only one person in my discipline would ever see the review.  I might be the only one to do that, so that I’m going to be setting the criteria for the quality, as I understand but then it fails to be an independent review.  So I’m not quite sure what we are accomplishing with this?  I always thought that sort of independent review of the research and scholarship was to come from the external reviewers and that we could help in areas.  So I’m not sure what this adds.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  What we’re just asking for is for the candidate and his or her department head to document quality rather than simply listing publications which are in the typical dossier just sort of a bulleted list ordered by year.  Follow that with picking out some good ones there and talking about what you think are good measures of quality for these publications.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner, College of Engineering:  I’m not sure this is the way to say it, but I don’t think quality belongs in the dossier.

 

Senators:  Laughter.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  From the engineering college perspective, and I’ve learned along the way that all the colleges don’t do things the same way, but on the narrative statement that we do in the College of Engineering, we take a great deal of effort to make sure that there is no evaluative things in there.  We don’t say that we did a good job at doing something or this is a highly regarded something or other.  We try to put in the narrative statement, facts.  Perhaps our own interpretation of the facts and where we think things are important.  That may not be how everybody does it, but that’s an example of where I’m coming from here.  When we get into the teaching section of the dossier, we don’t say we did a good job teaching we say, this is what we taught, we provide the evaluation that the students give, we provide the evaluation that the faculty peers give.  When we get into research we list what’s published, we list the approval rating if you will, because proposals are submitted to other agencies and they decide to or not to fund and we list those kinds of things.  Service, the same way but when it comes to evaluating the quality I thought that was the responsibility of the committees along the way, and administrators along the way.  I’m not sure I want my department head putting into the factual section of my dossier his interpretation of what the quality of my work is.  That is his responsibility in his report to the next committee, and I want my department committee to do the same kind of thing.  So I don’t think I want to see…

 

Kim C. Steiner:  In fact you’re exactly right.  Evaluation does not belong in the dossier, but we’re not suggesting to put evaluation in the dossier.  What we’re recommending is to identify a reasonable number of the candidate’s most significant works, and obtain for the dossier documentation of their quality using indicators such as those listed above.  We do that in many other places including teaching already in the dossier.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  I’m not sure we do in teaching.  If I interpret this correctly what you are saying is that neither I nor my department head is going to decide that for me publishing in the Journal of Structural Engineering of the Arts and Society of Civil Engineers is better than publishing in the Engineering Journal of the American Institute of Steel Construction.  How I read that, that’s what this says, these are the papers that are the quality papers.  I’m going to assess them ahead of time.  If he wants to do that or she wants to do that in their recommendation to the next committee, I have no problem with that.  That’s where it belongs, but where I don’t think it belongs is the factual information in the dossier.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Okay, at this point we’ve been discussing this issue for the past 20 minutes and I don’t want to cut this discussion short, but I would like it if you only have new issues to raise.  If your issue has been raised already lets move on to new items for discussion.

 

James E. May:  I’d like to follow-up that remark.  You have on one hand people who submit work to particular journals which are in areas that are widely researched.  And so such a journal might have rejected ten out of eleven submissions.  On the other hand, you have somebody who works on some bizarre field in botany and nobody else really works in that area except some chap over in Switzerland.  But these kinds of people’s work is in less competitive areas and the quality is less recognizable by these kinds of markers which are measures of “x” quantity markers, evidence of journal quality, how’s this occurring?  I mean to some extent it’s not really a quality estimation of that journal, it’s a quantity estimation.  It will be like for instance how many libraries subscribe to it, or how many articles do they receive submitted to them.  When the English Department draws up a list of its big name journals for my particular field, I was pretty let down by that.  I thought well they did a bad job of it, they left out this, they left out that and to some extent that’s a reflection of what you have lots of people working on.  There were journals in the field which are underused.  The editor sits on top of it and he decides this is good work, he doesn’t need anybody to tell him that, and such journals often get very few submissions because people are afraid to submit to that journal.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I agree with everything you said, but I don’t think this…I know this recommendation does not prescribe the exact forms that the quality indicators have to take.  You can be very creative, and I suspect that candidates for promotion and tenure are going to be very creative over the next few years as this sort of sorts itself out in showing how what they’ve done represents quality.  It’s going to be really open.

 

Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley:  If this passes it will raise the bar...tenure and promotion bar because it’s getting away from least published idea.  Let me give an example, when I came in as an assistant professor in 1997 I went to my department head and said, “look I’ve got this study I can spend an entire year writing it and revising it and send it to an A+ journal or I can take about two months and send it into an A or B+ journal, which should I do”.  He looked me straight in the eyes and said, “quantity over quality right now”.  So I chose a B+ journal and then I did another study and another study so it’s three B+ journals equal one A+ journal.  It certainly isn’t the amount of work you have to do, but what I’m saying is when this comes in it’s going to be the A and A+ journals that really count it seems like to me.  I may be wrong about it, but I’m saying that we’re changing the rules administrating for people that are going under tenure next time.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I don’t think it’s going to have an impact on people who are in the process right now for the very reason I said earlier.  The committees are not going to change.  You’re not going to see a radical change in how’s on the committees and how they look at dossiers.  We’re adding a piece of documentation to the dossier and over time as people who go through this process get to the stage where they are serving on committees and this has become sort of institutionalized then I think we may begin to see a change.  Right now it’s like a little change in the rudder pointing us in a little bit of a new direction.  Next year we’re going to be a little bit to the right or left, next year a little bit more but it won’t be until many years from now before I think it will result in a substantial change in how we do things.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other new comments that anyone would like to raise?

 

Joan M. Lakoski, College of Medicine:  Could the intent of this be achieved by just including the first two sentences which raise the expectation of quality being the most important aspect of the creative process?

 

Kim C. Steiner:  That’s a legitimate question, but I guess my answer is if you merely did that are you really doing anything more than repeating what’s already in HR-23.  We intend to suggest how this can be done because right away it would raise a question, okay you want to emphasize quality but how do you do this.  We sort of laid out some guidelines and provided some examples of what might be quality indicators.  Provided sort of a fuzzy blue print as to how this might be done.

 

Dennis S. Gouran:  I’m a little confused because when this came before the Senate Council it was my understanding that we were expanding this list from A through E to A through F in the interest of establishing a parallel to the special guidelines for the evaluation of teaching.  And in this case everyone involved in the review process would form an independent judgment, and include it in with these guidelines.  I understood this would allow us to assist in the formation of that intended judgment, and not be reliant exclusively on what somebody else says along the way.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  Since I wasn’t in either the Senate Council meetings in which this was discussed I should ask Bob or Lou to respond to that.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Is there a response or not?  Are there any other questions?  Seeing none, I’d like to call for a vote.  All those in favor of this proposal, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Division of the house.  Would you please stand if you’re in favor of it.  Okay, please sit.  All those opposed please stand.  You may be seated.  The motion was defeated—69 no to 49 yes.  Thank you very much.  Moving on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits has a report on Adoption Benefits.  It appears in Appendix “H” and Keith Burkhart will present the report and you have a door handout which is an updated version of this report.  So you might want to look at the door handout.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Adoption Benefits

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

 

Keith K. Burkhart, College of Medicine:  Thank you Chair Schengrund.  The Adoption Benefits report you have before you was born in the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits last year, and that I must thank my committee members and this year’s chair Len Berkowitz and Billie Willits especially for helping nurse it along, and I hope we have a report that’s ready for your adoption here today.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Could you tell us what’s the difference between the door handout and the report?

 

Keith K. Burkhart:  Under rationale in the third paragraph a couple of grammatical corrections, “data do” rather than “data does” and we moved for incurred costs directly related to adoption to in front of the $4,000.  So just two grammatical corrections, that’s all.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Thank you.

 

Keith K. Burkhart:  You’re welcome.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other comments or questions?  Seeing none, I’d like to call for a vote.  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it, the motion is carried.  Thank you, Keith you must have done a good job.  The next report is from the Senate Committee on Student Life it’s on the Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.  It’s given in Appendix “I” and Bill Ellis will present the report for the Senate Committee on Student Life.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures

Joanna Floros, Chair, Senate Committee on Student Life

 

Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus:  This report deals with a difficult issue.  The need to balance holding students accountable for their actions as we’ve heard earlier in this meeting as part of the Penn State community along with maintaining the rights they deserve to have for a fair and timely hearing.  This issue will continue to face the university in the time ahead.  The media as you know continues to draw attention to events like the disorder that followed the Arts Festival last summer, and again last weekend.  At the same time student activism is on the increase, and while students must be held accountable for acts of civil disobedience, these must be treated differently from simple acts of drunk and disorder.  This complex task requires a flexible approach in which all sides are fully informed of their rights and responsibilities.  This report recommends some ways in which this information can be shared more effectively.  At the same time it provides new ways in which students and faculty can responsibly oversee the job Judicial Affairs is doing, and provide input into how it can continue to meet the challenges facing our community.  I’d like to especially thank the members of the subcommittee whose names where omitted from the end of the report—Mike Fazio for USG, and Joe Garwacki our student member from the Abington Campus and also to Todd Ellis also of USG who provided guidance in drafting this report.  I’m open for questions and comments.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other comments or questions for Bill?  Seeing none, I’d like to call for a vote.  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it, the motion is carried.  Thank you, Bill.

 

Bill Ellis:  Thank you very much.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Moving on to informational reports the first one will be presented from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.  It’s their Nominating Report for 2001-2002.  You can find it in Appendix “J” and Deidre Jago will present the report.

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Report of Nominating Committee - 2001-2002

 

Deidre E. Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

 

Deidre E. Jago, Hazleton Campus:  Thank you, Cara-Lynne.  Appendix “J” contains the report of the nominating committee for Committees and Rules for 2001-2002.  The elected members of the 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 Schengrund:  Before you volunteer any additions to the slates, may I remind you that before you do so, you will need to have the okay of the person whom you would like to add to the slate.  Also, if you are nominating someone from the floor today, the Senate Office has to have their biography by Friday, in order for that candidates information to be put with the election material that will be sent out.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with four (4) to be elected for two-year terms.  The nominees are listed in Appendix “J” and permission has been granted by each nominee to run for this committee.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any additions from the floor?  Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?  The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, a three-year term.  Two (2) will be elected; one member and one alternate.  Are there any additions?

 

For the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, these nominees are split into 3 categories:  faculty positions from University Park, faculty positions from locations other than University Park, and Deans.  Of the faculty from University Park nominees, two (2) are to be elected; one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2004.  Again, please refer to Appendix “J” for the nominees for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?

 

Faculty Other Than University Park Locations.  One (1) to be elected; one member with a term to expire in 2004.  Are there any additional nominations from the floor?

