Penn State University Home




Volume 33-----MARCH 28, 2000-----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 1999-00.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at 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.


I. Final Agenda for March 28, 2000

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to March 28, 2000

B. Attached

Corrected Copy - Senate Calendar for 2000-2001

Corrected Copy - Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2000-2001


III. Tentative Agenda for April 25, 2000


Minutes of the February 29, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:4

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of March 14, 2000

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 14, 2000






Committees and Rules

Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 5

Revision of Constitution, Article I, Section 1


Faculty Affairs

HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks


Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows

University Planning

Parking Report


Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2000-2001

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Election Commission

Roster of Senators for 2000-2001

Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships For 1998-99

Intra-University Relations

Non-Tenure-Line Faculty


A Primer on Indirect Costs

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2000-2001

Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary

Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

Student Life

Report on Credit Card Overuse

Undergraduate Education

University Advising Council Web Site






The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 5." This allows a Senator who is engaged in any type of professional activity which makes it impossible to carry out Senate responsibilities to be replaced by an alternate for the period of time the that Senator is to be absent from the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

The Senate passed three Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs - HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks." This report eliminates the academic ranks of Affiliate Librarian and redefines the rank of Assistant Librarian. (See Record, page(s) 12-13 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Research - "Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows." This report was prepared by the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows. The Senate Research Committee endorsed the recommendations made in this report, but asked that oversight for postdoctoral appointments be in the Office of the Vice President for Research. (See Record, page(s) 13-14 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

University Planning - "Parking Report." The University Planning Committee reviewed the Transportation Demand Management at Penn State: Parking Aspects and recommended that Option #2 be accepted. This option was to keep the status quo regarding parking with some enhancements. (See Record, page(s) 14-16 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate received seven Informational Reports:

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2000-2001 - "Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee." This report lists the nominees for the election to Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. (See Record, page(s) 17-18 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Election Commission - "Roster of Senators for 2000-2001." This is the list of Senators by voting units for the 2000-01 Senate year. (See Record, page(s) 18 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

Intra-University Relations - "Non-Tenure-Line Faculty". This report compares the total student credit hours produced by the full-time faculty with the part-time faculty over the last 10 years. (See Record, page(s) 18-24 and Agenda Appendix "K.")

Research - "A Primer on Indirect Costs." This report provides an introduction to indirect costs (facilities and administrative costs). (See Record, page(s) 24-31 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2000-2001 - "Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President." This report lists the nominees for the election of Senate Officers and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. (See Record, page(s) 32-33 and Agenda Appendix "M.")

Student Life - "Report on Credit Card Overuse." This report reviews and discusses the growing problem of student credit card debt. (See Record, page(s) 33-38 and Agenda Appendix "N.")

Undergraduate Education - "University Advising Council Web Site." This report explains how the nine goals of an effective advising system were implemented. These goals were created as a result of the revision of Senate Policy 32-00 (See Record, page(s) 38-41 and Agenda Appendix "O.")

One report will lay on the table until the next meeting since it is a Constitution change:

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Constitution, Article I, Section 1." (See Record, page(s) 11 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

One report was withdrawn by the committee because of a schedule conflict:

Intercollegiate Athletics - "Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1998-99". This report will be presented at the April 25, 2000 meeting. (See Record, page(s) 18 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Murry R. Nelson, Chair, presiding. One hundred and forty-three Senators signed the roster.

Chair Nelson: It is time to begin.


Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the February 29, 2000 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 Nelson: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for March 14, 2000. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Let me also note that there are two notes regarding consultation and another regarding the 400-word statement that must be put in front of any course that is proposed. That has also been put on the web page. They are at the beginning of the blue pages. They precede the rest of the report. So it would be expeditious for you to look at that if you are contemplating any changes in any courses, to note the descriptions for consultation and the 400-word statement which is necessary in a new course. And will be in all courses eventually.

The Senate Calendar for 2000-2001 is attached to your Agenda as Appendix "B". Please note that the Senate meeting that is scheduled for March will be held on March 27, 2001 not March 28, since March 28 next year is a Wednesday. We are not switching to Wednesdays.

I have another communication in reference to the Academic Integrity report that we passed in the February 29, 2000 meeting. It has to do with a memo that Provost Erickson has sent to all of the academic deans advising them of the passage of the Academic Integrity report, and asking them to form their Academic Integrity Committees. I want to note that here in the Senate so you know the progress of that, and also that you should be alerted as your college or unit begins to do so.

Finally, one other communication comes from John Nichols, Chair of Faculty Affairs. He asked that I announce it to the full Senate and I will read it. "In 1992, the Senate approved a recommended policy on privacy. Shortly thereafter, President Thomas accepted the recommendation. However, for reasons unknown to the Faculty Affairs Committee, the privacy policy was never implemented. This year, the Faculty Affairs Subcommittee on Faculty Rights and Privacy Issues, under the leadership of Sabih Hayek, pursued the matter, and the policy is now fully implemented and appears in the Penn State policy manual as AD-53 (Privacy Statement). The Faculty Affairs Committee has since consulted with a faculty expert on privacy, who has informed us that the policy may already be outdated because of the rapid advances in communications technologies in the interim. Therefore, the Faculty Affairs Committee is undertaking a reexamination of AD-53. Comments from the University community on any potential need for revising the privacy policy are welcome." And you can communicate with John Nichols in any form you wish ( if you want to use email. That concludes my communications.


Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of March 14, 2000. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.


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

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on Tuesday, March 14, 2000 and discussed the following agenda items: Update on Searches; Update on Legislative Hearings; the new Druce Commission, which is now the Krebbs Commission; Distance Education Policy Updates; Update on Report on Post Doctoral Fellows; Professionalization of Intercollegiate Sports; General Education Funding; Policy Questions on the Cancellation of Classes because of inclement weather; and finally, to some degree, Intellectual Property. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2000. If anyone might have any items to be included on the FAC agenda, please contact any of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members: Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers had their last visit for the spring on Tuesday, March 21 to the Eberly College of Science. Visits to locations other than University Park for the fall will be scheduled over the summer. They will be posted on the web.

We received a memo from President Spanier accepting the legislative report from the Committee on Committees and Rules passed at the February 1, 2000 meeting, entitled "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)".

And finally on another note regarding Intellectual Property. The report was given to the three most appropriate committees: the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs, Libraries and Research for review at their meetings this morning. They had a number of comments, I am sure. There will be a Forensic Session scheduled for next month, and the committees will have the opportunity at that point to provide their own input from this morning's meeting.


Chair Nelson: We move next to comments by the president of the university. President Spanier is here today and does have comments. Let me just remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. Thank you.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much, good afternoon. Last week was the final meeting of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. We met in Washington, DC and issued our sixth and final report in a series that began almost four years ago. In our Penn State delegation we had the chairman and the vice chairman of our Board of Trustees accompanying Rodney Erickson and I, we were also joined by a member of the legislature Bill Deweese, who is the democratic leader in the House of Representatives. We had an excellent discussion I think, about current issues facing higher education today. Many of these are issues we've been talking about tackling here at Penn State, and I would encourage you to go to the Kellogg Commission web site and look at some of these reports or you can go to the web site for direct link to the Kellogg Commission. I hope you would find that interesting reading, and perhaps it would stimulate some of your thinking on issues that we do talk about here in the Senate and at Penn State generally.

Were any of you here yesterday for the faculty/staff awards luncheon? Do we have any of the honorees here by any chance? I guess not, but I just want to report that every year the university gives out a range of awards to faculty and staff members for different types of exemplary service to the university. I know that we have here in the room, people who have been recognized in the past with these awards, and it really was an excellent luncheon event. And it reminds me that we have some really marvelous colleagues at the university who are working above and beyond the call of duty and doing great things, and I just wanted to draw attention to that annual recognition.

Tomorrow I testify before what has now become known as the Krebbs Commission. I guess that would be the short hand way of referring to it. It used to be called the Druce Commission but Representative Druce does not seem to be involved anymore and Representative Krebbs now chairs that commission. And it is a commission that is looking at issues of accountability in higher education, performance standards, and a range of issues facing higher education in Pennsylvania today. And I will be speaking with that group in Harrisburg tomorrow trying to present Penn State's and my point of view, on a number of issues that are of interest to them. It's probably one of those things that will be picked up on PCN on the cable channel, so if you have an interest you could look for it.

Just a brief update on some searches. Just yesterday Provost Erickson launched the search committee of a new dean and campus executive officer for Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley, so that search is officially underway. Fred Gaige retires on December 31, 2000 so we have really most of the calendar year ahead of us in which to conduct that search. And if my recollection is right, Karen Sandler is serving as chair of the search committee. If you have nominations for that position do let Karen know, and that search will move along. We are on schedule with the search process involving the selection of the new dean of the Smeal College of Business Administration. Really perhaps in the final stages of that search, and we may have an announcement to make as early as next week, so stay tuned on that search as it unfolds. We are right in the middle of interviewing the finalist for the position that holds the longest title at Penn State--Chief Executive Officer of the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Senior Vice President for Health Affairs of the Pennsylvania State University and Dean of the College of Medicine. The search committee has done a wonderful and expeditious job of identifying five of the top people in the United States. Really the best five we think we could get our hands on; some truly outstanding candidates. They are now being confidentially interviewed and screened down to an even smaller group at this point. We hope that if the search moves along on schedule, to have a decision made in time for confirmation at the May Board of Trustees meeting with a starting date on or about July 1. It's a very ambitious time table, but we are actually on track at this point.

Some great things have happened lately in Penn State athletics. Did any of you see the Penn State/Louisiana Tech game last night? Raise your hand if you saw any part of that. Hey, this is a Senate of sports fans. Did you screen people on that basis?

Chair Nelson: Yes we did.

President Spanier: Well, that was a great victory for Penn State, and of course now the women are in the final four playing in Philadelphia on Friday. There's a big piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer I think yesterday, saying that the Nuns of Immaculatus were all praying for us Sunday. Rene Portland has Immaculatus ties and so that's happening and a lot of other people are rooting for us; it's getting a lot of attention. That's a great thing to happen for our women's basketball team. Meanwhile tonight, the men are playing in the National Invitational Tournament. Anybody leaving here early to drive to New York? Okay, I guess its women's athletics then that's the main thing, that's alright. Actually I opened up the newspaper one day to find out that I was expected in two different states at the same time. That I'd be doing a radio show tonight at 7:00 and that I would be at the NIT game tonight at 7:00 hosting a pep rally. To reveal the secret of where I'll be, I will be here doing the radio show and I'll watch the game on television.

Now not getting as much attention, but probably the most amazing accomplishment in the history of Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States is that the Penn State fencing team won its sixth consecutive NCAA national championship. I don't think any other team has ever won six consecutive NCAA championships. I know not in fencing, I'm not sure if that's occurred in any sport and it's quite a remarkable accomplishment and I hope that actually gets a lot more attention. So we are definitely the fencing capital of America right here. And if you have never ever seen it up close it's a pretty interesting thing. You have to have good eyes, I mean it's so fast you can hardly see it. So that's just a smattering of the news. Lots of great things are happening at Penn State right now. I just couldn't be prouder, and let me open it up for your questions.

Carly M. Lipsitz, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm graduating in May so this question doesn't apply to me. But as an alum who is going to be donating soon...

Senators: Laughter.

President Spanier: Thank you very much.

