Penn State University Home




Volume 32-----MARCH 30, 1999-----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 1998-99.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

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

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

Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the Meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the Meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.


I. Final Agenda for March 30, 1999

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

  1. Documents Distributed Prior to March 30, 1999
  2. Attached

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs - Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier


III. Tentative Agenda for April 27, 1999



Minutes of the March 2, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 32:5

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of March 19, 1999
Senate Calendar for 1999-2000

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 16, 1999






Committees and Rules
Revision to Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11(c)
Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d)

Resolution Supporting the Efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly
Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)


Faculty Affairs
Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier

Faculty Benefits
Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans


Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Curricular Affairs
Review of Recent Changes in, Current Practices of, and Future Plans For the Curricular Approval Process

Elections Commission
Roster of Senators for 1999-2000

Outreach Activities
Off-Campus Graduate Programs

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000
Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary
- Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

University Planning
The University Park Master Plan





The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11(c)." This report does three things. First, it adds to the duties of the Nominating Committee the nomination of members of the Committee on Committees and Rules. Second, it changes the date of formation of the committee. Third, it adds the Immediate Past Chair of the Senate to the committee as chair. (See Record, page(s) 8 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

The Senate passed one Resolution:

Libraries - "Resolution Supporting the Efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)." This resolution commends and assists the efforts of The Association of Research Libraries and The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition and encourages scholarly and professional societies to promote competition in scholarly communications. (See Record, page(s) 9-12 and Agenda page 2).

The Senate passed two Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs - "Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier." This report recommends that electronic publications be treated the same as publications that appear in print and listed under the same bullets in the rainbow dividers of a candidates dossier. (See Record, page(s) 12-17,Agenda Appendix "E," and Corrected Copy Record Appendix IX.)

Faculty Benefits - "Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans." This report makes three recommendations. First, that the aggregate contribution by the University to all health care plans should increase each year to keep up with medical cost trends. Second, that there be equity across all health plans at a contribution level no greater than 20% for the employee and 30% for spouse and family. Third, if medical cost trends decline, the surplus dollars generated should not be used to reduce the University's aggregate contribution to health care plan costs but rather to provide additional health care coverage benefits or to reduce the percentage of employee contributions. (See Record, page(s) 17-30 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate received six Informational Reports:

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 1999-2000 - "Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee." This report list the candidates for the general Senate election to the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. (See Record, page(s) 30-32 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

Curricular Affairs - "Review of Recent Changes in, Current Practices of, and Future Plans for the Curricular Approval Process." This was an Oral Informational report by Peter Deines, Chair of Curricular Affairs Committee, describing the status of the curricular approval processes. (See Record, page(s) 34-41 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Elections Commission - "Roster of Senators for 1999-2000." This is a list of Senators, by voting units, for the 1999-00 Senate year. (See Record, page(s) 32 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

Outreach Activities - "Off-Campus Graduate Programs." This report describes the ongoing work to ensure academic quality in the off-campus graduate programs. It also lends the committee's support to policies on residency and the guidelines for submitting proposals for off-campus graduate programs. (See Record, page(s) 41-45 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000 - "Chair-Elect and Secretary, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President." This is a listing of the candidates in the general Senate election for the position of Chair-Elect, Senate Secretary and the members of the Faculty Advisory Committee. (See Record, page(s) 32-34 Agenda Appendix "K.")

University Planning - "The University Park Master Plan." This was an Oral Informational report by William Anderson, Jr., Assistant Vice President for Physical Pant, on the proposed master plan for the University Park campus. (See Record, page(s) 45-53 Agenda Appendix "L.")

One legislative report had to lay on the table until the next meeting because it is a change to the Senate's Bylaws.

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d)." (See Record, page(s) 8-9 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 30, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, presiding. One hundred and fifty-six Senators signed the roster.

Chair Berkowitz: 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 March 2, 1999 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

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


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for March 19, 1999. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. There is going to come a time when those of us who knew what Blue Sheets were and why they were called Blue Sheets will all be gone and somebody is still going to be standing up here reading about Blue Sheets and somebody is going to stand up and ask the then chair, why they are called Blue Sheets. I hope that person knows.

The Senate Calendar for 1999-2000, as approved by Senate Council, is attached to your Agenda as Appendix "B". Please make note of these dates and times in your calendar.


Also, you should have received the Report of the Senate Council for the meeting of March 16, 1999. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.


Chair Berkowitz: I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council that are contained in the minutes attached to today's Agenda. And I have a couple additional announcements.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on March 16, 1999, and discussed the following topics: parking at University Park; updates on senior administrative searches; an update on the state budget; the possibility of a fall Senate report on the changing nature of academic health centers; faculty evaluation procedures; the affirmative action office; and general education implementation. As you can see we had nothing much to talk about. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 8, 1999 which is a little earlier than it normally would be. So if you have items you'd like us to bring to FAC, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the elected members of FAC pretty soon, because we are going to try to put that agenda together this week.

The last spring visit for the Senate Officers will take place on April 6 and that is to the College of Arts and Architecture.