 

For this same committee, Deans.  Two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2004.  Are there any additions from the floor?  If not, could I have a motion to approve those slates as presented.

 

Senators:  So moved.  Second.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  Cara-Lynne if I may, everybody who was recently elected to the Senate for next year or people who are returning to the Senate was sent a letter requesting that you submit your committee preferences.  I just want to remind you to please send in those committee preferences so that the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules can adequately staff the committees for next.  Thank you.

 

Chair Schengrund:  With that having been said could I have a vote to approve the motion to close the nominations?  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it, the motion is carried.  Moving right along to Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, Lou Geschwindner will give a report on the Status of Re-certification Process for General Education.  That information is included in Appendix “K” and you received a door handout, that’s the second page in the material that was given to you.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Status of Re-certification Process for General Education

Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  I always wanted to make the officers leave the stage.  This overhead is just the same information that you have but I wanted to point out a few things.  This first column shows the number of courses that were proposed to be submitted for review from the beginning of the process, spring 1999 through this current semester, spring 2001.  The second column would be those proposed to be submitted next fall through the fall of 2002.  The third column is the plan total, but let me point out Education, two, zero, three.  Some of the Education people can’t do math I guess, or Engineers can’t, whatever some of the courses that were proposed did not have a date when they would be submitted but they were still on the list as being approved.  So what you have in the third column are the total number of proposals that we should expect to receive.  The first and second column will not always add up to the third column, okay.  I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.  You see that we should expect to receive 652 proposals.  Through the end of this current semester we should expect to receive 517.  We have received 95 proposals, 87 of them have been approved, four are still pending and four were either withdrawn or rejected.  In addition to those courses that were proposed to be submitted, 100 courses were indicated as being withdrawn, that there would be proposals submitted to withdraw those courses at least as general education courses.  In addition the colleges have put forward new courses to meet the new general education requirements.  New courses that had not already been on the books, plus courses that they had not anticipated putting forward for Gen Ed but that they along the way decided they would have added up to 35 that have been approved and six that are pending.  Now you’ve got to look at this Liberal Arts total 310, so when the faculty in the College of the Liberal Arts say that this whole process is having a major impact on them, it’s quite obvious that it is.  A little under 50 percent of the total.  But I also want to point out that they already have approved 62 courses, that’s 20 percent of what they should be putting forward not a commendable amount but twice the percentage of any of the other units that are putting forward proposals.  So they have been making a significant attempt there at getting courses approved.  Now this is dated March 9, 2001, since then we have received somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 proposals and of those proposals to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs general education proposals number, one from Altoona, one from the Commonwealth College, one from the College of Communications, 19 from the College of the Liberal Arts and 13 from the Eberly College of Science.  Now the Eberly College of Science has gotten their 13 in ahead of time and you see then their number would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 percent of the total, so they are managing to move forward.  But the 19 that the College of the Liberal Arts has submitted certainly is a positive step forward and I hope nobody on the General Education Subcommittee decides it’s time to resign, because the work load is getting bigger.  We’re not moving forward as fast as we need to and I simply encourage all of you in units that have courses that need to be submitted, please get to work in submitting them.  If you have questions, please contact me.  I keep telling people I’ll be happy to work with you to try and get your proposals put together or give you some advice if there’s any issues.  I received five or six proposals last night to look at that’s the first time anyone has come to me and said, “hey, would you look this over, would you give me some guidance on these proposals”.  But we are happy to try and help out to try and make this thing move forward.  Anybody have any questions?  Thank you very much.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Thank you, Lou and thank your committee for the work that they have been doing.  The next item in your Agenda is the Report from the Elections Commission and that is the roster of Senators for 2001-2002 you can see it in Appendix “L”.  If there are any names missing from your unit that may mean that your unit has not yet gotten their new Senators into the Senate Office, and if you are from one of those units would you please encourage them to do so.  Moving on, the next report is from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.  It’s the Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000.  It’s given in Appendix “M” and in the interest of time I guess Bob Secor will introduce himself to present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Robert Secor:  Thank you Cara.  As the cover sheet on page “M” says the summary shows that the promotion to professor—70 faculty members were recommended by the dean to the university committee and of those 68 were promoted.  On associate professor 70 faculty were promoted by the dean to the university committee and of those 67 were approved.  And for tenure 79 faculty were recommended to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee for tenure and 79 of those faculty were tenured.  Let me just look at the tables with you because they may not be self-evident.  If I could ask you to look at a couple of them to turn to page 1 on the top right hand corner which says promotion to associate professor.  You’ll notice the first column is number of cases reviewed, that’s the number who went up from the campus or the college up to the university or were reviewed at all—69 cases total.  Then the next column on your left that says continuation recommend by and then a list of all the people on the approval process.  First campus committee and CEO recommended eight and now we have a line which tells you how many came from the campus and there were eight.  So all eight who were recommended…who were up from promotion to associate were recommended at the campus level by both CEO and the campus.  At the department level of those 69 now that were reviewed by the department, 66 were recommended by the department head and the department committee.  One was recommended by only the department head and one only by the department committee it adds up to 68.  One poor fellow or woman was not recommended by anyone at this point.  Then they go to the college committee and what the college committee does you’ll see the college dean, the college committee and the college dean recommended 62.  The college dean recommended an additional three that were not recommended by the committee, therefore she recommended finally 65 went forward to the university committee and of those 65, 63 were approved by the committee and by the provost.  On promotion to professor 65 cases were reviewed.  Of the eight from the campuses all were approved at the campus level.  At the department level 62 were recommended by the department committee and one by the department head alone, so 63 had recommendations by either the department or the department committee.  They went to the college committee and the college committee and the dean recommended 65.  As I read that there were two people who the department, and the department head did not recommend for promotion to full professor who the dean and the college committee, nonetheless recommended to the university committee be promoted because that would give us 65 even though they only received 63 recommended.  You’ll notice what happened at the university committee, the university committee approved 63.  Apparently this would look like they did not approve of the two additional faculty, who were recommended for promotion that the department did not want to recommend and the final university decision by the provost and the president agreed with the university committee.  If you turn to the tenure decisions a couple more pages in, it says page 1 on top again, you’ll notice that there were 98 cases reviewed…by the way let me just turn back to look at the equity issues.  If you keep your finger there and go back to the promotions you’ll notice under associate level…let me go on to the tenure list.  Ninety-eight cases reviewed, 23 of those reviews at the second year, 23 started at the campus, 93 approved by the department head and 96 total reviewed by the college committee and the dean with favorable recommendations.  You’ll notice that there are three that were forwarded to the university committee and approved.  That means that there were three people who received early tenure in their second year and that’s the way to read that.  But there was a drop off of two because you begin with 98 and only 96—60 by the dean and 36 by the committee and the dean were recommended for continuation.  The reason there’s such a drop off for the committee, and the dean, is that at the second year not all committees do second year reviews, and the fourth year, then you’ll find once again the figures and to cut to the chase in the sixth year, there was 70 faculty who were reviewed and ultimately 66 of those achieved tenure.  Now I’d like to take a look at that chart which is the last page of Appendix “M” with you and at the track of cohorts these are the group of people who began in 1990 to see what happened to them in seven years.  In 1991 in seven years, 1992 in seven years, 1993 in seven years and you’ll see if you just look at the left three boxes the overall rate of tenure of the group that was retained and survived the positive tenure decision after seven years averages from the four year totals is 57 percent.  Now if you look further on the right you’ll find differences by male and female and minority and non-minority.  And what you’ll find is that there are some distinctions that the rate of retention to tenure of women is 47 percent and the male rate is 63 percent and that averages out to 57 percent given the fact that there are more men than women in the pool, and there’s also a difference in minority rate 59 percent to 51 percent which is an eight percent difference.  We’ve taken by the way, the seven years to allow most of the people who’ve stayed tenure took a leave, but for some reason didn’t have a decision made until the seventh year even though it was a six year decision so now we incorporate them as well.  Well, that’s what it looks like.  I’d be happy to take your questions.

 

Joan M. Lakoski:  First of all Bob, this is just terrific that you share this information with us, and it’s very apparent that you’re really taking good care of us.  One comment is that the total forwarded for early tenure when you’re looking at two, three, four and five really show maybe a pattern that you could look at a little more carefully where a considerable number of men versus women are being granted an early tenure decision.  I don’t know the basis for them but it appears to be a consistent pattern.

 

Robert Secor:  That’s good to look at Joan, thank you.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  Just one question on table 1, Bob under the associate professor and I want to make sure I interpret this correctly.  The university committee recommended 63 but the president and the provost approved 65 so they approved two that were not recommended by the university committee, is that true?

 

Robert Secor:  Yes, but they got there because they were recommended by the dean.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  …by the dean.  But we don’t know which two they were?

 

Robert Secor:  Right.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  I wanted to make sure I understood that.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I didn’t hear what happened to those cohorts the four out of ten males and the five or six out of ten females that did not receive tenure.  Did they not continue, do they leave the university, did they take time out?  I’m asking you for my peers trying to bring information back.

 

Robert Secor:  Tell me again Jamie what you’re looking at?

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I’m looking at the people that were not…that disappeared the non-tenured people.  I’m wondering if you can come back with a later report obviously not here but do they take jobs elsewhere?

 

Robert Secor:  Yes, sure that’s an important question.  It’s information that we don’t have and people leave over the period, we do exit interviews and we get a small proportion of people who are willing to do the exit interviews but it could be that they were advised out.  It could be that they advised themselves out, they took jobs, but we don’t have those figures in the OHR base.  So what we can do is speculate in terms of what our exit interviews tell us and project from that but we don’t have reports on that.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan, College of Engineering:  Bob I wondered if you would like to comment on the 1993 cohort?  I find it surprising that only 39 percent of the women in the 1993 cohort eventually ended up at tenure after seven years and that is a significant difference from the 60 percent for men.  There should be some explanation for this.  I mean you’ve already pointed out that you are taking into consideration the staying of tenure.  At first I thought maybe that was not taken into consideration and so that is why I…

 

Robert Secor:  That’s why we tried to do that.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  …to make it clear now you have taken that into consideration.