Carly M. Lipsitz: Well I don't think I'll make that much money next year. But this is a question that I've been tossing around in my mind. With the success of Grand Destiny I know that my college, the College of the Liberal Arts has already reached its goal and it's only half way through. My question to you is, what do you think about a 10-20 percent of the total funds raised by Grand Destiny going directly to an endowment where the interest would be dispersed equally on an annual basis to each student enrolled at Penn State in the form of a tuition reduction?

President Spanier: Well let me say first of all that Liberal Arts has been one of the great success stories in the campaign. They've done remarkably well and that's an area some people were predicting at the beginning of the campaign, "oh gee, tough to raise money for Liberal Arts, can't do it." But they are doing very well and obviously they will exceed that goal and yes, they may have to set a new goal, obviously. It's a nice sentiment that you just expressed, but not too realistic. Because at most universities and certainly at Penn State, virtually all, actually more than 99 percent of all of the gifts to the university are specifically earmarked by donors. In other words they tell us exactly what their gift should go to. There are a few times during the year, when sort of like a miracle happens, when Rodney Kirsch walks into my office and says, "Guess what. Somebody died; they left Penn State in their will and you got $10,000, $50, $100." There's some number in their will that they left to Penn State and it's totally unrestricted. Even then we look at their giving history and their academic ties and if clearly we think they would have given it to a particular area if they had earmarked, we do put it there. So the number of dollars that's actually left that we have any discretion over is very modest, and the one thing we always do with donor funds is we do exactly what they say. So the amount of money that comes in unrestricted that we could do something with, like apply to tuition discounts, we couldn't do it. There isn't enough money to consider that. Now what we do is the single largest category in the campaign so far for which money has been given is undergraduate student scholarships. That far and away always has, and in the current campaign continues to be the largest category. So while tuition keeps going up, the amount of money that we're putting into financial aid through scholarships for those who are neediest or in some cases who have exceptional academic merit continues to increase. Even then we're only scratching the surface, I'm sorry to say, because we're still way behind other universities. We're still way behind where we need to be. But you could be among the first to say, "I'm giving you my first million and just use it to bring tuition down."

Carly M. Lipsitz: I sincerely hope I can do that.

President Spanier: Well I'm betting on you.

Chair Nelson: You've overwhelmed them.

President Spanier: The rest of the Agenda isn't that exciting so you need to get the interesting stuff...

James E. May, DuBois Campus: I'd like to ask what happens to the revenue generated by the entertainment industry that we have going out here at the Jordan Center? What acts does the university benefit from?

President Spanier: Well that's an interesting question. This is probably a common misperception. Penn State is not a promoter. We're not bringing acts in, we're not really deciding who comes here and getting a cut of the profits. We don't do that. There are some venues that do business that way. It's not our thing. We rent the facility to promoters who come in with their act. All we get is rental so there's a fixed rental fee. If you want to use the Jordan Center, we don't care if you are the Bolshoi Ballet, you're the New York Nicks or you're the Monster Trucks. We're not making value judgements about what comes in. We rent the facility, it was built with a lot of tax payer dollars and part of the deal is we have to open it up to people who want to come in who are providing things that tax payers voluntarily want to buy tickets for, as crazy as some of the things that occur in there might be to some people who are not buying tickets. So what we get is the rental fee. Now, depending on the deal, we run the concessions and so if it's the Back Street Boys and they are selling T-shirts we get a percentage of the T-shirt profits. But if a group comes in here and the gross receipts are a million dollars, we're not making any money on it, we're just renting the place. Now also every ticket you know has an impact fee on there and that goes I think to College Township, that's part of our deal to help support the community's not just College Township actually, I think it's about five of the local agencies. But anyway the impact fee that you see on your tickets goes back to one or more governments in the area. Was there another part of the question that I missed? Of course our interest is in making sure that we can pay for the operating costs of the Bryce Jordan Center so that we have the staff and everything so that the academic events that we want to hold in there--commencement, intercollegiate athletics and all the other Penn State stuff--you know the facility is properly supported. To some extent those external events maybe help subsidize the university events that are in there that don't get charged at least for the basic rental.

Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development: I'm just curious since the rest of our Agenda is not very exciting...

President Spanier: No I'm just kidding about that. It's quite an Agenda. It was a joke.

Elizabeth A. Hanley: I wish you'd say a few words about your trip to Cuba with Russ Rose and the women's volleyball team.

President Spanier: Oh yes, I could give you a whole hour on that. That was one of the more fascinating experiences of my life. For some reason this just hasn't been written up in the papers. But I happened to be down in that part of the world that week over spring break myself so I came back via Havana which is actually not an easy thing to do if you're following the rules. The Penn State women's volleyball team after winning the NCAA championship, was invited to play the Cuban Junior National team and the Cuban Veteran's team. So it's the group that's just ready to rotate onto the Cuban Olympic team, and the group that's just retiring from the Cuban Olympic team. On the junior team, you're talking about people under 20, about 16-19, so roughly the ages of our volleyball team may be a year younger on the average. We did not take with us because they have graduated or are doing student teaching, Lauren Cacciamani or Bonnie Bremner who are the two top volleyball players in the country. Russ did not have them along. He had basically next year's team, and I think it was a wonderful trip for these young women because they really got pretty good exposure to the Cuban culture, to a lot of very interesting issues, and seeing Havana. And they played volleyball every day. Now the Cubans as some of you may know who follow this sort of thing are the top volleyball players in the world. They win the Olympics, they win the gold medals and so on--men and women. They identify them at a very young age while they are still in grade school. They send them to special schools and there are three tiers of special schools for sports. When you get to the top tier, that's your Olympic level schools. That's what these girls were in. We expected to get a few points, I'm not sure we really expected to win anything, but it was for the experience. Well, we won all five matches. Two against the veteran's team, and three against the Cuban Junior National team. In games they played a total of 26 games; we won 24 of them. Now a lot of them were like...they played rallies scoring 25 to 24, 25 to 21, most of them were very close but we had absolutely superb coaching. Nobody has ever come in and done that in Cuba before. They never experience anybody coming in and beating them, so there was a little bit of political tension around that issue. We noticed it was not reported in the media, and there were hardly any crowds there to watch, so it was a big surprise. But what a great experience. NCAA rules by the way allow a team like that once every four years to go on a trip outside the country if they don't miss any classes and it has to be paid for privately, but what a great experience for them. Thanks for mentioning that.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm on the Advisory Committee to the Center for the Performing Arts, and your comment that we don't make value judgements about the Bryce Jordan Center caught my attention. I was wondering as an educational institution whether we not only ought to have an obligation to bring students things they want to hear, but to encourage them to go to better things. I have the feeling that we're somehow doing a better job of presenting them to Monster Trucks than we are selling them on going to hear a Brahms piano concerto. I wonder if you have any thoughts about our responsibility to cultural values at Penn State?

President Spanier: I think it's an excellent point. The only thing about Penn State now is that we've evolved to the point where our students have so many options. They can do things every night--cultural, athletics, you name it. And I'm not sure actually, that many students are going to see Monster Trucks. What we've discovered at the Jordan Center is there is a whole population of people out there that like certain things that have kind of surprised us. The best selling performances on the average at the Jordan Center is country music, and a lot of those people are coming in from 20, 30, 50 miles away. We don't have a lot of our students at the country music concerts or at the Monster Trucks. We do have a few at the World Wrestling Federation matches. But I think you're quite right. The number of students that you would see at Eisenhower Auditorium for concerts there and for plays...I mean I was at Camelot the other night and I looked around and there was just a handful of students, maybe 10, and one of them I brought. So yes we have to give that more visibility and we must do something to encourage it. Now they have special ticket prices so I don't think it's the money that's keeping them away. You could go through a whole season of stuff at Eisenhower for the cost of the Back Street Boys concert I think. So I couldn't agree with you more, just keep promoting it.

Philip A. Klein: But what do we do?

President Spanier: Well, here's another project for you. One of the things I thought would be great is a scholarship fund for concert tickets. Particularly students in certain majors where there is something relevant going on and they really ought to have that experience. It's something I've mentioned to some donors along the way. Why not create a fund so that a department could give tickets to the students to go to some events. My wife and I have started a fund in the School of Theatre that is sort of like a faculty development fund but it's for students. It's a fund that allows students in majors like musical theatre, to go see a Broadway play and so everybody in the program is supposed to get some money every year to go and do those things. We could be doing a lot more of that. Yes, we can discount the tickets but we can't give them away free because we have to pay the bills, so that's a possibility right there on the philanthropic side. Faculty members could encourage students to do it. I mean talk about it in your classes. Something is coming up say, "Hey by the way," like I do here. Anybody going to the basketball game. It's easy, do it in class. Anybody going to the concert tonight. Bring a student along occasionally, have them be your guest. Maybe there's some little things like that we could do.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: As you know, I have suggested this to you before on this issue. I'll repeat it again on Monster Trucks and World Wrestling. I would like to argue for an impact fee on World Wrestling and Monster Trucks. It does say Penn State University. It is marketed under our name. I would like to see added on an impact fee on those events, those that are not sponsored by the university and that goes to general education excellence. General education excellence impact--GEX impact. And I would like to see it go for some of the things that you've been talking about here. Other things that we've talked about in here are funding general education things that enhance the quality of all students, and it would provide some transfer of things that we now get no transfer from, but we are clearly helping market.

President Spanier: Well it would be a new concept in the entertainment industry. Next thing you want to be electing World Wrestling Federation stars as governors.

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: Since we are using the four letter word money, I would like to ask why a facility such as the HUB is by definition is now also self-supporting, shall we use this word, nonetheless has virtually tripled its fees. This year has been an absolute disaster for anyone who wanted to use the HUB and who is scrambling such as we are in a couple of weeks to raise these additional funds. But on the other hand, I was stunned to hear that the graduate school poster sessions were out for a whole year because the HUB wasn't available. The American Association of Women with their book stalls has moved out because the rent for four nights or four days is in the thousands of dollars now. And while I'm sure there is obviously grounds, looking at the HUB, it is spectacular. I think it is wonderful, but whether again the calculation could be adjusted, could be redone so to speak. Because I think the bottom line is that the intake may justify the fee. If the fees were lower, I think the HUB would be used better.

President Spanier: Well it's a complicated issue. Actually the HUB has always operated on essentially self-support basis. A lot of the money comes from student funds directed towards the HUB, and there's some money in the Student Affairs budget that has been dedicated to the HUB. Now when the HUB was renovated the single largest part of that renovation came from a new student fee. That was done originally when the HUB was built the first time around as well, that part is now paid off. But now that the HUB is much bigger, and now that it's done and everybody wants to be in there, the operating costs have also gone up at the same time, and there was no money in that original student fee or in the new student fee that was started in 1996 to pay for the increased operating costs. So they have to increase the rental costs for groups, and it is particularly high for outside groups because the demand for inside groups is so great, they get first preference. So the outside groups have to pay more of a market rate just to keep the HUB operation going. So nobody is making any money on the deal, they're trying to make ends meet and they had been in a sense subsidizing, keeping the rental rates way down. I mean we're just a fraction of even, I mean our rates are 11th in the Big Ten, and we're a fraction of what number 10 charges. We weren't charging what we should be. Now they're struggling with this issue because the bump was so great as you point out, and the only way we're going to be able to bring that down is if we tack a few dollars extra on to tuition, which is already going to have to be higher than anybody wants, and dedicate it for that purpose. Or get the students to agree to increase the student fee and dedicate more money to the HUB operation. And I think the students themselves are kind of struggling with this issue. Would they rather have the rental rate subsidized and be down much lower, and not have people have to think twice about holding a meeting there; versus keeping the rates up high and having those who want to use it, pay for it, and not increasing the student fee. And I must say, our student fee is about as low as you find at any university but it seems to be a major debate every time we want to increase the fee one dollar. We could solve a lot of problems on campus that students themselves identify if they were willing to increase student fees $10-$20 a semester. But there's been a reluctance to do that, and the tradition with student fees has been that we let students take the lead in advising us what to do. So I acknowledge that it's a problem, but there's no easy solution.