 

Robert Secor:  If you look at not just the 1993 cohort, if you look at the overall difference it’s a 16 percent gap and that’s a…how big was Rosemary Woods gap?  This is bigger, I know and just as troublesome.  We have done exit interviews and we haven’t gotten a lot of information that’s helpful.  We have found that…and I looked at the one you did in 1998 where there was a clear statement that in the exit interviews men showed themselves to be more satisfied--that a 3.2 versus 2.8 on a five point scale--than women with community life such as social opportunities, cultural events, school systems and so on.  Susan Welch also is concerned about what those figures look like in the College of the Liberal Arts and was trying to get a handle on that, and so she examined the tenure data there and the feedback that she was getting from provisional faculty.  And she tells me that the colleges data suggest that there’s no significant discrepancy between the portion of men and women who leave for performance reasons, that is tenure denial…by the way our tenure figures show that last year 94 percent of faculty who were up for tenure, were tenured and that was consistent for men and women.  Eighteen out of 19 women and 48 out of 51 men so it’s not discrepancy at the point of tenuring.  And that’s what she said as well, and her data says it’s also not re-appointment denial either canceling out, but that the proportions of women faculty who cited personal reasons for leaving such as to join spouses elsewhere, or because they couldn’t find a spouse or partner here, or because they wanted to relocate to be near family, was higher among women.  One can speculate, and I’m speculating, although I’ve heard some of what Robert Jago has found out as well.  Our system gives an awful lot of feedback, and I’ve said this before more than any others, with the second and fourth year review, and we say all the time, the second and the fourth year the feedback to the faculty member should be not only how you’re doing, but what the expectations are for next time, and what the projections are for you to be continued, so that people know early what the pressures are.  It allows people to say, “you know this is not the life for me I mean if I’m going to have a family, if I’m going to have kids, if I’m going to lead this life it’s not what I had in mind and maybe I need a different kind of institution.”  That might impact women more than men and that again is speculation.  There’s also the dual career families where it’s probably more likely if there are two academics and more and more there are, that the man will be of an older age than the woman, and if they then leave together the woman may be on the tenure track, whereas the man is already tenured and therefore the figure will show up this way.  These are all speculations Jamie, and what we have when we talk to people in the colleges, and in our exit interviews.  But saying all that it is a very troublesome gap, the 16 percent, and we talked a little bit in the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs today as to what could be done.  I know the Commission on Women talked about mentoring and what our exit interviews show is that the most common complaint (men and women) of faculty who didn’t get tenure, is that they weren’t mentored.  And we need to do more about mentoring and maybe more so for women, because of the different issues that they may be facing.  A suggestion was, we need to put more pressure on people to understand the value of putting women on the Promotion and Tenure Committees, and not because they would look more kindly on women, but because being involved with the process at that level, they’ll be better mentors to women as to what those committees are saying.  We want to look at the MIT studies that show that there are differences in support for women in sciences, and see if it impacts us as well but we certainly can’t be satisfied with that 16 percent gap.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  We had quite an excessive discussion this morning in the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, and I just have one idea here was with those with the second and fourth year reviews we do have, at least in the dean’s office, Bob, those reports.  The second and four year reports that the dean and department head recommended or counseled these faculty members out, it might be a good idea in a general sense to look at some of the reasons why, maybe there is something dealing with gender or women are counseled out earlier, because of reason “a” as opposed to reason “b”.  With regard to mentoring, we found this morning without taking a vote that we find there is a lack of mentoring being done for females.  There are only I think, approximately 100 full professors who are female in the university, total.  Very few have distinguishing ranks.  It might be a good solution we’ll look at this next year, might be to begin hiring faculty instead of at the assistant level, but hiring at the higher ranks so that these faculty can become members more quickly, and become mentors of new faculty.  It might be a way of doing this.

 

Robert Secor:  Thank you, Lou.

 

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering:  Bob, could you tell me how many of those women who opted out actually stayed on fixed term appointments?

 

Robert Secor:  I hope very few because we don’t encourage that…

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  I just want to know…

 

Robert Secor:  I would think that if that happened here and there, that it wouldn’t be a figure that we’d find significant.  As I say, we don’t really want to encourage people leaving the tenure track, and they are holding up the line as a fixed term appointment because that really seems to undermine the tenure system.

 

Ingrid M. Blood, Undergraduate Education:  Just an observation, we might be able to do something at this point in time.  Looking at the prior report for the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, there are eight people on that slot of nominating members and one is a women.

 

Robert Secor:  There you go.

 

Deidre E. Jago:  Also, as Chair of Senate Committee on Committees and Rules in response to that, there were a number of women whose names came up for that particular committee.  However, many of the names that came up were not eligible because they have signatory power, therefore they were not…

 

Robert Secor:  The problem is there are too many women in administrative positions…

 

Deidre E. Jago:  No that’s not true.  Most of them have the number of women who are able, because many of the women who are full professors have other kinds of responsibilities, and this is the group that gets attached to almost everything.  You see their names all the time.  So they can only do so much.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other comments?  If not, thank you Bob.  Moving on The Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, the Penn State Travel Program.  Previewed in Appendix “N” and Ed Bittner, I’ll let you do the introductions.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Penn State Travel Program

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

 

Edward W. Bittner, McKeesport Campus:  This is the third report from the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits for those of you who are here, you are probably all interested in the travel program.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits took on the charge to look at the travel program, and there had been an appointed committee—the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies had been formed, I think several years ago.  I’m a member of that.  Mr. James Dunlop and Ms. Marguerite Gustkey are members of that committee, and the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits determined that indeed we needed to hear a little bit about what’s happening as far as the travel program.  Jim is the Director of Procurement and Materials Management, and he’ll speak to us today on recent changes in travel policy.  This will be short.

 

James Dunlop, Procurement and Materials Management:  It will be.  Thank you, Ed.  As a member of the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies I wanted to report on two recommendations that have been endorsed by the committee and are currently under consideration for full implementation.  The first one is to provide our travelers with a new option to use a managed self-booking system as an option for all their travel requirements.  The second recommendation that’s being brought forward is to use the Penn State Purchasing Card, which I know many of you are familiar with as a form of payment with the self-booking system and also allow use of the purchasing card as an option when using our designated agencies as well.  I’d like to give you just a brief overview of what a self-booking system would be.  You would gain access to a self-booking system through a secure Internet site.  You would then have access to the same information that travel agents today currently see as well as many of the Internet offerings.  You would have things like the direct sites to the airlines.  We would think that this would be a great one source of information for almost all fares that are available.  You would have access to air, rail, hotel and car rental information.  You could use this system as an informational system to search for things like origin, destination information, routing, fares for airlines.  You could also get hotel rates, amenities at hotels, hotel availability, car rental information, all those kinds of things.  Once again, you can use it for informational purposes only, go to a traditional travel agency then if you want or you can go in, point, click and actually book your travel at that point in time, use the Penn State Purchasing Card as the form of payment.  The system will be what we call an unbiased system.  It will not be owned by one of the airlines or one of the airline subsidiaries.  The only goal of this system will be to find you the lowest available fare.  The lowest available fare and best routing would be the first one that you would see every time you went in and asked the system for routing or airline availability, and that is different from a lot of the standard Internet sites that you go in and use today.  The other thing with it, it will also include in the pricing structures any discounted rates that Penn State’s been able to obtain through airlines, through hotels, through car rental agencies and that is different than any of the other Internet sites that you would go into.  You will have access to this system 24 hours a day, seven days a week and there are a lot of other options and amenities with this system which are really too numerous to go into at this time but we will certainly get out more information on these products and do some training sessions as well.  Currently there is a team working on some of the final contractual and financial details before we can get final approval to put this into place.  We hope to get that very soon and move into a pilot project where we can just make sure that we have any bugs worked out, and then go to full implementation to the university and hopefully on a fast track basis.  To summarize it, your options will be to one, continue to use the full service agencies if you choose to do that.  You will be able to use the direct bill system we have in place now, or you will be able to use the Penn State Purchasing Card and in addition to that you will, as soon as we’re able to announce it use the direct book option as well with the Penn State Purchasing Card.  And I’d just like to close by saying the committee continues to look at changes in the travel industry, and we will continue to review and make recommendations as necessary for changing the policies in travel.  Thank you, and I’ll take any questions if there is time.

 

Murry R. Nelson, College of Education:  It’s not a question, it’s just a comment.  I know in the two years that I served as an officer and I made visits to the campuses and colleges and this was something that many faculty wanted to see.  I applaud the committee for their coming to that and I’m very pleased to see it and thank you.

 

James Dunlop:  Thank you.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Just briefly.  There’s only one person in our department that has a purchasing card, and if I get into a web site and find this is the flight I want I could of course use the credit card that the university has, the corporate credit card, but would I be able to use that, and still be reimbursed then for the flight?  Because now all flights have to be direct booked.  Or do I have to go tell the person in the department to follow these web links and go to this web site and book this flight?  Do you understand my problem?

 

James Dunlop:  Yes, I think I do.  Right now it will require the use of that purchasing card.  There are some departments who now have a purchasing card that’s used for departmental use.  That may be able to be used, or you would have the ability also to go ahead and get a purchasing card if you want to do your travel that way, and actually book the travel.  Any faculty member is eligible to apply for a purchasing card going through their business office.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware Campus:  What you’re saying is that the American Express corporate card could not be used in those circumstances?

 

James Dunlop:  Could not be used for the self-booking system.  You would have to use the Penn State Purchasing Card.

 

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries:  How common is it for faculty to have a purchasing card?  I know for some people it’s not an option or it hasn’t been an option.  For the self-booking I’m not sure how it would work because…

 

James Dunlop:  At the university level, any faculty member would be eligible for a card.  At the college or department level they still have a decision process there to how many they will allow out.  I don’t know the percentage of faculty that have them.  There are though over 6,000 purchasing cards out, so there is a lot of them out and you would probably have to talk at your departmental level…ask at the departmental level about getting one.  I’m really not sure of that.  I can find that out though.  That is a good question.  If they are not readily available it’s going to cause a problem.  I will look at that.

 

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus:  Something to consider.  Faculty at campuses where there is not a contracted agency at that location, can go ahead and book however they want to.  I can anticipate a situation arising where I’m going to attend a conference, but not be presenting where my campus will cover 50 percent of the cost of my travel, but I’ll come up with the rest of it.  In the situation I’ve got I anticipate not being able to use the card because maybe it doesn’t meet the 50 percent guidelines or whatever.  So I would need to use my own personal credit card and it sounds like if I go through this site I can’t enter in my VISA or my MasterCard or my Discover Card, correct?

 

James Dunlop:  The system will allow you to put 50 percent on the purchasing card and 50 percent on a personal card.  You can set up actually in the system and I didn’t want to go into a lot of detail but you will be able to set up separate profiles and actually use the system for personal travel as well, so you would be able to use two cards--a personal card as well as the purchasing card.

 

Mark A. Casteel:  And if I want to put it completely on my personal card I could do that, right?

 

James Dunlop:  Yes, you could.  Is that right Marguerite?

 

Marguerite Gustkey, Travel Services:  …a good portion of this would be equal that the university portion would go on a purchasing card, but there could be another scenario where I’m going to California but I want to stop by somewhere else after my business and you add a personal piece to the trip so it isn’t that the university isn’t funding your basic trip, but you would have some personal travel.  On those very types of things where there’s two different forms of payment needed, or the university is not paying it all then it can do a split account where it would take the purchasing card for the business portion but you need to put a form of payment in for the part that you’re responsible for.

 

Mark A. Casteel:  Would the committee consider building in the potential to let faculty enter in their own credit card.  If I attend four conferences a year, I’ve used up all my allotment of campus funds and everything is going to come out of my pocket, and yet if I want to take advantage of some of these discounts that we can get through Penn State, I’m going to have to put it on my personal card.  I urge you to build that into the computer.

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  I think that one of the concerns is that you have to look at this situation.  I’d like to say that someone may be totally out of funding, but yet it is a university related trip.  Our other concern is for that kind of issue that if there is any way at all we’re going to continue to make efforts for airline discounts…I mean whatever we need to be able to track how many dollars we’re spending because to just use any form of payment at all there’s less ability to understand how much each airline is getting.  That was one of the concerns…

 

James Dunlop:  I’ve noted that and we’ll look at that issue.

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  This I understand is conditional and we’ll learn more about it.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  I understood that if you wanted to go and pay for personal business, charge it to a card?  Did I misunderstand?  If I want to make a trip for non-university business and I want to go to this one, charge it to my card.  I’m asking this question.

 

James Dunlop:  Yes, if you want to go…if you want to use the system to go on a personal trip use your own personal credit card, you will be able to do that.

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  But as Jim had said there are two profiles in the system.  So if you want to use the system for leisure travel…for personal travel then you would have a separate profile in.  Within this profile you’re going to have a purchasing card to put the payment in, for leisure it would be whatever personal…

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  That’s what I think his question was.  Could he do it on his own card for his own business?

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  Yes, he would just have his other profile.

 

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development:  If I were going on a business trip but the department did not cover my expenses?

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  Well, I think that…

 

Chair Schengrund:  Marguerite would you go to the podium please so you speak into the microphone so they get you on the Record.

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  I think that’s what this gentleman was saying, that there could be a time in his case where he may have used up all his allotment for travel, and as Jim and I said we need to look at that issue.  I guess that’s one that we somewhat overlooked in the sense that someone could be taking a university trip, but they’re having to fund it themselves.  We would certainly have to make some way for that to work.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Does that mean the same discounting would be offered if a person used that for personal use versus for university use.

 

James Dunlop:  Yes, and that was one of the points in there.  You should be able to use the business profile, even though you’re paying for it yourself so you get the university discount.

 

Roy B. Clariana:  About two-thirds of my travel for Penn State is paid for by me…

 

James Dunlop:  We definitely need to look at that.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  The discounts that we get through the university, both let’s say, a hotel and also air travel would that be listed on this site?  If it would be listed so you could make comparisons.  Some of my conferences are so large, that they also have discounts.  I’d like to make a comparison one way or the other so that would be an advantage to get the best discount possible.

 

James Dunlop:  It would be built into the…

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  The overall system and profile for Penn State will list any university contract pricing that we have, so that if you’re looking at air, rail, car whatever it might be, if we have a contract, that will come up in the options that you look for.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  One other question, when do you perceive this going online?

 

Marguerite Gustkey:  When do we perceive it going online?

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Yes, to be available?

 

James Dunlop:  That is a good question.  I would hope that we could begin a pilot within four to six weeks, and then depending on how the pilot goes we’d want to make sure that we have any bugs worked out maybe another four to six weeks, and then after that look towards full implementation.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  So we’re looking at the next academic year, approximately?

 

James Dunlop:  Next academic year would be correct.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Anything else?  If not, thank you and those of you that are seated why don’t you stand up, don’t leave while Dave Christy comes down to present the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics report which is the Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001, but remember I said stand don’t leave.  So as soon as you are ready Dave, you can tell us all to sit.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001

David P. Christy, Chair, Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

 

David P. Christy, Smeal College of Business Administration:  Please be seated and thank you for welcoming the opposition.

 

Senators:  Laughter.

 

David P. Christy:  Every year the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics presents an informational report on two aspects of our charge.  One of the aspects of our charge is to monitor the process by which student athletes are deemed to be academically eligible to compete and the first chart that you see indicates for the last several years the number of athletes that have been screened for eligibility, those that were not approved and some exceptions to normal progress.  Scott Kretchmar, the Faculty Athletic Representative is here to answer any questions about this, but those data are presented there.  In the pages that follow you see information that refers to graduation rates.  If I can preempt a potential question, these data are presented for the cohort class of 1993.  We follow federal guidelines which require an eight year lag, and we report on the results of graduation for a six year period, after students first enter the university.  So what we have in the first page of data is for all students at Big Ten universities, and for all student athletes at Big Ten universities for the 1993 class, what percentage of those students graduated.  Because of federal guidelines, this does not include students who have transferred.  Even if we know by following up that they graduated from a four-year institution other than Penn State, they have to be listed as not graduating.  So we have the Big Ten institution list, the page that follows provides similar information for eastern rivals, because some of the data prior to our joining the Big Ten was useful to some people.  We have NCAA graduation rate rankings for Division I with Division IA football, and we also have Academic All Conference numbers of students, and GTE All American listings.  So those are all data that refer not only to the Athletic Departments compliance with the Senate concerns with regard to academic eligibility, but also the outcome measure of the rate at which student athletes complete their four year degrees.  Are there any questions for myself or for Scott Kretchmar?  Thank you very much.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Thank you, Dave.  The next report is from the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits.  It’s their Annual Report –1999-2000 and it’s in Appendix “P” and George Franz will present it and you have a handout it’s the last page of the door handout that you received today.

 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS

Annual Report –1999-2000

George W. Franz, Chair, Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

 

George W. Franz, Delaware Campus:  Normally, you receive this report in the fall, but because of changes in the composition of the committee there was not a report in the fall.  The Senate Officers felt that there should be an opportunity for you to ask questions about benefits so the target is here, feel free to ask.  There were a couple of questions that came up at Senate Council so let me attempt to preempt them for you.  There’s comments in the report about much of the escalating cost occurring because of the increased costs in prescription drugs, and so that is the basic thrust of the door handout to provide some additional information from a variety of sources indicating how prescription drug costs have gone up.  Another question that came up at Senate Council was the 14 day wait period for locations other than University Park.  At Senate Council I indicated that I thought the major reason for that was the delay in inter-campus mail, I have discovered that that is in fact not correct.  That in fact inter-campus mail generally arrives, because I ran a test by sending letters from my campus to two sites at University Park and found out that inter-campus mail occurs at the same speed with which first class mail is delivered, and that is two days.  It is more a function of understaffing in Ritenour Health Center and what we discovered to be an anomaly in how they queue requests.  That anomaly has been taken care of, and won’t happen again, Peter.  So they should be occurring quicker.  It will also be speeded up with the introduction of an automated prescription machine that will come online the second quarter of this year.  So with those comments I’m here to answer any questions you might have.

 

Louis F. Geschwindner:  I visited the doctor last week and I promised that the next opportunity I had I would make this comment.  He told me that HealthAmerica has been working very well with the doctors, and have understood the problems that all the record keeping, and all of those things have meant to them, and he felt very comfortable with the progress that has been made over the years in making that program work for both the doctors and their patients.  So I figured it was worth giving something positive.

 

George W. Franz:  Thank you, we appreciate that.  I think that’s the first positive comment I’ve heard in four years up here.

 

Mila C. Su:  I’m concerned about the dental plan with Concordia.  I notice there’s a statement in here that people at University Park were concerned.  Last year Altoona had one dentist so I think we’re concerned, too.

 

George W. Franz:  I agree.  There’s two different concerns.  I think you will find and Billie can back me up if I’m wrong here, I think you will find that there is greater acceptance of the dental plan outside of central Pennsylvania, because the network outside of Centre County or around the Altoona area has far more participating dentists than in Centre County or apparently around Altoona.  We’re aware of that.  I think the university administration has made efforts to try and encourage additional providers within the dental plan.  Other than that I don’t know if I want to say anything else.  I would be happy to talk to you in private as to what I think about dentists in State College, but I don’t think I’ll do it publicly.  The university has bought a lot of sailboats.

 

Loanne L. Snavely:  I just wanted to say that we talked a lot I think about rising costs of medications, but it seems to me that part of the rising costs have to do with administration, and a prescription that I was recently assigned by my doctor at three month increments that I was told that my insurance would not pay for it that way.  I had to pick them up every month.  That meant that every month I have to drive there, I have to pick them up, they have to fill the prescription, do the paperwork, file it with the insurance agency, get their refund, I have to write my bill, charge my bank.  It seems to me that that kind of thing is increasing our costs by not allowing that to be a one-time thing in three months, rather than a three-time thing so…

 

George W. Franz:  I agree with that, but I think that is a function of the provider.  It’s not a function of anything the university has control over.  I have a different plan, and my doctor is allowed to prescribe maintenance prescription drugs on a three-month increment.

 

Loanne L. Snavely:  The doctor prescribed it that way but the…

 

George W. Franz:  I think it depends upon what plan you’re in.  There are other plans that allow you to do more than one month.  The plan you are in apparently does not.  Billie, do you want to…

 

Billie Willits:  Your observation is accurate.  We talked with the other plans to see if we can get it extended.  They claim that it does not up the administrative costs.  I would suggest it ups the indirect costs, that in your pocket, since you’re having to return to the pharmacy a lot more, so we’re working with them to see if we can get them to understand the issue.

 

George W. Franz:  If you would like to send me an email with specifics, there’s nothing like a specific request from the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits back to the provider saying we have complaints about this.  It might help Human Resources deal with the provider.

 

William A. Rowe:  We actually run into this a lot.  Basically it’s the medicine you’re getting, you have a co-payment and they’re picking up the co-pay 12 times a year instead of four that’s why it’s being done.  It’s financial because insurers are in the business to make money and that’s why it’s done.

 

Loanne L. Snavely:  But I would pay the same for my two…I would be giving them money…

 

William A. Rowe:  If in fact you would be getting the same…

 

Edward W. Bittner:  George, I just want to know if you’ve gotten time to discuss the role in Health Pass and Health Assurance moving towards more preventative kinds of measures?  Have you discussed those in general at all?

 

George W. Franz:  I’ve only been on the committee since October so I’ll let Billie respond to what they’ve been discussing last year.

 

Billie Willits:  Yes, as a matter fact if you look at the last section in the report it indicates that we are looking at the possibility of preventative issues in the PPO, the last item in the report.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Since you’ve only been on there for a short time, you might not know but if I could get the committee to consider this in its future discussions, we agreed to an increase in our premiums on the health plans because of the increasing cost of the plans, and we did that as a Faculty Senate.  One of the problems when we did that was that a large number of the constituents at our university are staff members whose salaries generally don’t amount to as much as faculty.  We basically said that staff has to pay the same amount for health insurance as faculty members have to pay, and I think that it might be just some consideration that your committee might give to a different scale for staff base on salary.  I don’t know if that’s complicated or not but it’s something to consider.