Chair Nelson: Thank you.

President Spanier: You're welcome.

Chair Nelson: And have a good time at the radio show since you won't be in New York.






Chair Nelson: We move to legislative reports. First is Committees and Rules, Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 5 it is Appendix "C" in your packet. Nancy Wyatt the chair of the committee will present the report.


Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5

Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nancy J. Wyatt, Delaware Campus: I would like you to know that the Committee on Committees and Rules is bucking for the title of least controversial this year, and most boring. We look on it as an advantage. There are, under the current Bylaws, Senators who are on sabbatical, or other kinds of professional leave who will have to miss more than three meetings are required to resign their seat. While persons who never come, but are not officially on leave are not required to resign their seat. This legislation changes that so that persons who are on professional leave may, if they so choose, use an alternate to fill those seats three times, and they may not have to resign their seat.

John M. Lilley, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College: Your analysis was based on meetings, but your solution is based on months. I was curious what your thinking was on that?

Nancy J. Wyatt: Presumably a meeting in one month. We meet once a month.

John M. Lilley: No we don't. We used to.

Nancy J. Wyatt: Do you think that makes a significant difference to the legislation?

John M. Lilley: It's not the same.

Nancy J. Wyatt: Did you want to make an amendment?

John M. Lilley: No, just curious what you were thinking.

Tamble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: As a member of the committee to try to readdress that. The all caps statement at the bottom of page one says, "period of time that the Senator will be absent from the Senate". That was the focus of our concern and it would have been a contest of sabbatical leaves, which are usually one semester. That was the focus of our discussion.

Chair Nelson: Seeing no other comments or questions, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of this policy recommendation change, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you. Nancy will stay here; we have another report from Committees and Rules. This is Revision of the Constitution, Article I, Section 1 it is Appendix "D" in your packet. Since this is a change in the Constitution, we will discuss this report today but we will not take a vote until the next meeting April 25th, since the legislation must sit on the table for one month.


Revision of Constitution, Article I, Section 1

Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nancy J. Wyatt: Article I of the University Faculty Senate Constitution defines the three functions of the Senate as legislative, advisory and consultative, and forensic. In 1985, Senate passed legislation adding two more functions, which were informative, and recognition. And so we're changing the Constitution to conform with the 1985 legislation, and are historical practice by adding these two categories to the Constitution.

Chair Nelson: Any questions or comments for Nancy? Thank you very much. We now move to advisory and consultative reports. Faculty Affairs has a report HR-21--Definition of Academic Ranks it is Appendix "E" in your packet. John Nichols, the chair of the committee will present the report.



HR-21--Definition of Academic Ranks

John S. Nichols, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

John S. Nichols, College of Communications: This is to correct previous Senate action in which the Senate requested an addition to HR-21 to create an Affiliate Librarian rank for non-tenure line faculty. The Senate was subsequently informed by Human Resources that it was inconsistent with yet another policy, therefore this proposal would delete the Affiliate Librarian rank and provide for the use of Assistant, Associate, and Librarian ranks for fixed term faculty as well. The proposal is recommended by the library faculty, the library administration, it was endorsed unanimously by Faculty Affairs, and is consistent with Penn State policy.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: I guess the question was what was the rationale for the original assignment? I guess it partially stems from my lack of understanding of the tenure system within the library. Apparently there was a desire to have the separate non-tenured faculty title. Now Human Resources seems to be the rationale at least where it's coming back through as the reason for not wanting this. Could you clarify when it says, "Their recommendation," here "is to remove," is that their recommendation of Human Resources, and have the faculty within the library (those being the ones with the title, Assistant and Associate Librarians) have they been the ones that have agreed to this? Have they looked at the condensing so to speak of titles?

John S. Nichols: Well again, the library faculty administration proposed this and unanimously supported it. The reason why they originally requested the Affiliate Librarian designation or rank is unknown to me because I was not on the committee at that time. But I think your assumption is right, they wished to have a title for tenure track and another title for non-tenure lines. But I think that they're satisfied with the fact that Assistant, Associate, and Librarian ranks can be used both for tenure track and fixed term.

Wayne R. Curtis: You partially answered my question, but you inserted the word administration. You said the library administration decided that this was okay. My question was, is the library faculty...presumably the motivation. Let me pose this differently, what fraction of the librarians are Affiliate Librarians? I think that would impact whether or not they wanted this as an actual title.

John S. Nichols: Again, it's the library representatives on the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs that strongly support this. It is my understanding that there is no opposition among the library faculty. The library faculty and administration both support this.

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries: The library faculty did support this. Originally there had been a rank that was Senior Assistant, and it was used very briefly for library faculty who were brought in early, or brought in to the tenure track. The libraries were asked or told about what's been appropriate practice, and so they have that librarian come in now at the associate level. The idea to retain something like Affiliate, was in the cases of fixed term appointment, and now that's been taken care of by having Assistant and Associate Librarian ranks used in a fixed term capacity as well. So it was supported by the faculty.

J. Christopher Carey, College of Medicine: I think you may have answered my question. Does anyone hold the rank of Affiliate Librarian? If so, what happens to them?

Loanne L. Snavely: I believe that we don't. But it would be changed to assistant. As a fixed term assistant...this has been in the works for at least one, maybe two years now, so I think that we could use another rank.

John S. Nichols: That's the committees understanding as well.

Chair Nelson: Other questions? All those in favor of this advisory/consultative report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you, John. Senate Committee on Research, the Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows, Appendix "F" in your package. Thomas Jackson the chair of the committee will present the report.


Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows

Thomas N. Jackson, Chair, Senate Committee on Research

Thomas N. Jackson, College of Engineering: In March of 1999, the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School appointed a committee to examine the educational and research training experience for postdoctoral fellows at Penn State. In December of 1999, that committee submitted its report to the office of the vice president. The Senate Committee on Research has now looked at that report and recommends that the whole Senate endorse that report with one minor change. The Postdoctoral Fellow Committee recommended that a central administrative officer in the Office of the Provost be responsible for monitoring postdoctoral appointments to assure consistent application of Penn State policies across the university. The Senate Committee on Research recommends that the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School be charged with that responsibility. And with that minor change we recommend that the Senate endorse the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows.

Chair Nelson: Questions or comments for Thomas? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of this report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you, Thomas. Senate Committee on University Planning, the Parking Report, which I'm sure you all looked at eagerly, it is Appendix "G" in your package. Peter Deines is here to present the report and Teresa Davis is here also to answer questions.


Parking Report

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you, Murry. The Senate Committee on University Planning was asked by Betty Roberts, the Assistant Vice President for Business Services, to comment on five possible options for the layout of the parking areas at University Park. The committee has examined these five options from the following points of view. First, reduction of subscription rate, second, the size of the area over which parking permits would be valid, third, the availability of overflow lots, fourth, the distribution of nighttime reserved spaces, and finally the location of the construction of new parking areas. The committee has examined the option that was under discussion from these points of view and we came unanimously to the opinion that the Option #2 should be the one that should be adopted.

Carly M. Lipsitz: I flipped through the whole report and it could be my mistake, but it says nothing in here about student parking?

Peter Deines: It does. It's particular the nighttime aspect that was on the mind of the committee to make sure that the parking is such that the distance of travel that the students have to do at night are minimized, by locating the lots in which we have reserved spaces for nighttime parking to be more evenly distributed across the campus.

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: There was a current change I believe this year where the parking lots were open from 7:30 to 5:30 or so; were open for student parking for student members from 4:00 on. This makes it very difficult for us to leave before 3:30 or 2:00 and come back because by that time the parking lots are full of students. Now as a paying member, I pay $300 a year at least, I should be guaranteed a location somewhere until 5:00.

Peter Deines: Right...

Sabih I. Hayek: Why has that policy been changed this year?

Peter Deines: I'm not sure. Teresa do you know the answer?

Teresa A. Davis, Director, Transportation Services: The previous policy for reserved core parking lots was from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The lots would be for faculty/staff permit holders in core lots. There have been many requests last year, and the year before, by persons who needed to get to...a lot of adult students, a lot of adult learners who would be parking in the commuter lot and had a 5:00 class, and wanted to be able to park core campus before the 5:00 class. So the recommendation had been made to change the time from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. It also had to do with the shifts. The Office of Physical Plant workers began work that they were required, and the personnel on the second shift were required to purchase a core parking permit which was only valid for an hour. Whereas, if by chance you came at 4:00 p.m., you could purchase an evening permit.

Sabih I. Hayek: However I'm afraid to leave my parking lot before 3:30, because knowing that 4:00 becomes 3:30, just as Thanksgiving starts on 3:30 people are sitting in that parking lot and if I left at that time, I'd have no place when I came back. I'm afraid to plan a meeting before that time.

Teresa A. Davis: It's 4:00 for permit holders...

Sabih I. Hayek: I pay for this...

Teresa A. Davis: It's 4:00 for student permit holders only. We have heard similar concerns, and we will be looking into that with the Office of Physical Plant because we do want to address the workers needs also, and yours. So we'll review that.

Peter Deines: Thank you Teresa.

Wayne R. Curtis: I was just wondering in the idea of enhancement, the emphasis on more engineering work. There's a lot of faculty that need to run between buildings and carry materials and so forth, and the issue that Sabih brings up...

Peter Deines: I understand...

Wayne R. Curtis: don't want to leave your spot. This idea of the flasher...if you had like a short term, being able to come in flasher lots. Seems to be a tremendous enhancement where you could run, drop something off, and essentially move around the university a little more freely. I was wondering if that was considered?

Peter Deines: We didn't consider that explicitly in the context of this report, but I think that's a good suggestion that one might think about.

Teresa A. Davis: Are you talking about the use of flashers by faculty/staff seasonal to drop things off?

Wayne R. Curtis: To drop things off and so forth.

Teresa A. Davis: That's already allowed. Faculty/staff are allowed in the loading areas, use flashers for a 15 minute time period, and it doesn't matter what color their permit is as long as they have a permit. Now it was taken away for students. It used to be allowed for students, but we did eliminate student flashers in the core campus but we still maintained faculty/staff use.

Barton W. Browning, College of the Liberal Arts: Thanks to your committee, Peter, I think that's a very good overview of the situation and I approve of the suggestion that you make. The one concern I have is somewhat peripheral. It seems to be a perennial question because as we put up ever more parking structures, we're taking away parking lots. Of course it was our monies originally that built those parking lots, and we're continuing to pay by this fee the loans that were taken out in order to build those. I know that in earlier cases the parking office did not receive compensation from the new building or from the central administration to take care of the loss of monies involved with parking spaces. Would you have an answer about whether that is going to be continued practice? How is that going to be dealt with now?

Teresa A. Davis: We did address that with the Master Planning effort and that was one of our requested guidelines. That we be reimbursed for any spaces taken off line, but we were told that that would not be the case.

P. Richard Althouse, Budget Officer: In last year's budget, there was a $235,000 allocation. The first of seven year allocation to bring a total of $1 million and a half fund to do just what you are saying. Rather than putting the entire burden of new spaces on faculty and staff, essentially the replacement of spaces are coming from the general fund over a seven year period. That's actually been addressed.

Chair Nelson: Other comments or questions? Okay, seeing none all those in favor of this report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you, Peter. We now move to informational reports. The first is the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2000-2001. This includes Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. It is listed as Appendix "H" in your packet. Nancy Wyatt, chair of the committee, will present the report.



Report of Nominating Committee - 2000-2001

Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nancy J. Wyatt: Appendix "H" contains the report of the nominating committee for Committees and Rules for 2000-2001. 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 Nelson: Okay now there is room here for additions to this slate if you wish. However, before you do so, let me remind you that you need the approval of the person whom you might like to add to the slate. Also, if you are nominating someone from the floor today, and you have that person's approval, the Senate Office has to have a bio for all candidates to join to the election material. So without any other additions, Nancy.

Nancy Wyatt: University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with three (3) to be elected for two-year terms. The nominees are listed in Appendix "H" and permission has been granted by each nominee to run for this committee.

Chair Nelson: And you can read those for yourself. I will ask are there any additional nominations from the floor? Okay seeing none, is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Nelson: All those in favor of closing the slate, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Nancy Wyatt: The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, a three-year term. Two (2) to be elected; one member and one alternate.

Chair Nelson: Again are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the nominations?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Nelson: All those in favor of closing the slate, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Nancy Wyatt: 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, three (3) are to be elected; two members and one alternate with terms to expire in 2003. Again, please refer to Appendix "H" for the nominees for Faculty Rights & Responsibilities.

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

Nancy Wyatt: Faculty Other Than University Park Locations. One (1) to be elected; one alternate with a term to expire in 2003.

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

Nancy Wyatt: For this same committee, deans. Two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2003.

Chair Nelson: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? Deans who don't have enough work that you'd like to see working more? I need a motion to approve the slate as presented.

Senators: So moved.

Chair Nelson: All those in favor of closing the slate, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you. The Roster of Senators for 2000-01 is in Appendix "I" for your information. We have Intercollegiate Athletics listed next but we will be removing that report. John Coyle who was to be here to give the report had a conflict and will give the report next month. So that has been withdrawn for this month. Next is the Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations, this is Non-Tenure-Line Faculty. It is listed as Appendix "K". James Smith, the chair of the committee, will present this report.


Non-Tenure-Line Faculty

James F. Smith, Chair, Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington: I'm going to ask Zachary Irwin who invested a lot of sweat equity into this report to come down, and share in the participation. Since the Agenda isn't very interesting, I'll go back to my committee and say, "see we should have left that line in that came from the Chronicle on Higher Education". There was another quotation that we omitted from an earlier draft of the report. Attributed to Richard Moser from the AAUP when he was talking about the patterns of incremental change from tenure line faculty, and the teaching of our students to non-tenure line faculty, and the teaching of our students. We quoted the line where he said, "we're not looking at episodic change, we're not looking at short term changes, we're looking at historical change." The line continued with, "we're facing the situation that effects the future of tenure and the future of higher education itself." Perhaps if we'd left the line in we would have had more interest in the Agenda. Over the past twenty-five years, American colleges and universities have substantially increased their reliance on part-time and non-tenure track faculty. The share of part-time faculty in higher education has increased from 22 percent of all appointments in 1970 to 42.5 percent in 1997. At all four-year institutions, 32.6 percent of faculty were on part-time appointments in 1997 compared to 31 percent two years earlier. At public four-year institutions, 26.6 percent of faculty were part-time. This informational report on non-tenure line faculty at Penn State began several years ago in the Commonwealth Education Committee, and later the Intra-University Relations Committee first generation, as an attempt to examine the extent to which part-time faculty are used at Penn State colleges and locations. However, we have expanded to include both Fixed Term I and Fixed Term II faculty since questions of academic quality, faculty qualifications, equity, and the future of tenure are all implied by an increasing reliance on non-tenure line faculty, whether they're part-time faculty or full-time faculty. Because the information contained in our report may be new to many Senators, we've decided to present two different ways of examining the use of non-tenure line faculty at the university. When we first began some data analysis, we looked at the program and performance indicators which the university assembles every year as part of its strategic planning process. Program and performance indicators gave us annual data points showing the production of student credit hours by various classes of instructors during an academic year, and during the 'academic year,' is the operative word. It covered an entire year. This information proved useful to us in discussing historical trends here at the university internally to Penn State and allowed us to project some trend lines based on the data that we assembled. In order to discuss that for just a little bit I'd like Zachary to give you some color representations of the graphs that are contained in the report in black and white. Maybe the color will clarify them a bit.

Zachary T. Irwin, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College: This is the distribution of academic ranks for University Park. You notice it's fairly stable. Now what this amounts to is a simple line of regression past 1998 and it's fairly conservative really because the data provided from 1989 to 1998 nearly 10 points or 10 years is itself fairly stable. For the Commonwealth College system some of the changes are a little more dramatic. Notice for Assistant Professors there's a fairly sharp decline which continues past 1998. But perhaps in this data that you have it is this total credit hours produced for FT II appointments non-University Park. Which is both relatively stable in the projection beyond 1998 and really also fairly dramatic. You notice for the other locations non-University Park and University Park, there's a great deal of stability, almost flat for graduate assistants. This is not in any way a kind of a prediction or a forecast, it's very simply an extrapolation of the trends over the past 10 years. One of the things that we wanted very much to do in the report was to avoid any kind of an interpretation I think as James has implied we sought really to do nothing more than to say, "well this is the data" and the reasons for this probably vary a great deal. And really these are to be interpreted by I think, people perhaps outside of the committee. Just one other comment I'd like to make pertains to the Table 1 on data on performance and program indicators of total student credit hours produced for 1989-1990 and 1997-1998. If you look at the last line total full-time and total part-time, this amounts to 100 percent to the university as a whole for 1997-1998, but then you notice it's 66.4 percent for total full-time. Remember of this the total full-time includes the 13.5 percent in the column to the right of FT I faculty. In practice what that means is, when you subtract the 13.5 from the 66.4 is that 42.9 percent of the credit hours were taught in that academic year by faculty with standing appointments. And I mention that because it's not in the table. James, I think that's it if you'd like to finish the report. Shall I leave this up?

James F. Smith: Leave it there. We might get a question on that later. The second data set more recent to our committee, and which provided us with much food for discussion this year, is provided with the usual good grace and good humor from Mike Dooris and Bob Barlock from the Center for Quality and Planning. This information is based on fall semester assignments, actual faculty assignments, not budget lines, not a year long set of data which can vary from semester to semester, but fall every year in a regular progression. And this is most useful not only to look internally, but to compare Penn State to other institutions since the data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics also uses that same fall semester snapshot. So we've given you in this report, complete data sets comparing fall 1992 to fall 1998 in the attached tables. Table 2 is our committee's summary of the percentage change in faculty numbers and in student credit hour production, location by location for those years 1992-1998. Tables 3 through 21 provide specific information for your favorite colleges. Full-time appointments, both standing and fixed term, are classified by their function. Part-time appointments are similarly described. As you look at those data, we find across the university, the number of full-time faculty increased by 10.9 percent over all, that's good. The increase however in fixed term full-time faculty was 76 percent. A 1.1 percent increase occurred in standing appointments. At the same time, there was an 11.8 percent increase in the number of part-time faculty and an 8.1 percent increase in the number of graduate assistants. The percentage of student credit hours produced by standing faculty decreased by nearly 3 percent while the percentage of student credit hours produced by fixed term full-time faculty and part-time faculty and graduate assistants increased by 83 percent and 8.1 percent for the graduate assistants respectively. The number of part-time faculty not including graduate assistants, accounted for 31.8 percent of all faculty in the fall of 1998, compared to 31.6 percent in 1992, fairly stable. You might recall though that the national data show that at public four-year institutions 26.6 percent of faculty were part-time in 1997. So while we're stable we're above the national average. The number of fixed term faculty not including graduate assistants, increased from 40.6 percent in 1992 to 46 percent in 1998. And the attached tables provide a breakdown of Penn State's several colleges and locations. Now what conclusions are we to draw from this? The first conclusion became clear pretty quickly, therefore, it's easy for us to say and we should probably all identify this, that there isn't a single explanation to the increasing use of non-tenure line faculty at Penn State. The percentage of faculty appointments classified as part-time are comparable to the national data for four-year institutions, although they're higher than four-year public institutions. Market forces, budget constraints, spikes in enrollment, changes in missions for example at the campus colleges, the inauguration of brand new programs, rapid growth in existing programs. All of these things and more, may account for variations among different colleges and locations. And it's also true that the data that were available to us for this report probably do not adequately reflect the recent initiatives to establish new standing faculty appointment lines. Not to prolong this unnecessarily, but if you'll bear with me, let me just make a couple of remarks about a college I know well, namely Abington College. If you'd turn to Table 17 the statistics there could possibly be seen as troubling to some people. Standing faculty in fall 1992, numbered 58; fall 1998, numbered 58, but there was a substantial increase in fixed term full-time as well as part-time faculty in that same period. In 1992 the enrollment at Abington College stood at about 3100 students. Abington, then Ogontz, was a Commonwealth Campus of the university; it offered two extended degrees from the College of the Liberal Arts, and enrolled approximately 200 upper division students. The rest of our students were destined to migrate to University Park, or transfer to another local institution. In 1998 Abington College enrolled approximately 3200 students, Abington College offered in the fall of 1998, six Abington College degrees, and enrolled a little bit more than 500 upper division students. So the needs and the diversity of courses, and the needs for a diverse faculty increased dramatically in a comparatively short period of time. If you remember that the reorganization of Penn State occurred in 1997. So the difference in the part-time and Fixed Term I appointments at Abington could probably be explained that way. What disturbed me a little bit was the relatively flat figure in standing faculty appointments. Then I went to my own files, because I recall being very busy in 1997, searching for faculty as were my colleagues on campus, and I had to make a note on my Agenda. We hired for the fall of 1998, four new tenure line hires. We had one failed search, so if all had gone well we would have added five new tenure line people. Unfortunately, we lost four faculty that same year due to retirement or death, so the fact that the standing faculty in this microcosm didn't increase, was not the fault of the administration nor the lack of diligence among the faculty, it was a set of circumstances. The increase in the use of the part-time and non-tenure line appointment may be partially explained by rapid program growth and spikes in enrollment. And I think to some extent, similar explanations can be offered by the other colleges listed in the other tables. Nevertheless, because the use of fixed term faculty both full-time and part-time may have many implications for the academic life at Penn State, we believe that the trends that this report outlines merit the continued attention of the University Senate. And what we wanted to do with this report was not pass sweeping judgements, or make irresponsible recommendations yet, but at least to establish a base line and a benchmark against which future data can be measured. And it's our hope that Intra-University Relations Committee on behalf of the Senate will continue to present a report using this as a template in the year's to come and we'd try to answer any of the questions you might want to ask.

Peter Deines: I think you did a very good job in pointing out the great variability that there is between those kinds of colleges and the various kinds of what we call influence that is taking place in different colleges. Having said that I wonder about the merit of looking at the institutional totals because I think because of the variability to present totals is somewhat misleading what is happening. If you say that the total number of standing appointments increased by 1 percent yet the credit of production has declined by about 3 percent. That if we go to the tables and look at the College of Agricultural Sciences the standing appointments have decreased by about 3 percent and the total student credit hours has increased by 36 percent, so there you have dramatically different total. You see that also in the College of Health and Human Development. The one I was actually looking at the process where we have a decrease by 7 percent in the standing faculty and an increase in the total number of student credit hours produced. So there's so much variability here I wonder how can the institution relate together because in the long run the only thing that the outside world would look at is the total.