 

George W. Franz:  We’ll be happy to consider it.  My recollection is that when the second task force looked into that, that was one of the scenarios we addressed, and we opted not to go to it I think in part, because of the cost of administration, but I could be wrong.

 

Billie Willits:  It’s not only the cost of the administration but includes…if you look at total compensation and that’s really what we ought to be looking at, your salary and your benefits and what it is costing, what you’ll find is that faculty salaries tend to drift away from market further than staff salaries drift away from market.  Although faculty and staff salaries all drift away from market at Penn State University.

 

George W. Franz:  We’ll look into that, Jamie.

 

Louis Milakofsky:  On the last page, George you talk about dental and vision for retirees and I know that the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was…

 

George W. Franz:  Based on the recommendation…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  So do you have any idea and I don’t want to pin you down, but when will the committee take a look at this and discuss this?

 

George W. Franz:  In fact we talked about it before the Senate voted on it because we knew it was coming and it came up at a committee meeting prior to the Senate passing it.  We have asked Human Resources to go back to providers and give us some cost estimates in terms of what it would cost.  Based on what we did, when the task force looked at that issue I think you’re going to be blown out of your seats, when you find out what it’s going to cost to provide dental coverage for retirees and that is why we did not recommend it in the second task force report.  And in fact, when we did that study we could not find a provider who would do it so I doubt that has changed.  I do think Human Resources however, has come up with a fairly creative approach to deal with providing some kind of vision coverage for retirees and that we looked at a first draft proposal last Thursday, and my guess is perhaps by the next “Time To Choose” next fall there might be something available but we still have a lot of questions about it, but I mean when we first looked at vision care ten years ago, we thought it was the most stupid plan we saw, and I think Human Resources has done an amazing job of coming up with a program that now virtually no one complains about.  And I think they’ve come up with a fairly creative approach to deal with at least some kind of vision care for retirees.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other questions?  Seeing none, thank you George.  Moving on, at this point we’ll have an informational report from the Senate Committee on Research, it’s a Graduate School update annual report.  You can see it, there’s a door handout the last section and Eva Pell will give a short report and I’m assuming will then be willing to stand for questions.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

Report on Graduate Education

Guy F. Barbato, Chair, Senate Committee on Research

 

Eva J. Pell, Assistant Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School:  Thank you for having me here.  Following a three-year decline through 1998, total graduate enrollment increased slightly from 1998 to 1999, and then more significantly last year to 10,297, a net increase of 3.2 percent from 1998.  Of this total number, 50.1 percent are masters, 35.6 doctorate and 14.3 non-degree.  At University Park, most colleges experienced level or declining enrollments, with the exception of increasing numbers of non-degree and Engineering students.  The percentage of women enrolled has not changed dramatically over the period since 1998, with a slight increase in the last year, whereas enrollments of students from underrepresented groups declined from 1998 to 1999 and remained level over the last year.  It was my intention that you would have these tables, and I was disappointed not to see them in your handout, so there was some kind of a glitch between my office and the Senate Office, so if you are interested in having these tables, I’ll be happy to provide them.  We were quite concerned with the fact that our enrollment of students from underrepresented groups had reached at the best interpretation a plateau and recognized that the efforts that we had put into place had gotten us to a certain place but that if we just continue doing what we were doing while it was good it wasn’t going to take us anyplace further, so when I came to the Graduate School a year and a half ago I appointed an ad hoc committee that was co-chaired by Vernis Welmon and John Tippeconnic, and the goals of the committee were to address the Graduate School efforts with respect to recruitment and retention focused on increasing the number of applications from underrepresented groups to graduate students, intensifying recruitment efforts of those who do apply and strengthening retention programs for students on campus.  And the following recommendations were made to form stronger ties with other institutions that have provided education for large numbers of underrepresented students; to seek outside funding for additional assistantships and fellowships; to support and enhance programs that have proven success records and to introduce new strategies to engage more academic units in recruiting greater numbers of qualified students of color.  We have initiated a variety of strategies to address these recommendations and share them on a monthly basis with the associate dean in all of the colleges.  We have initiated a number of technological developments.  The capability of applying online to Graduate School was implemented in July 1, 1999.  Data on e-application usage was available beginning Summer, 2000.  These data indicate progressive increases in the percentage of total applications filed electronically from an initial 5.3 percent and preliminary estimates for Fall admission 2001 are up to 27.2 percent.  Our office routinely goes through the web sites, and we’ve had dramatic improvements so that now we only have 17 percent of the web sites in your programs that have out-of-date or incorrect information, but we need to encourage programs to be vigilant, to review the web sites to make sure that this interface remains active because at some time in the not too distant future we will go to an entirely electronic format.  In the fall of 1998, the Graduate School, CAC, Library Computing Services and University Libraries launched the Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD) pilot project.  During the experimental phase, 31 dissertations were submitted electronically and at this time beginning in the Fall 2000 all Penn State doctoral students have the option to prepare and submit their dissertations in electronic or paper format.  The ETD Committee with representatives from each of the above participating units is continuing to review and refine the ETD process and policies, including consideration of issues related to intellectual property and technical support needs.  We recently were at a conference and it’s pretty clear that Penn State is one of the leaders nationally in this area.  We continue to have two major funding programs through the Graduate School, and that is the University Fellowships, which as you probably know we went from a centralized to a decentralized program, beginning effective this past year.  And we also in the same time period went from 40 to 80 awards, and this increase was possible because of the savings garnered from the elimination of the FICA withholding requirement.  We have program Fund for Excellence in Graduate Recruitment which we use to encourage enhanced quality for students being recruited into your graduate programs.  And this academic year we’ve provided $1,037,324 for that program.  In terms of Graduate School highlights, let me tell you that there was a little computer glitch in the first item in your handout so you’re going to have to look for the phrase of Summer Membership which found its way into the third bullet of your handout.  I wanted to point these out, because I think they’re quite important.  We have eliminated the requirement to register in the summer in order to take the candidacy examination, and I personally as an adviser, was very grateful for that.  Eliminate the possibility to offer the same course at the 400- and 500-level in the same classroom.  Outside committee members are defined as shall not have budgetary connection to department or academic unit of student’s doctoral program, and as I said fellowship distribution has been decentralized.  Four new programs were approved, and one is the integrated bachelors in Spanish and masters in Industrial Relations and Human Resources, one is a masters of Engineering and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, one is a masters in Community and Economic Development, and one is a Ph.D. in Information Sciences and Technology.  A total of 50 new courses have been approved during the period September 1999 through February 2001.  We have a lot of enrichment programs in the Graduate School, and what we really want to achieve through the Graduate School programs is to give students an appreciation for the diverse intellectual community in which they reside.  The Graduate School Alumni Society was started a number of years ago under Rodney Erickson’s watch, and it is starting to reach some maturity.  They had a dinner on Saturday night for 160 people.  Many of the Inter-College Graduate Programs were represented and honored at that program.  The Graduate School Exhibition continues to thrive.  We had our exhibition on Sunday.  We had 233 posters.  We had a first ever awards ceremony.  The winners of the performance auction performed for us, and the Visual Arts School had a two-week display in the HUB Gallery and it was a very well attended event.  We host a Commencement Reception, we had the first ever Convocation this past fall and out of 1,300 new graduate students, 600 were in attendance at Eisenhower Auditorium.  We have conversations in this room…conversations at Kern several times a semester and try to bring provocative speakers to bring students here to talk about things other than what they do in their normal daily activities.  Nina Fedoroff talked to them about Genetically Modified Organisms—Miracles or Monsters.  We had very high attendance.  Barry Robinson will be here to talk about What’s After NAPSTER and so on.  I host a coffee once a month and we invite students from across the campus.  We usually have about 30 students and we talk about their research interests, and it’s usually lively and very interactive and they walk away very surprised at how many amazing things are going on outside of their own fields.  We host special seminars—Orlando Taylor, Dean from Howard was here to talk about Inclusiveness in the 21st Century.  We had ETS representatives to talk about the new writing option in the GREs.  We have a variety of faculty workshops.  Our most recent one was Ph.D In The New Millennium.  Student workshops for example we have workshops on grant writing and of course workshops to help with student funding.  There are two other issues I would like to discuss briefly that are not in your handout.  As you may know through Student Affairs and the Graduate School there is a standing committee the Health Insurance Student Advisory Committee comprised of graduate students who meet with David Lindstrom in Student Affairs to discuss the needs of the graduate students in the health insurance arena.  In response to the priorities expressed by the students we have been responsive annually providing incremental improvement in benefits.  It has become increasingly clear that insurance for spouses and their families is a high priority for the students.  Furthermore, we want to continue to be able to attract the best by offering competitive packages to prospective students.  To that end I have worked all year with others in central administration exploring possibilities that would address this need.  Next week along with representatives from Employee Benefits and Student Affairs we will be meeting with members of the Graduate Students Association and the Student Health Insurance Advisory Committee to discuss with them an approach to meeting this challenge.  The second item deals with research integrity.  Last fall it came to our attention that a Penn State Ph.D. recipient had fabricated data associated with her dissertation.  Following the procedures for RA-10 the case was investigated and the fabrication corroborated through admission by the individual and other evidence accumulated by the investigating committee.  The committee recommended and I endorsed that the individual be stripped of her Ph.D.  I forwarded this recommendation to President Spanier and for the first time in Penn State history we have rescinded a Ph.D.  I share this with Faculty Senate in the spirit of RA-10 that requires public notification of such an event.  I also share it with you as a message to the university community that research misconduct will not be tolerated.  This concludes my report.

 

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine:  Many of us in educational arenas are concerned about issues that relate to academic integrity and this last issue that you raised and certainly we at the medical school are very concerned about this.  I wonder if you could share with us some things that would be helpful from this case in terms of how we create environments that are nurturing to our students.  But at the same time help them understand these important issues that relate to integrity issues with not just their research but also with their day in and day out life in our academic workplaces.  Any thoughts?

 

Eva J. Pell:  Well, Dwight you’re right on the money and we have talked about this a lot.  I’m sure you can appreciate that this was a grueling experience for the committee.  It was a heartbreaking experience for everyone involved and the answer is a pretty long answer but I think that it has to come from the adviser directly to the students.  I will, actually at convocation, am going to use convocation as a bully pulpit and I’m going to give a major address on the subject of research integrity which I want to see published in Intercom so that we can talk about this widely.  But I really think it comes down to you and to me and all of us who have students and the message we have to send to them, we don’t do this deliberately but the message we send is, “oh wow, you’ve got this great data, you’re going to break this whole field right open”.  Or “this was really nice work, didn’t prove anything new but it was well done,” and it’s a subliminal message we don’t intend to send, but we have to send a message to our students that the most important thing is that you ask good hypotheses, design clever experiments, execute them well, interpret them well and then present them well.  And that’s got to be the most important thing, and we have to find ways to tell our students that.  I always remember having a student slink into my office and say I’m a failure.  Why are you a failure, Joe?  My hypothesis was wrong.  Well, I remember saying to him you’re too emotionally connected to your hypothesis.  Did you do the experiments right?  Did you drop your plants on the floor, Joe?   Did you destroy…and we really had a long talk about it.  But I think that we inadvertently don’t always say that to our students.  I mean I could go on a long time and I’m sure…you know the crowd is thinning.

 

Dwight Davis:  Just quick, the reason I raise that is because I hope that we can have more shared faculty discussions about what we do to help our students grow.  Like from the very beginning when they show up on our door steps and you hear on the radio all of these advertisements about go to this web site and we’ll help you write your research paper.  It’s already written for them you just plug in a few sentences when you’re in there and turn it in.  And I just think that our students live in an environment where in some circles it’s okay not to do the work yourself.  And it’s okay to use other methods that they will be graded on, and I hope that we as a faculty can have some discussion about what our reaction is to that.  But also, what we can do as a faculty for the environment in which they live.

 

Eva J. Pell:  Well, I would say Dr. Secor this sounds like an activity perhaps.  I have a program, we meet with program chairs, we have an annual meeting and we’re going to discuss research integrity in a little bit more depth there.  We do have to have a lot more dialogue and frankly we’ve got to be a lot more vigilant.  We are investigating another case also of a student that had left the university and already had his Ph.D.  I can’t talk about it because we’re in the middle of it but it’s more along the lines of what you’re describing.  This was a domestic student that I’m describing now but there are certainly students who come from different places and there are different cultural attitudes as to what’s cheating and what’s not cheating and the bottom line it’s our responsibility as the advisor.  It doesn’t mean someone can’t cheat and get around us, we all know that’s possible but we’ve got to make it clear what our expectations are and then be close enough to our students that they don’t want to disappoint us.  It’s got to be part of it too.

 

Rebecca L. Corwin:  This is much more practical, Eva.  The slides were whipping by and I saw up there that summer registration required for the candidacy is no longer required.  Is that true now also for the comprehensive exam or just candidacy?

 

Eva J. Pell:  No, just the candidacy.

 

Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine:  Thank you for that Dr. Pell.  I want to pass on to you a question asked me by a candidate to the medical school I recently interviewed.  Are there any plans to offer programs in the MD MBA degrees?

 

Eva J. Pell:  I think so…is there somebody here from the Smeal College of Business any more?  There isn’t an MD MBA, I don’t know of any.  No, I’m sorry, I don’t know of any now but I know there are conversations between the medical...  There’s a Ph.D. in…

 

Chair Schengrund:  That’s in pharmacology, we have that.

 

Eva J. Pell:  But not MD MBA.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  I have two comments.  One’s a consensus statement from the College of Engineering Caucus and the other one is just a question.  The consensus statement was one of I guess many of the informational reports that we have aren’t ones that we can stimulate much discussion to our colleagues with.  Certainly the research program hits everywhere.  It hits the education, it hits us at home with research as well and we felt that there was a lack of information in this particular report and we would like to send a message.  We would hope that there would be more information and details and more or less forthcoming so to speak, although you missed a table.  There’s certainly a lot of information here that I could see going back to my colleagues and stimulating discussion and would hope that would make it easier, so that when we have our caucus meeting we have something of substance to talk about.  That’s just one general comment from the caucus.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Can I interrupt one second on that?  Could you possibly let George Bugyi have copies of your tables?

 

Eva J. Pell:  Oh, absolutely.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Because he could put them into the Senate Record and that would be available to everyone.

 

Eva J. Pell:  Yes, absolutely that was the intention.  I apologize I don’t know how that didn’t happen.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  The second question that I have is just what was the rationale of prohibiting simultaneous course numbers?  I know that we for years have been trying to encourage graduate students to take 400-level courses and there is a tendency not.  And because of Penn State being what it is, I would characterize it as under-faculty staffed.  It’s difficult to rationalize technical electives when you’ve got 80 technical electives as an undergrad and you can only scrape up eight graduate students.  Given that there’s this idea that some specialized courses if they were offered at 400-, 500- you could attract a dozen undergrads and eight graduate students and teach the course, and have some separate things.  This is the first that I’ve seen…we’ve been promoting this idea for years in our department and now we’re saying that we’re going to prohibit this activity.  What’s the rationale?

 

Eva J. Pell:  I’ll say a little bit about it and Regina Vasilatos-Younken is here and she is the Senior Associate Dean for the Graduate School and she may want to add to it.  I came in the middle of this conversation last year.  The Graduate Council is just as good as debating things as the Senate, and this was debated for quite a long time before the decision was made to go in this direction.  But the problem was it wasn’t being handled properly, and basically it was one course that was being offered…there was just too many cases as I understand it where in fact two numbers were being smacked on for practical reasons in order to have enough bodies to teach it but there weren’t really two really different courses with different sets of expectations.  Do you have anything you want to add to that Jean?

 

Regina Vasilatos-Younken, Graduate School:  Yes, that’s been a concern.  A lot of the reasons that were used were really enrollment issues, and the concern on the part of Graduate Council was that graduate students weren’t getting the true graduate level education in these courses.  So there are still provisions for exceptions to that on a case-by-case basis if the department program can combine a strong pedagogical research by having them together and can provide evidence that the graduate students will be evaluated differently, they’ll be given different criteria so it’s really an effort to try to screen out the abuse of that…I don’t want to say abuse but because of limited enrollments departments were using that as a strategy to offer the courses and the graduate students were losing out.  So now the deans offices do not encourage that but to consider on a case-by-case basis if programs can meet the criteria for this it will be allowed to happen.

 

Joan M. Lakoski:  Earlier today we really recommended from the Senate Committee on Student Life some increased emphasis on the Penn State Code Of Conduct for the undergraduates and perhaps there might be an opportunity to look at this code in terms of how to serve our undergrad students and/or graduate students.

 

Eva J. Pell:  Thank you Joan.  I wanted to respond to Wayne’s comment.  I will be glad to make this as detailed…I was told to keep this extremely brief were my instructions and I was embarrassed at the length of time that it seemed it was taking.  If the Senate would like a more denser report we would be pleased to provide it, and I would also ask that the Senate Committee on Research guide me as to which kinds of interests…what kinds of issues you would like us to review.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  Specifically things like research assistants, teaching assistant ratios, potentially benchmarking.  Those kinds of things would be…

 

Eva J. Pell:  There are just many, many issues and I’ll be pleased to give you anything you want.  It would just be helpful to know what specific issues you’d like.

Chair Schengrund:  I think what we’ll do is pass your comment on to the Senate Committee on Research and they can make note of that, Guy, and come back to Eva with a defined list that your committee puts together and perhaps we can invite her back in the fall.  Are there any other questions before everybody leaves?  We still have a few more things to do.  Thank you, Eva very much and thank you for waiting so long and patiently.  The Senate Council has a Nominating Report for 2001-2002 and that is in Appendix “R” of your Agenda and Murry Nelson will present.

 

SENATE COUNCIL NOMINATING COMMITTEE

 

Report of Nominating Committee - 2001-2002

 

Murry R. Nelson, Chair, Senate Council Nominating Committee

 

Murry R. Nelson:  Thank you, Cara.  You see what’s in Appendix “R”.  Two candidates for Chair-Elect of the Senate…let’s start with Faculty Advisory Committee To The President which is actually at the bottom.  We have Wayne Curtis and Peter Rebane who are the nominees.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to close?

 

Senators:  So moved.

 

Murry R. Nelson:  You see the nominees for Secretary, Mark Casteel, Deidre Jago and Michael Navin have all been foolish enough to stay.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to close?

 

Senators:  So moved.

 

Murry R. Nelson:  And for Chair-Elect of the Senate John Moore and Jamie Myers.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other nominations from the floor?  Is there a motion to close?

 

Senators:  So moved.

 

Chair Schengrund:  We need to accept the slate as proposed.  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it and the motion is carried.  Moving on to our last informational report but definitely not least is the report that’s sponsored by Senate Council, Commission for Women—1981-2001:  Status of Women at Penn State.  It is Appendix “S” of the handout and Vasu Varadan will present that information.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