James F. Smith: Peter I think you're right. What I am guessing and perhaps Mike can shed some additional light on this. What I'm guessing is when these national data are collected it would encompass an all university snapshot for other institutions in the same way that it encompasses an all university snapshot for us. Mike do you have anything to add to that? Do you think that's a fair assumption on my part?

Michael Dooris, Center for Quality and Planning: I don't have anything to add. Just in general, I think it's useful to look at the data in several different ways. That's all I would add.

James F. Smith: Thanks to Mike's cooperation we probably erred on the side of giving you more data than you really wanted to see, which may have diminished its impact. But I think this could be beach reading for the summer if you really want to study it.

Margaret B. Goldman, College of Medicine: Since you plan to have this as an ongoing project, I'd like to request that in a future report, you include the College of Medicine, and The Dickinson School of Law. I know at the College of Medicine we have had an increase in the number of FT I's and I think it would be helpful to see that. And I was wondering what was your rationale for not including the college?

James F. Smith: Mike, help me out on that.

Michael Dooris: Well, Dickinson obviously was not available in this longitudinal framework, although they would be in the future. Hershey is always sort of a special case because of the mix of teaching faculty, with clinical faculty, but that is not to say it can't be done.

Margaret B. Goldman: Clinical faculty usually are teaching faculty, and so if it could be included, I'd like to see that included in the future.

James F. Smith: Thank you, Margaret.

Wayne R. Curtis: I read the article in the Chronicle on Higher Education, and if there is an alternative to tenure, it would be the oxymoron that's here. That's fixed term multi-year. Which is an indefinite appointment which is supported by departmental funds, and in looking at that as it's defined here, then it sort of disappears. So it's hard to figure out if there's data available. Certainly in FT I and FT II and the grads and so forth, but what's going on in the university for the fixed term multi-year?

James F. Smith: My understanding is that the fixed term multi-year in our tabular data are later included as fixed term full-time. They didn't make the distinction between FT I's and FT MY's. They're full-time, but they're fixed term. The distinction became then all fixed term full-time, versus fixed term part-time.

Wayne R. Curtis: So FT I includes FT MY's?

James F. Smith: Yes.

Michael J. Navin, The Dickinson School of Law: I have been on this committee for the past three years and worked with Zachary initially to put this data together. I think one thing James has brought that get lost in the tables and the graphs have some usefulness as well. What's motivating this, and what our objective I think is in bringing this to the Senate, is that there's a steady change that's been occurring over a period of time for a variety of reasons. This is not to be evaluated by saying either good or bad, but simply to report, and for us to consider that these changes are going on. How one interprets those changes depends on the reasons why they're occurring. Some of them have to do with...I mean James himself says, "I've got courses to staff, I've got students to teach, I've got sections to fill and I don't have the tenure line personnel available across the range of specialties needed to do that". Other people will say you can see it in the Chronicle, and in these other articles this may be the end of academic life as we know. I doubt that any of those explain everything. In the past there has not been in our opinion, at the Senate level, an awareness of how this change has been occurring. So one enormously important reason why we bring this to you is to create an awareness on our part that this is going on, and secondly to provide a base line. To get some data in there that people can use in the future, to monitor changes. One thing that seems clear is, in the various campuses across the commonwealth, there are a lot of catch-up hirings that seem to have been going on in the past few years. It is possible that as we go on, this data will take on a different view, but one of the things we wanted to emphasize was for people to be aware that as things gradually change around us, we might not be aware that they are changing. And one of the things in the life of a university such as this, and a body such as this, is that there is an enormously important tour that is found in what we call the tenure track faculty, in the way in which we approach our jobs, our availability to the students, our consultations with each other, our commitment to research, and just as a university faculty Senate, our objective is for us to think about in a longer term way the direction in which the institution is going. That is I think what kept us going through the past 2 1/2 years in trying to bring this to you.

James F. Smith: Thanks, Michael.

Veronique M. Foti, College of the Liberal Arts: Is any information available as to what percentage of this fixed term faculty is women? I think that would be an interesting question.

James F. Smith: Yes, the data are available. We did not complicate the issue with more tables. The data are available though, and that is part of the national study that's done every fall as well, and this could be a subject of a report. The web site that's referenced in the article has the national data including the data for Penn State in the aggregate on that table.

John M. Lilley: I'm glad you're collecting the data. I'm glad you're reluctant to interpret it, but it seems to me it would be good once having collected it, to ask those who unit by unit why they think its happened. It might turn out to be self-serving, but it might turn out to be very interesting.

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: I too applaud your committee in terms of what its done, and I would encourage that you return in two or three years with a legislative proposal to it in terms of what we might do. And in the interim I would like to call special attention to Altoona. I think they're saying if not unanimously nearly so in terms of our representatives being concerned about the ratio at Altoona.

James F. Smith: Thanks Brian, I would image that Altoona's situation is very similar to the one I outlined for Abington in terms of extraordinary growth in enrollments in upper division or programs that you didn't have before, but I think your points are well taken.

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: Let me underscore Brian's remarks. I'd like to, in your committee go forward and offer next in two or three years, an advisory and consultative report which not only assesses where we have gone from this benchmark, but also make recommendations. Perhaps you can make some observations. Are we heading in a good direction, or you know where are we going to? Are we achieving some particular purpose? I'd like to see that.

Chair Nelson: Other comments? I want to thank James and the committee. I know they spent an incredibly long time on this. Thank you very much.

James F. Smith: Thank you.

Chair Nelson: The next report Senate Committee on Research. This is A Primer on Indirect Costs, Appendix "L," and Thomas Jackson will present the report. Joseph Doncsecz and Robert Killoren will be assisting him in answering questions.


A Primer on Indirect Costs

Thomas N. Jackson, Chair, Senate Committee on Research

Thomas N. Jackson: I do want to thank Robert Killoren and Joseph Doncsecz for being here to help. The report that you have in the Agenda is actually out of Robert's office, with Joseph's help. We intended to credit them. I was asked by Senate Council to do that, probably had and it hasn't appeared here, but I want to give credit to them for the report. I hope you've had a chance to read the primer that's in the Agenda. The reason that the Senate Committee on Research brings this informational report is that we are concerned about the state and the future of the Penn State research infrastructure. Penn State has, what we believe, is an ignominiously low indirect cost rate. I want to try to show you that and we think that it has an impact on where we're going as a research institution. The Task Force on Research Administration identified the ignominiously low rate and the university has been working diligently to improve the rate, primarily initially by doing a better job of calculating what the indirect costs really are. But as that goes further, there's the opportunity to carefully choose where increased investment should be made in the research infrastructure. And we believe that the faculty have a particularly important role to play in that, since much of that is infrastructure that affects us at the individual or departmental level. So let me give you a little background about this. This is not a rehash of the report, but a little different way of looking at it. I'd like to point out that the indirect costs are real costs to the university. There's nothing indirect about the dollars having to be there. They support the university infrastructure, they are facilities and administrative costs. That's actually the new correct name for indirect costs, F&A costs--facilities and administrative--and they are reimbursements for real costs. If you don't spend the money, you can't recover it. So it's a cost recovery process. They're not indirect in the sense that they don't directly pay for something, they directly support research, but they're calculated indirectly, and that's why they're called indirect costs. They represent the average facilities/administrative costs per project, and the way ultimately they're used is they become one component of income for the general fund. Penn State's rate in 1998 was the lowest among the 50 top research universities. In the Big Ten, we're also the lowest. That would be consistent and about 10.5 points below the median, and about 7 points below the next lowest in the Big Ten. If you look at some of the numbers, in 1998, Penn State's rate was 37 percent roughly, and the rates range from about 44.5 percent up to somewhere in the range of 60 or 65 percent for some of our peer institutions. Even if you break this down into land grant universities, (which typically have lower indirect cost rates because a portion of their funding comes at reduced overhead and in some cases overhead free), even compared to other land grant universities here, in green we nonetheless are ignominiously low. The same thing happens if you compare us to other Pennsylvania institutions. Looking just in the Big Ten where we have a number of land grant institutions again, you see that Penn State pegs right at the bottom, and significantly off even the next lowest rate, and very far from the average and the median. If you look with a little more detail, I don't want to give you the flavor that this isn't simple, there's no one reason this just breaks the facilities and administrative costs into those two main components facilities and administrative. And again, Penn State is at the bottom, and it's at the bottom of both categories. Particularly notable from the faculty viewpoint, I think is this administrative cost. Most institutions peg at or near the maximum that the federal government allows--26 percent. We're very significantly below that, and it translates into the level of support for research administration that we're able to provide the faculty. Also the facilities rate being dramatically different has an impact on how we're actually able to carry out our research from a facilities standpoint. Historically where are we? A few years ago we were more like many of our peer institutions although I should note at that time some of them were also higher. We've come down over the last several years, bottomed out in fiscal year 1998 and have now risen modestly with a further modest increase projected for next year up to about 41.5 percent. So what are these? What's the formula for doing indirect costs? You take the research facilities and administrative costs divided by the research costs. That gives us our indirect rate. This is done by negotiation with our cognitive agency. ONR are particularly tough negotiators, that's one of the reasons our rate is as low as it is. To do that there's two steps, we have to identify the total facilities and administrative costs, and then allocate those costs to instruction, research, and other missions of the university. Eventually we're interested in what is the component that goes to support research. The F&A costs that are allocated to researching include a wide range of things. I won't read all of these to you but there are things like laboratory space, office space, the cost of utilities, communications infrastructure, insurance, research office, sponsored programs office, purchasing, departmental administrative assistant, and even things like deans, which have maybe a moderate impact on research. The research costs are the project specific costs of the research including the salaries and wages of researchers, post docs, technicians, students, laboratory supplies, travel, publication, and purchases of services. Note that these are modified total costs and so excluded from this are equipment and tuition expenditures. So when we purchase tuition, that doesn't have an overhead cost associated with it. So why are we so low? There's a small list of possibilities. We're really, really efficient, much better than any of our peers, or we need to do a better job of calculating our costs. We're spending the money but we're not in fact able to track that. We are, or our research support structure is just inadequate, or some combination. The Senate Committee on Research has looked into this in some detail; we believe there are aspects of all three of these. In some ways we actually believe we are more efficient. We have done we think a relatively poor job compared to some of our peers, who have worked much harder at determining and recovering indirect costs, but we also are increasingly concerned that the support infrastructure is not keeping pace with, particularly the growth in the research mission. If we look at that in just a little more detail, look over a span of five years from fiscal year 1993 to 1998, our research base increased from about $121 million to about $151 million, or a growth of about 21 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the growth rate is less about 7 percent. We may take some pride in the fact that we've been able to grow that mission faster than inflation. But if we look at the administrative investment that we made over that same term, we decreased for 1993, about $8 million to about $7 million. In 1998, a decrease of about 12 percent, and now again adjusted for inflation, that increase is about 22 percent. And so it leads us to the conclusion that the research infrastructure can't support the Penn State research program, and so the Senate Committee on Research supports the efforts of the university to do a better job of calculating the facilities/administrative rate and recovering the indirect costs. We also are looking actively at ways to increase the level of research infrastructure support, particularly at the departmental level where it impacts faculty most. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions with Joseph and Robert's help.