Commission for Women—1981-2001:  Status of Women at Penn State

Vasundara V. Varadan, College of Engineering:  Chair Schengrund and colleagues of the Faculty Senate on behalf of the Commission for Women I want to express my deep appreciation to Senate Council for sponsoring this informational report to the Faculty Senate and I want to thank those of you who have been waiting here and have continued to stay to hear this report.  It’s a very long report and requires much patience on your part however, the commission was trying to assess changes in the status of women at Penn State over a 20 year period.  Let me remind you that the Commission for Women was established in 1981 by President John Oswald as an advisory body to the president on the status of women at Penn State and as a watchdog of issues related to women.  This report is submitted in that spirit as an informational report to this body.  I wish to summarize now areas of progress and concern concerning women faculty, although I wish to remind you that the commission does represent all women at Penn State—faculty, staff, students and technical service employees.  So if you would permit me I would just like to make a very brief summary of this very long report.  First I want to talk about positive things.  Everybody likes to talk about positive things I guess.  I’d like to say the most progress that we have made is in the hiring of women at the assistant professor ranks and it has really increased significantly in the last 20 years.  Secondly, I would like to express my very deep appreciation to central administration for its sensitivity to work-family issues that disproportionately impact women faculty.  Third, I’d like to say that several policies and programs have been implemented in the last 20 years at the urging of the Commission for Women that has made Penn State a more hospitable work place for all women.  I wish to remind you that it was the Commission for Women that sponsored the very successful Administrative Fellows Program, that has produced several administrative leaders—both women as well as minorities.  I’d like to highlight some areas of concern to the Commission for Women and to women at large at Penn State, and I will just show you one graph that summarizes several of these things.  More women were hired into senior faculty ranks in the last three years than the total number of women full professors at Penn State at all.  I want to make this point by showing this graph and then I would also like you to note as Robert Secor presented in the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs report that the Commission for Women is extremely concerned about the high attrition rates of women faculty at the assistant professor rank.  I would like to put up this chart to show you what our areas of concern are.  This is sort of in some sense to capture the history of the representation of women faculty at Penn State and I apologize to my colleagues at locations other than University Park because it was simply difficult to get the historical data for all campus locations due to the reorganization that we went through and this is the only reason why I’m presenting it only for University Park data.  You will see of course the faculty at Penn State is dominated by full professors and you will see that is the first set of graphs that I’m showing you, that is this set here.  And you will see the extraordinary increase in the number of male faculty at the full professor level and you will see way down here at the bottom what’s been happening to the women full professors over this 15 year period.  What concerns us is that I just put this yellow bar and this teal bar here.  The yellow bar represents all men who were hired with instant tenure which means at senior ranks.  I’m unable to tell you whether they were hired as full professors or associate professors.  It would be my guess that there are more full professors hired than associate professors but I could be wrong, but you will see that that number is more than the number of full professor women that we have at Penn State altogether.  So it seems to me that if we keep continuing to hire senior faculty who are all men, this thing is not going to make any improvements.  I’m not a statistician, and I don’t make projections but it seems to me as an engineer it’s going to take many, many, many years before we are going to see any improvements in those ranks.  I also think that this is very encouraging that the number of women faculty hired at the assistant professor rank is approaching some level of parity with men being hired.  You will also see that I have detailed data on availability of women Ph.Ds in the different fields.  I still feel that although we are approaching hiring at availability rates that there are many departments that are simply not hiring women at the rate at which those disciplines are awarding Ph.Ds to women.  I haven’t done enough research on this to support this but it seems to me that male faculty for historical reasons have reached what I call steady state conditions.  In the sense that if you see assistant and associate professor ranks they are sort of flat.  That’s because they are being hired at equitable rates and they are making their progression to the senior ranks and you see this very large increase of senior faculty.  But it is simply my conclusion from all of this data that I’ve looked at that maybe there is something called the stuck in rank syndrome at the associate professor rank for a large number of women faculty that they are not advancing to the full professor rank.  Another area of concern to the Commission for Women is the lack of representation of women in academic administration positions.  From the recent data I have women hold only 19 of the 135 academic administrator positions and this could be all wrong, I call academic administrators as deans, department heads or chairs of academic departments and directors of academic affairs at the campus locations.  This may or may not surprise you.  The Commission for Women hosted a series of luncheons last year for senior faculty women, this is associate professors and full professors, and at one of the lunches to which we invited the president and the provost 90 percent of the senior faculty women present said that they feel marginalized, and not included in the decision making at the department level, and they also don’t feel respected by their colleagues.  I want to move on to some work-family issues which a lot of women have talked to us about and I would also recommend that you look at Robert Drago’s recently concluded study under a Sloan Grant on work-family issues, this is posted on his web site.  This is the perception of a stigma attached to availment of family leave or staying of the tenure clock.  Although this is university policy that’s available to perhaps men and women as the policy is defined that a lot of people are reluctant to avail of this benefit because they perceive that it’s going to come back and bite them.  Robert Drago’s study clearly shows that postponement of child bearing until after tenure put women at a very high health risk.  The women have also told us and the Commission for Women calls this the China Policy, and this is sort of that it’s stated policy on staying of the tenure clock only once, and that the second or other times it’s discretionary.  You’re not entitled to it.  So basically one child during your tenure years.  A lot of women faculty, especially in science and engineering have complained about the lack of flexibility of day care centers which operate on very rigid hours and does not allow them to come back to their laboratories for other times.  And lastly, a lot of women complain that perhaps they are not rising through the ranks because of their inability to travel as frequently as their male colleagues because of family care responsibilities, and the Commission for Women is strongly urging the administration to consider some type of in home care for both male and female faculty who would need somebody to come and take charge of children at home over and above regular arrangements.  A lot of women attribute their lack of progress through the ranks to full professor because of their lack of mobility.  Women are less likely to move up to the career which always results in promotions and hefty pay raises where as statistically and maybe that is why we are seeing so many men being hired at the senior ranks.  Lastly, before I take questions, I would like to request to the Faculty Senate that the Commission for Women be allowed to come and make its presentation that it has developed on Best Practices For The Recruitment And Retention Of Women Faculty to the Faculty Senate as a whole, perhaps in the fall of the coming academic year when faculty searches get started in most academic units.  And I will conclude now and thank you for your patience again and I will answer any questions that you might have.

 

Dwight Davis:  I appreciate the report.  I have two questions, one relates to the pool of women coming into academic programs where they can progress through during their undergraduate years and then go on into graduate programs and what that pool is like?  But also to raise the question of whether or not there was discussion in the report and the report--I didn’t get a chance to read it--of the pipeline issue, and what we should be doing to foster more girls to think about science and careers in science and keeping them in their educational programs and nurturing them once they come into the university environment.  So I just wanted to see what your thoughts were with regards to those two issues.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I just want to comment.  Yes, there is a lot of data on the pool in the various disciplines.  Sometimes it is difficult to break out that data because I tried to do it by college but colleges nationally and different universities are organized differently so we tried to make the best fit to Penn State.  There’s definitely pipeline issues that concern us in fields of science and engineering particularly engineering and particularly the physical sciences—physics and chemistry.  We don’t perceive a pipeline problem for example in the life sciences.  I think there is a pipeline problem in the School of Business in some of their disciplines, there is no pipeline problem in education.  In education women get 60 percent of the Ph.Ds that are awarded nationally.  There is no pipeline problem in the fields of liberal arts, as we have them here at Penn State and that’s a broad brush statement because you could go in to the sub-disciplines and you might identify.  But nevertheless yes I do…that’s why whenever I talk about faculty recruitment I always compare it with availability, because I cannot demand for example in engineering that 50 percent of the faculty should be women when only 12 percent of the Ph.Ds are awarded to women.  That would be an unfair requirement.  So whenever I make the statement, I’m still saying the hiring of women at the assistant professor rank is slightly below availability and since we are already starting at such a disadvantaged position that I would recommend all of you to read this excellent book by Virginia Valian called, Why So Slow women in academia and she talked about a crude disadvantage.  It could be just half of a percent or one percent at the beginning of your career and just like compounding interest at the end of 20 years that accumulated advantage can be disastrous.

 

Tramble T. Turner:  Congratulations on such a thorough report and the growing cooperation between the three commissions.  I have one question though about one of the recommendations.  You highlighted as the first recommendation addressing the issue of in home care.  I’m curious if the commission has any discussion of not only in home care for children but increasingly we see ageing parents that…

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Family care…yes, when we said in home care we just meant any type of responsibility.  There was an excellent talk sponsored by Robert Drago as part of the work and families program where Joan Williams from the American University, she’s a law professor there in work and family issues, she talked about the family dividend basically what’s done by families, that the employer whether it’s a university or a corporation, takes benefit off which is actually lost when you send the employee away on business travel for whatever number of days they’re gone for 24 hours a day.  There’s nobody paying for that family dividend you know, which the employee was normally contributing.  So there’s obviously money involved here but when we talk about in home care it’s simply to allow employees to travel freely but at the same time not have to sacrifice family care responsibilities whether it’s children or elderly parents.

 

Robert Secor:  In the presidents opening remarks he mentioned that in hiring Susan Speece at Berks-Lehigh Valley and Diane Disney at the Commonwealth College that we no longer have any deans searches which is true.  I would hope you put in your positive column that we now have nine women deans and we’ve never had anything like that before.  Four of the six campus college deans are women.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Thank you.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  If you look at market forces, and I know we hate to do that because we take a hit as it is when you have someone that gets hired in academia compared to say industry and industry is a little shameless when it comes to…or aggressive shall we say when it comes to recruiting, so minorities and women are often hired at a premium.  So there’s even a greater disincentive to look at the fractions that are graduating as being the fraction we should get.  You could say why not offer a premium just like the marketplace.  Has that ever been discussed or is that way out of line?

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  I don’t think it’s just a question of money.  I’m not saying money is not important.  You will see that the data I’ve presented that’s why I presented it although the numbers don’t tally.  If you look at how many Ph.Ds are given to men, what percent of men receive Ph.Ds compared to what percent are represented in academia, you will see that the percentage of women with men in academia is higher than their Ph.D rates.  Whereas for women, they get a lot of Ph.Ds but they don’t choose to come to academia or they are kept out of academia.  I mean, I don’t know what the reason is but it’s simply my conclusion that maybe other employers are more attractive to women with Ph.Ds than academia.  That somehow academia is inhospitable to women that they prefer to go elsewhere.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other comments or questions for Vasu?  If not we will keep your suggestion for your report in the fall in mind, and thank you very much.

 

Vasundara V. Varadan:  Thank you.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The March 27, 2001 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:59 PM.

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO MARCH 27, 2001

 

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement

(Legislative)

 

Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – Faculty Right and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

 

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report of March 13, 2001

 

Curricular Affairs – Status of Re-certification Process for General Education (Informational)

 

Elections Commission – Roster of Senators for 2001-2002 (Informational)

 

Faculty Affairs – Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000 (Informational)

 

Faculty Affairs – Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Affairs – Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Benefits – Adoption Benefits (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Benefits – Penn State Travel Program (Informational)

 

Faculty Benefits – Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries (Legislative)

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001 (Informational)

 

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits – Annual Report – 1999-2000 (Informational)

 

Research – Graduate School Update – Annual Report, Eva Pell, Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School (Informational)

 

Senate Council – Commission for Women – 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State (Informational)

 

Senate Council – Resolutions on Free Speech (Legislative)

 

Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

 

Student Life – Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures

(Advisory/Consultative)

 

D O O R   H A N D O U T

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Adoption Benefits

(Advisory/Consultative)

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The University provides coverage toward the costs incurred in childbirth, but does not offer financial assistance for adoption.  Adoption offers one way for faculty members and staff to develop families.  The costs associated with adoptions can be substantial and create financial hardship.  Paid parental leave is another important benefit for faculty and staff who adopt children.  Therefore, our Committee asked Human Resources to gather information on the possibility of an adoption benefit policy and review HRG18, Paid Parental Leave for Faculty.  Universities and other employers were surveyed about the existence and structure of an adoption benefit policy.

 

RATIONALE:

 

Physician and hospital fees reimbursed for childbirth, including parental care and delivery, are approximately $3,770 to $4,000 per child.  This financial benefit is substantial, but not available to faculty and staff members who adopt.

 

A survey of universities and hospitals found that some institutions provide adoptive leave.  Johns Hopkins and Notre Dame, in addition, provide monetary assistance for the employee.

 

Data do not exist as to exactly how many faculty or staff adopt children.  By using the experience at Johns Hopkins University, we estimate that approximately 22 employees per year would utilize an adoption benefit.  Therefore, if the University provides reimbursements of up to $4000 per adopted child for incurred costs directly related to adoption, the estimated costs to Penn State University for this benefit would be around $88,000.  (Since $4,000 is approximately the benefit provided for physician and hospital fees for childbirth, equity suggests up to this amount for adoption, which often costs more.)