Jacob De Rooy: I'm coming to you with quite a different perspective, quite a different background and a different agenda. We, at our college have an institute that does a lot of applied research for private sector organizations. I've been the PI on several of these projects and we've brought in money, sometimes large amounts of money, and I've seen the, I'm not the number cruncher who puts together the budgets, but I'm just amazed at how rapidly the overhead costs when added on--indirect cost--just pumps up the whole total. And I'm here to tell you that we have lost several contracts as a result of that. We've just been pricing ourselves out of the market. Now in what way are we pricing ourselves out of the market? I'm talking about applied research, not basic research, applied research that's done quite often for small government agencies, or for industry, private sector organizations, and we have lost. I've worked so hard in preparing so many proposals, and then lost them over the last few years because they go to the other private sector, and they get their work done more cheaply. So I just wanted first of all to express my frustration with that, because it relates to the issue that's dear to my heart--outreach. Because that's how we do outreach by serving clients, constituents in the state of Pennsylvania and we're losing that opportunity in many cases. I can back that up with facts and figures. The second point is a more academic point, and that is knowing the kind of work that we do the applied research we do, we can do that all pretty well with ease with the facilities we've got in house. We've got the staff, we've got the faculty, we have the computer resources, we use computer resources very heavily, that's a major resource. And so therefore, when you say well you know we're just recovering indirect costs, I don't see where we're getting in our particular work any benefit from that. It's like maybe my trade as an economist is blinding me to this, but I see that those costs would be there for the university's support whether or not we get our contract. So therefore, when we do our applied research, we're not increasing any of the university's overhead. We're not increasing any of the university's indirect costs, so I begin to wonder what are we delivering to our clients, as a result of that indirect cost, and we're not, what are we losing through losing contracts? So I just wanted to express that perspective because I'm quite frustrated by it.

Thomas N. Jackson: It's certainly a common perspective. It's a long question and I don't know if I can do justice to all of it but let me make a couple of comments. To the extent that overhead is paying real costs there is a level at which we price ourselves out of the market and that means that we certainly want to be just as efficient as we possibly can. But the next piece of that is we need to recover the real costs that we spent, so we can't make the rate artificially low. So while it's certainly true that we can and do lose contracts, lose research because of the costs of the overhead, it's also true that not having an adequate level of research support makes us less efficient. So it makes it harder for you to get that proposal out, it makes it harder for you to track the costs of your proposal, provide timely feedback to your research sponsors and on and on. In terms of are there overhead costs? One of the difficulties of course, in doing this aggregate sum is that the overhead ends up looked at in a microscopic view, unfair. I would argue though that almost any research project does have real overhead costs associated with it. The time that you are spending doing that research project, you're not available for the teaching mission of the university or for its service mission, and so we have more faculty than we'd have if we had only the one mission. And so the insurance that we pay, and the lights and the electricity and the fact that there's room there for you to sit and do it are all part of those costs and they add up to be a surprising fraction of our overall overhead costs. I don't know if you'd like to add to that Robert, or not?

Robert Killoren, Assistant Vice President for Research and Director Sponsored Programs: Maybe just a couple of points and I understand your concern very much and it's one that we share deeply because we don't want to lose projects. There are some restrictions however, when we deal in the area of indirect costs. For example, OMB circular A-21 is the regulations published by the federal government that control what we do here, and as a result of the Stanford controversy. If you remember back earlier in the 1990's, it was a tremendous scandal to universities because of the indirect costs added out of Stanford. Because of that there were a number of congressional hearings and changes made to the regulations. One of the changes made to the regulations was that would in no way subsidize private industry by not charging them overhead while charging the federal government overhead for the same types of activities, so that's one of the restrictions. Legally, we need to charge outside companies the same rate. The other thing is that I'm told that these are actual costs that have to be reimbursed to the university. If we don't collect them from industry then we're using public funds to subsidize private companies, and we run into problems in our public trust in that area. So those are some of the limitations that we have in regards to that. When we talked about governmental agencies however, most of the commonwealth agencies have very little or no overhead associated with them, so we're able to do a good public service role with them. You point out some really valid points and I can't argue with them but there are some restrictions in terms of what we can do in response to those.

Gordon F. De Jong: I've had grants over the history of my tenure at this university; some that give indirectly because they're federal grants, and some from foundations, in my case, that specify 8 percent or none. I'm really depressed that so many of the colleagues have left because there is clearly an impression that this is not important. I point out to the ones of you who chose to remain, that we get more money in grant expenditures a year than we get from the commonwealth for all education. So the people sitting unfortunately not in this room, are very few grant holders in the Senate. There is a constituency at this university not represented here at least in person, who bring in more by their grants than we get from Harrisburg, and these people have to be able to do their research, and their trajectory is this way, and the trajectory from the commonwealth is this way. I think that I would argue that your committee should do as much as you can to support the administration to increase our indirect costs up to where it should be in terms of benchmark. I know that we have a tough agency to negotiate with, unlike NIH who many of us get our grants from. Precisely because if we get our grade up another 5, 6, 7 or 8 percent, then it is far easier to waive the overhead for people like Jacob wants to serve.

Thomas N. Jackson: Thank you for that input. I think that's an important point. One of the other inputs that's often heard even at the Board of Trustees sometimes is, why are we subsidizing this research effort? Because we are. If we're not recovering all the indirect costs and we don't, then they are still being paid. They're real costs, and so we subsidize it. And the net then is we do a better job. Not only of supporting the research infrastructure, but also our teaching mission, and make our faculty overall more efficient, as we bring the indirect cost rate more in line with our real costs, and more in line with the real cost of adequately supporting the research infrastructure.

Alan W. Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I'm very interested in the conclusion, the result that you have up on the overhead there. As an active researcher and generator of research funds for the better part of two decades at this institution, it's clear to me and my colleagues that we have come to the same conclusion independently. I would say, however, that I have a feeling we have wonderful support at the department, the college and university level, but it's clear to me that those people do a very good job but are constrained by the resources that are available to them. There are too few in number, they have inadequate resources and this is a consequence of the indirect cost rate or partly consequence of the indirect cost rate, and it behooves the university to address this quickly.

J. Christopher Carey: I also take grants from foundations or industry that do specify low or no indirect cost rate. What that really does is shift the indirect costs onto NSF or NIH or other people that are paying the indirect costs. Does some of the variance in the indirect cost rate between universities that you show, can it be accounted for by the number of or the proportion of government versus non-governmental grants?

Thomas N. Jackson: That does complicate the issue, and an important point that I didn't make is the indirect cost rate is not the same as the indirect cost recovery. Probably one of these two gentlemen would be a better person to give the specifics of that. What was our actual recovery rate last year?

Robert Killoren: We actually recover about half of what our indirect costs are through the various agencies because of restrictions that are put on to those numbers. Again, back to the regulations in A-21. We cannot take the under-recovery from agencies who don't pay it and put it in the pile to be paid by the federal government. So if it's unrecovered, it remains unrecovered so that gets to the point that Thomas made in terms of we are subsidizing it out of our funds.

J. Christopher Carey: A follow-up question then. I'm not in accounting but I understand that there are actually more art than science. We don't get those things for free so if I accept a grant that has an inadequate indirect cost recovery rate, the cost is still incurred. Where are those costs made up?

Robert Killoren: Good question. All of the indirect costs actually go into the general funds for the university and are distributed out. So we don't trace an indirect cost dollar past the point that it gets into our income. So if it's not paid out of there, then it's paid out of general funds in some other area.

John J. Cahir, Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education: I would just point out that when we compare ourselves to the Big Ten on our expenditures on undergraduate education, we come in either in 10th or 11th place, and I think that could be in part related to this. And we would be certainly enthusiastic for any gains that would be made here especially if some of that is being made up from general funds that would otherwise go to undergraduate education.

Thomas N. Jackson: I do think there is a relation and I also am a firm believer that the quality of our research mission directly impacts the quality of the undergraduate education that we're able to supply. I think there is a direct impact. There could be very good reasons to take contracts at reduced or even no overhead, particularly if we're trying to grow our research into an area we're not strong in or something like that. So we certainly wouldn't speak against it altogether but in the end the costs have to come from someplace. It's a finite pie world, there's no magic.

Sabih I. Hayek: I've got a couple of comments and a question. I always felt we would be above as far as charging and I never knew why and I felt that was true. The second thing is, do we actually account for everything? For example, if I have to buy a piece of equipment and then I need maintenance or repair I would have to pay out of project. Why doesn't that become part of the cost of indirect costs instead of just charging depreciation? Depreciation only tells you it can buy a new one for a year or so, which I hope. But what about maintenance?

Thomas N. Jackson: That's an important point. If you look back in the primer, the web page is on each page. It helps you think about how some of those come about. For example, how much space do we use for research? Well, the university has just completed a space survey, first in history. First in the corporate memory to try to understand well, how much space do we use in this building? How much space is used for research? So that we can try to account for that. When we do the budgetary things we do at the departmental level we turn in a form, we're buying this, it makes a difference which box we check. Is this a research expenditure? Is this maintenance for research expenditure? That's how that information ultimately flows back to the Controller's Office, so that they can do this calculation, and they've been working very hard to do a better job of tracking what the real costs are. But I think it's a chicken and an egg problem. Part of the reason we don't do as adequate a job of that is we don't have the support that makes that possible at the departmental level in many cases. So I think we'd like to see improvement there as well.

Keith K. Burkhart, College of Medicine: F&A cost recovery as we've been talking about, what will the grantor pay in some cases? We focused on what the federal recovery rate is in those instances. In referring to Chart 1, which is really the pie of what awards that we received, do you ever track what ranges are for each segment of that pie and what our true recovery rates are? Notice especially the commonwealth and our industry contracts, as they seem to be going down further than any of the contracts I see.

Thomas N. Jackson: This is why I'm glad these guys came. He's your pie chart.

Joseph Doncsecz, Assistant Controller: Can you repeat the question please? The basics, I'm sorry I didn't have the pie chart in front of me.

Keith K. Burkhart: This is the one with the awards, and a level we talked about is how we got our true recovery rate, which really is mostly used for the federal grants. You listed industry, commonwealth and even subdivisions such as health and human services. I was curious what the true recovery rates have become especially for those who've taken the piece of the pie.

Joseph Doncsecz: As Robert pointed out, before we recover effectively in total about half of that now about 40 percent, we get effectively about 20 percent in total and what that is, is a mixture of commonwealth agencies that may run zero to 15 percent basically...

Keith K. Burkhart: Do you use the maximum at the beginning for most commonwealth contracts?

Joseph Doncsecz: For most commonwealth, yes. And at the federal level agencies such as the USDA, get about 14 percent.

Robert Killoren: Actually effective return rate on USDA is 11 percent, and it ranges all the way up to the Navy which we get nearly everything, and NIH pays full recovery. With USDA you have to factor in the fact that we get about $6 million in Hatch Act, and you know these federal appropriations because we're a land grant institution. Their justification for not paying us as much overhead is because they said we get a lot of the money directly. Foundations typically are mostly zero but some will pay 8 percent, 10 percent or 15 percent, so we're not going to turn down any of those because a dollar into the university is a dollar into the university to help us do our projects, but that's pretty much the spread. Federal government pays most of it, most of the industries pay the full overhead. The only time we don't require the full overhead on a research project from industry is if it's basically a student project where the real beneficiary of the project is the students, or if in fact, the award made to the university is a gift where there is no deliverables, no intellectual property exchange, and things like that.

Joseph Doncsecz: So the zero to 15 percent and with the 40 that's what brings it down to the 20.

Chair Nelson: Other questions or comments for Thomas? Okay, seeing none, Thomas thank you very much. Joseph and Robert thank you also. We now move to the Senate Council Nominating Committee Report for 2000-2001. Senate Council Nominating Committee met and made nominations for Senate Officers and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, you will find these in Appendix "M" of your Agenda, Leonard Berkowitz is the chair of the Senate Council Nominating Committee.


Report of Nominating Committee - 2000-2001

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Council Nominating Committee

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus: You'll see that we have three sets of nominations--the Senate Officers and the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. Let's begin with the last, that's on the second page. For the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, one person will be elected for a three-year term to expire in 2003. There are three nominees and they are listed in Appendix "M".

Chair Nelson: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? Is there a motion to close?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Nelson: All those in favor of closing the nominations, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: For the office of Secretary of the Senate, we have two nominees, they're listed again in Appendix "M".

Chair Nelson: Are there any additional nominations from the floor for Secretary of the Senate? Is there a motion to close?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Nelson: All those in favor of closing the nominations, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: And finally for Chair-Elect of the Senate, we have three nominees.

Chair Nelson: Are there any additional nominations for Chair-Elect of the Senate?

Keith K. Burkhart: I would like to nominate John S. Nichols, Professor of Communications, University Park.

Chair Nelson: Okay, John Nichols has been nominated. I'm assuming, John that you will accept that?

John S. Nichols: Yes .

Chair Nelson: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?

Senators: Second.

Chair Nelson: Any other nominations? Brian?

Brian B. Tormey: I move that they be closed.

Senators: Second.

Chair Nelson: Okay I'll accept the motion to close the nominations. All those in favor of closing the nominations, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: All opposed? Thank you. We need to accept the slate then as proposed here. All those in favor please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Thank you very much, Leonard. Next is the Senate Committee on Student Life we have a Report on Credit Card Overuse. It is Appendix "N" in your package. Joanna Floros will present the report and introduce two students, Nicholas Carter and Matt Roan, who have been instrumental in working on this.


Report on Credit Card Overuse

Joanna Floros, Chair Senate Committee on Student Life

Joanna Floros, College of Medicine: Most of the work for this report has been done by the students. Two student representatives Nicholas Carter, he is a Student Senator and a member of the Senate Committee on Student Life, and also Matt Roan who is actually a guest member of our Senate Committee on Student Life and Undergraduate Student Government Town Senator. These two Senators will introduce the report and also will be available for questions.

Nicholas Carter, Student Senator, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College: Hello. As many of you know, Student Credit Card debt has become a growing problem among universities nationwide, including Penn State. The Senate Committee on Student Life in conjunction with USG Town Senator Matt Roan has compiled an informational report on credit card overuse which is included in your Agenda, which I'm sure everybody read and I'll briefly summarize right now. Many school administrators and parents have become increasingly worried about how much of an impact credit card debt can have on academic performance and commitment, and have become more concerned with what kind of role colleges should play in educating students about the potential dangers of credit cards. Even though the ultimate responsibility does lie with the students and parents, colleges need to recognize and help mitigate the pernicious effects that mounting credit card debt can have. On today's colleges campuses it is incredibly easy for students to get credit cards, therefore many students take advantage of these free offers and seemingly instant credit card opportunities. But credit based decisions have the potential to make a greater negative impact on a young adult's financial future more than anything else or any other investment decision they'll ever make. Poor credit ratings can lead to difficulty in obtaining things ranging from cell phone service to a car loan. Also, employers are increasingly looking at credit ratings to determine the reliability of a prospective employee. In the beginning of this academic year, the Undergraduate Student Government Senate at Penn State put together a special project committee, and they decided to produce a pamphlet outlining the responsible use of credit. The pamphlet would include explanations of how credit cards work, paying the minimum balance, credit ratings, what to do about stolen credit cards, and tips for avoiding credit card debt. The committee also resolved to bring credit card counselors to campus in order to offer personal assistance to students with credit troubles. In conjunction with the pamphlet, the special committee of the USG also invited representatives from the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Northeastern Pennsylvania (CCCS) to come to campus and run an informational booth on the ground floor of the HUB. Counselors and members of CCCS' education department were on hand to answer questions about credit and give out the pamphlet on Monday, January 24, 2000. It is the intention of the committee to continue these educational efforts throughout the rest of this academic year, by the continued distribution of the credit card pamphlet. If anybody is interested, we have copies of the credit card pamphlet with us right now, and if you so desire can read them and at this time we will entertain any questions or comments that you may have.

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine: Let me just say that this is a tremendous problem and I applaud your efforts. We in the College of Medicine are faced with major debt incurred by students going through medical school and they come to medical school with a lot of debt incurred in college. My question is this. I wonder what the university is doing with respect to the person accepted to come to Penn State before they actually get to campus. One of the problems that I see is that day one of orientation or whatever VISA, MASTERCARD have tables lined up, and probably the first person that you shake hands with is the person who wants to give you a credit card. The message that you get is that it's free money, and that's a major mistake and it has long, long term implications. So along with the question I would recommend that if we aren't already doing this, that once a student has been accepted to this college, before they actually walk on campus, both the student and the parent be sent this; hopefully they'll read this. Both be strongly encouraged to read information related to managing debt and maybe this pamphlet could be something that if not geared to that population, you may want to think about if you're not already doing it.

Matt Roan, Undergraduate Student Government Town Senator: Currently incoming freshmen receive a booklet from Penn State called the Preface book. There has been discussion of including information on credit card usage and credit card debt in that book. I'm not sure if it's too late to include it for the incoming freshmen next year, however we are making plans for activities during orientation or when people are arriving to make this information readily available to students as they come to campus so they know what they're getting into. Many of these students 18 years old, you come to college, this is your first experience outside of the home and one of the first decisions you really make without your parent's influence right there telling you what to do or at least giving you guidance is signing up for a credit card, and this is a really dangerous thing. So, we are making efforts to make this a priority during orientation and get this information to students before they're barraged by these offers.

Dwight Davis: Just one quick follow-up. I don't know if you remember your orientation but I remember mine a long, long time ago and I remember our students' orientation. You get an awful lot of information there and a lot of that stuff comes in and goes out. So I just want to make a plea that it might be helpful to people before they actually get here, and have five people talking to them every hour about things--campus life and the like--to be able to sit quietly with family and discuss this issue of managing debt before they actually get here.

Matt Roan: That's a very good point and it's something that we do have to do. Another option to combat that problem of being overwhelmed with information during orientation is Residence Assistants in the residence halls where all the freshmen are required to live are required to run programs. And offering credit card usage as a topic for programs in those residence halls would also be an avenue to get information to the new freshmen.

Zachary T. Irwin: I wondered if any of you found out in your investigation who actually decides which credit card companies solicit and whether or not the university gets any kind of benefit from those companies for setting up the table?

Matt Roan: Actually when we first started talking about this project in USG that was one of the first issues to come up. Why can't we just go and take the next step and kick credit card solicitors off campus. Upon further investigation we find among other things, links between the Penn State Alumni Association and MBNA. Where the Penn State Alumni Association derives benefit from their relationship with MBNA and for students to kick MBNA off campus for example might...the Alumni Association would lose out on something there and students do have an interest in the Alumni Association. The other thing is, we have to remember that for many students there is a need for credit and making sure that credit opportunities are there is important as long as people making those decisions are educated about what they're getting into. So we can't totally kind of shield students from credit card opportunities. I think the best way to go about solving this problem is making sure the students are educated before they get into those decisions. And another issue is, student groups here on campus do fund raisers with credit card companies, which I think is probably not the best thing to do, but they gain revenue from applications filled out. The university has taken steps to discourage that kind of fund raising, but for example, if you wanted to do that kind of fund raiser, and you are reserving space in the HUB, you would have to pay a fee because you were doing that type of solicitation. So there are groups on campus including student groups, who derive benefit from credit card solicitors, but the effect that they have on the student body as far as debt goes is something that needs to be closely monitored and addressed.

Philip A. Klein: I just wonder if there is a system of financial advising that's available to the students, particularly to arbitrarily advise some that would maybe prevent the worse kind of abuse.

Matt Roan: Not that I know of...

Philip A. Klein: That's an obvious thing to do.

Dennis G. Shea, College of Health and Human Development: Not only does the Alumni Association derive great benefit from their association with MBNA but MBNA also derives great benefits from their association with the Alumni Association. And there are steps that Penn State and the Alumni Association could take to negotiate with these organizations. Arrangements that would offer say free credit counseling services, would place restrictions on when those credit cards are made available, not making them available to students during orientation, or finding other times when they can solicit when the students might not be so susceptible to some of their arrangements. The second thing that I would argue with, or make a comment on, there's a great outlet for you to encourage faculty to follow-up on anything to do with orientation since every student now has the freshman seminar that they have to attend. And I hope you take some steps to make the pamphlets available to faculty who are teaching freshman seminars and to encourage them to do even just a brief presentation on this as one of the adjustments of college life that students have to make.

Matt Roan: Absolutely, that's a very good point especially about the freshman seminars. And I'd like to kind of go back to something you were saying about MBNA offering free counseling as part of their relationship with the Penn State community. I'd like to mention that the group that we worked with to produce this pamphlet the non-profit organization called Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Northeastern Pennsylvania, offers free counseling right here in State College for students. And that's another thing we need to make known so students know that they have a resource here in town where they can go if they're having credit card trouble. And for some people it's a lot of trouble. Georgetown released a study and they found that one-fifth of the students that they surveyed carried balances on their credit cards owed upwards of $10,000. So we're talking about a lot of money and students don't have money so this is a major problem.

Jacob De Rooy: As an economist who also teaches a little bit of finance I'm quite concerned about where this might lead. Now credit card issuers on average lose about 5 percent on the credit that they give covering all areas. Their rate is a little bit higher for what's called subtrying borrowing which is more risky borrowing and that may be where students fall. But remember proper financial management, which means the use of credit where it's available, is part of the responsibilities of entering into adulthood. This university does not subscribe to "in local parentis," that is we are your parent's surrogates. We don't do that. So what I'm saying is I would strongly oppose any use of university funds to finance education on personal financial management. That's part of your responsibility as an adult. Credit card companies know how far they can go. They know how much they can give you without losing their shirt. They are very smart lenders. So yes, they can seduce you with easy credit, but I do not think it's the responsibility of the university to spend university funds to teach you how to use credit. It is not "in local parentis". We ended that policy a long time ago.

Matt Roan: Just to respond. I think it's important to stress that in the efforts that have been made so far it really is an effort by students to help their fellow students, and to help peers through making these decisions. However, I would disagree with you that the university doesn't have a responsibility to help make this information more available. I think that it's a service to the students that is needed, and I think that the university should be involved in that. I don't think that mandatory education about credit is necessary, but I do think that the university could stand to support educational programs that would make its students better equipped to handle life in the adult world, which they're transitioning to when they come here as freshmen.

Zachary T. Irwin: I just wanted to disagree.

Dwight Davis: In fairness to my fellow Senator here. This is a support service as I see it, and I know we may have problems with how we spend our funds, but I think that there's an obligation to assist our students in any way we possibly can. I see this at my end of the spectrum leading to a major problem, and so I just wanted to say that.

Joanna Floros: I just want to note again the problems they may be faced with, the financial problems, eventually have an impact in their academic performance, and with that in mind we perhaps have the responsibility of trying to help them.

Valerie N. Stratton, Penn State Altoona: I was wondering how these pamphlets are distributed at other campuses?