 

HRG18, Paid Parental Leave for Faculty, defines the amount of paid time off for the birth of a child and the adoption of a child.  Following birth, six weeks is permitted for the faculty member.  Following adoption, the leave currently is based upon the age of the child.  If the child is school age, the leave is only two weeks, while if the child is less than school age the leave is six weeks.  Adopting school age children has different challenges for faculty members that require time to overcome.  Therefore, equity suggests six weeks paid parental leave be provided for childbirth and all adoptions regardless of the child’s age.  The societal benefits of adoption are potentially significant for our communities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The Faculty Senate hereby recommends the addition by the University of an adoption assistance benefit for its faculty and staff members.  The adoption assistance benefit should provide reimbursement for incurred costs directly related to the adoption, up to $4,000 per adoption.  Paid parental leave for faculty who adopt children should uniformly be six weeks without regard to the child’s age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D O O R   H A N D O U T

 

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Re-certification Process for General Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Education Course Approvals - Progress Toward Re-certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

College

College Plans

 

Plan Total

Approved

Pending

Withdrawn

 

SP '99 - SP '01

FA '01 - FA '02

 

 

 

or Rejected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agricultural Sciences

20

1

21

2

2

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altoona

3

0

3

1

0

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arts and Architecture

78

24

105

3

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behrend

14

0

14

1

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commonwealth

19

0

19

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication

3

1

4

1

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth & Mineral Sciences

31

9

41

3

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education

2

0

3

1

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engineering

4

3

7

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health & Human Development

56

29

85

9

0

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberal Arts

262

42

310

62

2

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science

25

15

40

4

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total # of courses

517

124

652

87

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses to be deleted

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses not in College Plans

 

 

 

35

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D O O R   H A N D O U T

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

 

·         In its 2000 survey of Employer Health Benefits, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Trust cited an overall rise in premiums, representing the largest increase since 1993.  Of the employers participating in that survey, 67% cite skyrocketing prescription drug costs as the primary factor of the increase in costs for their health care plans.

 

·         The average increase in Penn State’s HMO costs for 2001 is 13%.  Individual HMO increases ranged from 0 to 35%.  Drastic increases in the cost of prescription drug coverage are cited as the primary reason for the rise in rates.

 

·          Cost for the University’s self-insured health plans in 2001 have increased more dramatically than the HMOs.  Plan A rates increased by 23%.  Healthpass PPO rates increase by 22%.  Increase in the cost of prescription drugs continue to be a major factor in these increases.

 

·         The costs for Penn State’s MPDP program in 2000 were 22.5% higher than for the same period in 1999.

 

·         Penn State provides prescription drug coverage to benefits eligible retirees.

 

·         Towers Perrin, a global management consulting firm, surveyed 221 Fortune 1000 employers in October/November 2000.  Ninety percent of those companies expected double digit premiums increases to continue over the next several years.  Respondents cited rapidly escalating prescription drug costs as the primary reason for the 13 percent hike in large employer health plan benefits for 2001.

 

·         An aging population and increasing emphasis on pharmacological treatments are significant factors for increased costs.  Further, new drugs, which have no lower cost generic equivalent are aggressively advertised and targeted directly to consumers rather than doctors or pharmacists.

 

·         The increasing emphasis on prescription drugs significantly increased the need, cost and employment opportunities for registered pharmacists.  Staff shortage and turnover has adversely affected turnaround time for the Penn State MPDP program.  The University Health Services Pharmacy soon will be implementing, Script-Pro, an automated system for filling prescriptions.

 

D O O R   H A N D O U T

SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

Report on Graduate Education

Eva J. Pell

Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School

 

Major Trends in Graduate Enrollment

 

Following a three-year decline through 1998, total graduate enrollments increased slightly from 1998 to 1999, and then more significantly last year to 10,297 (Fall, 2000), a net increase of 3.2% over 1998.  Of this total number, 50.1% are masters category, 35.6% are doctorate, and 14.3 % are nondegree.  The majority of the increase in total enrollments (71%) occurred at the Commonwealth and other colleges, with Behrend, Hershey and University Park accounting for the remainder (29%).  At University Park, most colleges experienced level or declining enrollments, with net declines since 1998 being greatest for Business (19.6%), Education (9.5%), and Liberal Arts (5.6%), whereas nondegree students and Engineering accounted for the largest increases (30% and 9.1%, respectively).  The percentage women enrolled has not changed dramatically over the period since 1998, with a slight increase in the last year, whereas enrollments of students from underrepresented groups declined from 1998 to 1999, and remained level over the last year.  See attached Tables for details.

 

Diversity Efforts in Graduate Education

 

An Ad Hoc Committee was appointed to analyze Minority Recruitment and Retention; the committee was Co-Chaired by Drs. Vernis Welmon and John Tippeconnic. The goals of this committee were to address the Graduate School efforts with respect to recruitment and retention focused on increasing the number of applications from underrepresented groups to graduate programs, intensifying recruitment efforts of those who do apply, and strengthening retention programs for students on campus. The committee made the following recommendations.

 

  1. Form stronger ties with other institutions that have provided education for large numbers of underrepresented students.

 

  1. Seek outside funding for additional assistantships and fellowships.

 

  1. Support and enhance programs that have proven success records.

 

  1. Introduce new strategies to engage more academic units in recruiting greater numbers of qualified students of color.

 

Technology Efforts

·        In the fall of 1998, the Graduate School, CAC, Library Computing Services, and University Libraries launched the Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)

pilot project to allow doctoral students to produce and submit their dissertations in electronic form.  During this pilot period from Summer, 1999 to Summer, 2000, a total of 31 dissertations were submitted electronically.  Beginning this fall (2000), all Penn State doctoral students have the option to prepare and submit their dissertations in electronic or paper format.  To date, 8 have submitted electronically for Fall, 2000.  The ETD Committee, with representatives from each of the above participating units, is continuing to review and refine the ETD process and policies, including consideration of intellectual property (patent) issues, and technical support needs. 

Funding Programs

·        University Graduate Fellowship Program

 

            The University Graduate Fellowship Program was decentralized beginning with the 2000-2001 academic year.  Colleges were allocated fellowships and allowed to select the recipients using their own process and recruitment schedules.  During the same time period, the program also increased from 40 to 80 awards. This increase came from savings garnered from the elimination of the FICA withholding requirement.

            A small number of fellowships were not used by the colleges in this first year, which allowed the Graduate School to award ten Dissertation Fellowships for the spring 2001 semester.

           

·        Fund for Excellence in Graduate Recruitment (FEGR) Program

 

            This program, which is meant to enhancing the quality of students recruited into graduate programs at Penn State through increased support opportunities for incoming students, also underwent revision this year.  Streamlining the college reporting requirements, providing more definition to program guidelines and funding criteria, and reemphasizing the inclusion of funding for Intercollege Graduate Degree Programs were some of these adjustments.  This academic year the Graduate School provided $1,037,324.00 in funding for this program.

 

Graduate Council Highlights

 

 

In addition, four new programs were approved:

 

Integrated B.S. in Spanish and M.S. in Industrial Relations and Human Resources

–Masters of Engineering in Manufacturing Systems Engineering at Penn State Erie

–M.S. in Community and Economic Development

–Ph.D. in Information Sciences and Technology

 

 

A total of fifty (50) new courses have been approved during the period September 1999 through February 2001. 

 

Graduate School Enrichment Activities

 

·        Graduate Student Alumni Society

·        Convocation

–Faculty Development

“University Graduate Recruiting”

“Ethics in University Research Education”

“Beyond Cloning the Academic: Preparing Doctoral Students for Postgraduate

Opportunities”

“Faculty-Student Relationships: Promoting Mutual Accountability”

“Re-envisioning the Ph.D. at Penn State for the New Millennium”

 

–Professional Development

“Moving On: Career Transitions and Employment Options”

“Personal Marketing: Preparing for Non-Academic Careers”

“Successful Grant Writing for Graduate Students”

 

–Student Funding

·        Commencement Reception

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Guy F. Barbato, Chair
James J. Beatty
Phillip R. Bower
Wenwu Cao
Roy B. Clariana
Steven P. Dear
Loren Filson
Charles R. Fisher
Hector Flores
Kevin P. Furlong
David S. Gilmour
Brandon B. Hunt
Thomas N. Jackson, V-Chair
Joan M. Lakoski
Rajen Mookerjee
Eva J. Pell
Gary W. Rogers
Joan S. Thomson
Vasundara V. Varadan
Susan Welch

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

MARCH 27, 2001 SENATE MEETING

 

Adams, Phyllis F.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard I.
Andaleeb, Syed S.
Atkinson, Ann J.
Aydin, Kultegin
Bagby, John W.
Baggett, Connie D.
Balog, Theresa A.
Barbato, Guy F.
Bardi, John F.
Barnes, David
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Bonneau, Robert H.
Brozellino, Joseph E.
Bower, Phillip R.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brown, Douglas K.
Browning, Barton W.
Burchard, Charles L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Calvert, Clay
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chellman, Alison C.
Chirico, JoAnn
Christy, David P.
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Corwin, Rebecca L.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
DeJong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Engelder, Terry
Erickson, Rodney A.
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Everett, Peter B.
Filson, Loren
Fisher, Charles R.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Fullerton, Erika
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Garwacki, Joseph
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Greene, Wallace H.
Gutgold, Nichola D.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hunt, Brandon B.
Hurson, Ali R.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jacobs, Janis E.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jurs, Peter C.
Kazmerski, Victoria A.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kunze, Donald E.
Lakoski, Joan M.
Landis, Melissa
Lilley, John M.
Lindberg, Darla
Lippert, John R.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Mastrian, Kathleen G.
May, James E.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McGregor, Annette K.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Moore, John W.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Neimeister, Katherine A.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pell, Eva J.
Power, Barbara L.
Preston, Deborah
Prosek, Robert A.
Provenzano, Frank J.
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Ridley, Sheila E.
Rogers, Gary W.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Rowe, William A.
Sachs, Howard
Sandler, Karen Wiley
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Serfass, Laura
Seybert, Thomas A.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, James F.
Smith, Stephen M.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Su, Mila C.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Troester, Rodney L.
Troxell, D. Joshua
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Wager, J. James
Walters, Robert A.
Ware, Roger P.
Weiss, Beno
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

149  Total Elected
    5  Total Ex Officio
    8  Total Appointed
162  Total Attending

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 2001

 

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report of April 10, 2001

 

Computing and Information Systems - Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Research - Courseware Policy (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Affairs - Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001 (Informational)

 

Faculty Benefits - AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State (Informational)

 

University Planning - Status of Construction at Penn State, Spring 2001 (Informational)

 

University Planning - Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle, Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University (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 Committee

            Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

            Senate Secretary for 2001-2002

            Senate Chair-Elect for 2001-2002