Nicholas Carter: I go to Penn State Behrend and I was able to take about two or three hundred pamphlets with me, and I was able to distribute pamphlets to students who are interested. In fact, I'm currently working on having these pamphlets a requirement for student organizations who want to try and raise money by selling credit cards. I don't know how much good it will do, but hopefully they'll at least glance over this and something will stick in their minds and remind them, "that I can't go over the limit," hopefully, they will get something, some tip out of this that will benefit them.

Matt Roan: I've also talked to the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments here at University Park and have received cooperation from them. And CCCS who helped us produce this pamphlet has offices all over the state, many of which are close to some of the commonwealth campuses and they expressed interest in expanding the program to those campuses as well.

Guy F. Barbato, College of Agricultural Sciences: I offer these comments as somebody who not so long ago got sucked into a credit card deal as an undergraduate, and who has a son getting ready to come to Penn State, and I was pretty much dumb enough going through my undergraduate career, where I took nothing but genetics courses to get this chair at K102. May I suggest that the Senate consider altering general education requirements so that any undergraduate can be able to plot the duration of time it takes to pay off $10,000 at the bare minimum of $34 a month at 18 percent compound interest annually.

Senators: Applause.

Matt Roan: That's a fantastic idea. I can't do it. We have the experts do it in the pamphlet so this is all outlined so students can see we have a $1,000 charge here and it shows that it takes close to eight years and two months to pay off $1,000 making only the minimum payment each month.

Guy F. Barbato: I didn't have the pamphlet up my sleeve.

Matt Roan: Yes, I know I was just making you aware.

Chair Nelson: Any other comments or questions. Thank you very much, Joanna. Thank you gentlemen.

Joanna Floros: I just want to thank the students for doing a great job.

Senators: Applause.

Chair Nelson: The next report is the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. This has to do with the University Advising Council Web Site which is described and pictured in Appendix "O," Marilyn Keat, John Cahir and Eric White are available for questions in this regard.


University Advising Council Web Site

Jamie M. Myers, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Marilyn Keat, Office of Undergraduate Education: We've been asked to provide an informational report to the Senate on the activities of the University Advising Council which this body created a few years ago with the charge to provide assistance and support for advising endeavors across the university. You might be interested to know that in our contacts with other advising communities around the country, and on the national advising scene we realize that it's rather a unique advising council in that it was created by the Faculty Senate and has its mandate from Senate legislation. The membership of the University Advising Council was part of the legislation, and I'll note that these faculty members have been on the council--Richard Carlson, Professor of Psychology; Tanya Furman, Professor of Geosciences; Margaret Galligan, Instructor of Accounting; Richard Lee, Assistant Professor of Philosophy; Robert Mitchell, Professor of Biology; and Eliza Pennypacker, Professor and Head of Landscape Architecture who served on the council but left when she took up her new duties as University Architect. I've been asked to note for you the major accomplishments of the advising council just to elaborate a little bit on the materials you have in Appendix "O". The UAC has established a web site and all of these images are printed from the web site and I certainly hope that you and your colleagues will visit it. One of the first projects that the council undertook, and which was put up on the web site, is a section devoted to exemplary practices in academic advising. Each of the nine elements of an effective advising system as outlined in the Faculty Senate legislation are addressed in the exemplary practices. And for each element the site provides, the Senate legislation language and an ideal practice based on the work of the Council for Academic Standards in Higher Education then provides links to exemplary practices not only at Penn State but at other institutions around the country. In fact, I believe the one we gave you provides a link to some sites at the University of Chicago. Another project that is on the web site is one that provides the network of university-wide advising contacts by both campus and college, with direct links to the contact persons and to college and campus advising web sites. For example, the ones we gave you here show that if you're at Beaver Campus and you want information on any college at Penn State, you can contact the persons listed or if you go to the College of Health and Human Development page it tells you who to contact at each campus in order to find out information about that college. Pretty simple but actually over 380 different people are part of this network which is, I think pretty remarkable. Finally, the council has done some major work on advising assessment and there's a web site on advising assessment. The project and what you see on the web site acknowledges the importance of both strategies for assessment. We give some guidelines for strategies for assessment and then some sample assessment items for both advisors and advisees. Again, related to the nine elements of the advising system that was described in the Senate legislation. The work of the council certainly has been stimulated by the legislation and is moving towards the goals that were set forth. One example that has been noted a number of times of the synergism between what the council's doing and what's happening in advising assessment is what's happened in the assessment conducted by the Eberly College of Science. The Eberly College of Science was stimulated by legislation by the Faculty Senate to conduct the first phase of a very comprehensive advising assessment, and their approach has been exemplary, in that it focuses on the outcomes of advising and asks students to look at their own behaviors in the advising context. As a result of that and a job well done, that project now appears on the exemplary practices page of the University Advising Council's web site. So having begun with the legislation and having conducted the assessment, it's once again back in the council's plane of vision as being part of the exemplary practices site. If you have any questions about any of the work that council has been doing, Dr. Cahir and Dr. White and I will be happy to try and answer your questions.

Arthur E. Goldschmidt, College of the Liberal Arts: Briefly what is the web site address for University Advising Council. I can't find it in the...

Marilyn Keat: Sorry, it's It should be on the corner of the page you have.

Chair Nelson: It's at the top of each page.

Peter Deines: What is the process to keep information that you have in your web sites up-to-date? We have a lot of advisors and they want to change their time. Do you have some process of how you update that every semester or every year?

Eric R. White, Division of Undergraduate Studies: Yes, as a matter of fact that web site has already been updated. We're amazed at how fast people come and go. There's been a presentation about that web site at ACUE and the ACUE deans have been sort of informed that as soon as they know, or they're aware of different changes to let us know and we'll do that through the Division of Undergraduate Studies. Once a year we'll also send a note out and let people know that it's sort of time. But we hope it will be an ongoing thing and that in reality that when that year is up and so forth and we send out the notice there won't be any changes because people will have already informed us. But I think the people who are involved with making the appointments and so forth already know that. Marilyn said I think about 380 people are involved. When you look at the complexity of handling people at every location of the institution, but then across by every college of the university, it's quite a network of people involved.

Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering: Do you have any records of how many students are using this? Or can you help us understand how effective it will be for the student in terms of using it?

Eric R. White: You mean this particular web site? Well, ironically this web site is as much for students as it is for faculty, administrators, advisors, it's not primarily for students. There are other web sites in the university related to advising that students use. I don't know, do you have a count? I don't know if I've seen a count at this stage of the game.

Marilyn Keat: That's a good comment, Lynn because we probably should have a counter on that particular page of the network especially.

Lynn A. Carpenter: This is for faculty more than students?

John J. Cahir: Eventually the hope would be that it would be used a lot by students as we begin to develop pointers as people...when you do surveys of students they'll say well my advisor doesn't have a clue. And of course the answer to that is it's impossible to have a clue of all the kinds of questions that students will ask and so to have a great web site which had a lot of pointers for information, I think, it would follow the same experience that we've had with E-LION, which used to be called CAAIS. Two years ago in December had something like 5,000 hits, one year ago in December 1998 had something like 36,000 hits and in December 1999 had about 80,000 hits. And we think the same thing is going to keep happening.

Chair Nelson: Other questions? Okay, thank you very much, Eric, John, Marilyn.






May I have a motion to adjourn? The March 28, 2000 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:05 PM.


Committees and Rules - Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 5 (Legislative)

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

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

Research - Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows (Advisory/Consultative)

University Planning - Parking Report (Advisory/Consultative)

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2000-2001 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report of March 14, 2000

Election Commission - Roster of Senators for 2000-2001 (Informational)

Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1998-99 (Informational)

Intra-University Relations - Non-Tenure-Line Faculty (Informational)

Research - A Primer on Indirect Costs (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2000-2001 - Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

Student Life - Report on Credit Card Overuse (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - University Advising Council Web Site (Informational)


The University Faculty Senate Calendar


Reports DueSenate CouncilSenate

August 8, 2000August 22, 2000September 12, 2000

September 19, 2000October 3, 2000October 24, 2000

October 31, 2000November 14, 2000December 5, 2000

December 12, 2000January 16, 2001January 30, 2001

February 2, 2001February 13, 2001February 27, 2001

March 2, 2001March 13, 2001March 27, 2001

March 30, 2001April 10, 2001April 24, 2001



The University Faculty Senate


The Nominating Committee consisting of the elected representatives of Senate Council met on January 18 and February 15, 2000. The following list of nominees will be transmitted to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate prior to the March 14, 2000, Senate Council meeting for subsequent distribution with the Agenda for the March 28, 2000, meeting of the University Faculty Senate. Additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate on March 28, 2000.



Bise, Christopher J. - College of Earth & Mineral Sciences, University Park

Gouran, Dennis S. - College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Manbeck, Harvey B. - College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Nichols, John S. - College of Communications, University Park


Moore, John W. - College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Smith, Sandra R. - (HHDEV), Commonwealth College, Fayette Campus


(1 to be elected - term to expire in 2003)

Barbato, Guy F. - College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Hanley, Elizabeth - College of Health & Human Development, University Park

Rebane, P. Peter - (LA), Abington College

John Bagby
Leonard Berkowitz, Chair
Michael Broyles
Lynn Carpenter
Alison Carr-Chellman
Dennis Gouran
Zachary Irwin
Peter Jurs
Larry Kenney
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Felix Lukezic
P. Peter Rebane
Robert Richards
Irwin Richman
Andrew Romberger
Alan W. Scaroni
Sandra Smith
Brian B. Tormey



Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Althouse, P. Richard
Aydin, Kultegin
Barbato, Guy F.
Bardi, John F.
Barnes, David
Barshinger, Richard
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Borzellino, Joseph E.
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Burchard, Charles
Burgess, Robert L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carey, J. Christopher
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Nicholas
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chao, David
Carr-Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Christy, David P.
Clark, Paul F.
Crane, Robert G.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, W. Travis
De Jong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Diehl, Renee D.
Dimitric, Ivko
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Fullerton, Erika R.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
Holt, Frieda M.
Hufnagel, Pamela
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kenney, W. Larry
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Krochalis, Jeanne
Kunze, Donald E.
Lilley, John M
Lippert, John R.
Lipsitz, Carly M.
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marsico, Salvatore A.
May, James E.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Milakofsky, Louis
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Myers, David J.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Peavler, Terry J.
Phillips, Allen T.
Power, Barbara L.
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Robert D.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Rodriguez, Lola
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Roth, David E.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schott, Adam
Schuelein, Derek R.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Sharp, Jeffrey M.
Shea, Dennis G.
Shifrin, Dennis
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol A.
Smith James F.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Sznaier, Mario
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda Klebe
Turner, Tramble T.
Ventura, Jose A.
Vickers, Anita M.
Wager, J. James
Walters, Robert A.
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Zayas, Gracie
Zelis, Robert
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
128 Total Elected
5 Total Ex Officio
10 Total Appointed
143 Total Attending


Faculty Affairs, Libraries and Research - Intellectual Property (Forensic Session)

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

Research - Intellectual Property (Advisory/Consultative)

Undergraduate Education - Toward a More Vibrant Learning Culture at Penn State (Advisory/Consultative)

Senate Council - Student Computing Initiative (Informational)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Report of High School Students Enrolled in Non-Degree Credit Courses (Informational)

Computing and Information Systems - Virtual Reality (Informational)

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

Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1998-99 (Informational)

Student Life - Incivility in the Classroom (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Teaching and Learning Consortium, John A. Brighton (Informational)

University Planning - Construction Programs Status Report (Informational)

Report of Senate Elections

Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 2000-2001
Senate Chair-Elect for 2000-2001

Comments by Outgoing Chair Nelson

Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Schengrund