We have received a memo from the president regarding his approval--and, therefore, the implementation--of the advisory/consultative report entitled "HR-40--Evaluation of Faculty Performance" passed at the October 27, 1998 Senate meeting. President Spanier has asked the vice provost for academic affairs to follow up with the academic deans regarding implementation of the policy. He also asked the assistant vice present for human resources to note the revision in HR-40.

Typically, the Senate Office receives a copy of the operating budget report and the operating expenditures report (Volumes I & II) of Penn State's open budget, to keep on file for those faculty members wanting access to this document. This year we received a memo from Richard Althouse noting that, since this information is now available on the web and in University Libraries, distribution of paper copies will not be made to individual colleges and administrative units. The open budget is available at this site:

At the March 18 trustees meeting at Penn State Harrisburg, at the request of the trustees, President Spanier provided a very interesting informational report on state funding of higher education in Pennsylvania, and of Penn State in particular. The details were so interesting, I asked if he minded if we supplied those to all Senators. He said he had no problem with that, so I will have those included in the Agenda for the April meeting so you can all see those details. They will either be under communications to the Senate or announcements by the chair, and after seeing those you may have some questions you wish to raise or some comments you wish to make, but we don't want to make the April meeting last forever. But I did want you to have that information.


Chair Berkowitz: We move next to comments by the president of the university. President Spanier is here today and does have comments.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you, Len. I just want to remind all of you that I started as a faculty member at Penn State 26 years ago. In my first tour of duty and my first administrative position 22 years ago, I was called Professor in Charge of the Undergraduate Program and I do know what Blue Sheets are and will forever have that in my memory. And just out of curiosity, how many of you started at Penn State earlier than 1973? Oh my! That is impressive. And you are still on the Senate.

Senators: Laughter.

President Spanier: That is very...raise your hand again those of you... Wow. This is a wise and experienced group. There isn't a lot new to report, just updates on a couple of things, and I will try to leave more time for questions today. The budget process is going along very smoothly right now. We continue to work very hard to get that two and a half percent recommended appropriation increase up to a higher number. We have had many discussions around the topic of the new School of Information Sciences and Technology. We continue to be optimistic that we will see support for that project, and we're continuing to push for the initiatives that we also have on the table on work force development and agricultural research and cooperative extension. Very important to us this year is to get that two and a half percent number up to a higher level so we can continue to try and be competitive in faculty salary increases and maintain the funding base that we need for employee benefits cost increases, which are going up, and, of course, meeting all of our other commitments. Penn State is in very good shape right now. We are doing extremely well in terms of the progress we are making in all of the many initiatives and activities out there. You can look at the U.S. News and World Report rankings that are coming out, which some people pay attention to. I think we had a good showing there. You can look at the stability of our budget and planning and how people are viewing Penn State. We are continuing to have a very healthy year in terms of contributions from alumni and friends of the university. We really do hope to continue what we've done in the last four years, which is to break a new record there and, we very much look forward to the launch of our capital campaign in just a few weeks now, where we hope to set an ambitious goal for our overall capital campaign. Many of us continue to be concerned about the accelerating costs of library materials, accelerating costs of information technology, and the issues of ownership of intellectual property that surround that. I think you have a resolution later in the meeting today on that topic. That is something in the national positions in which I serve that I continue to be very worried about. If you look at universities across the country right now, they have increased by something like 50 percent in just the last few years the amount of money that they are spending on library materials, but have actually had to give up seven percent of their holdings--if you look at association of research library members, about 100+ of the largest libraries in the country. It is way out of wack, and we have to do something to address those issues, and there are some creative ideas on the table right now in that regard. So I think many indicators of the overall health of Penn State are very positive. We are doing well in research grants and contracts. The admissions and enrollments picture looks very healthy. At this moment we are up collectively over 1,000 applications from where we were at this time last year, which was a record-breaking year. Now, that includes graduate, undergraduate, all campuses, The Dickinson School of Law, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. Virtually any of those categories separately, the picture has looked very positive. Some ups and downs of course, from campus to campus and from major to major, college to college, but overall Penn State continues to compete very well and I think is very well regarded in the areas where we would like to be. I feel very good about the progress that the Senate is making in a number of areas. I continue to be very grateful at the way in which the Senate has approached the approvals for the new School of Information Sciences and Technology. We will be very proud when we look back at this in a year or two to see what we were able to do in a very short period of time. When presidents of other universities ask me about governance at Penn State and they tell me their horror stories at their universities and how difficult it is to make things happen, I'm really very proud to tell them about what happens at Penn State and the very good system we have of working in partnership: the Faculty Advisory Committee, which Len briefs you on at each meeting, the topics we talk about there, and our ability to move things ahead in a cooperative way when necessary. So, on those optimistic points let me open it up for your questions on any topics that might be on your mind.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any questions for President Spanier?

Arthur E. Goldschmidt, College of the Liberal Arts: Can you speak further to the funding for general education courses?

President Spanier: Well, that's a big topic. I guess what I would want to say about that is that there is very little that we do at the university that is as important as providing the block of general education courses to our students. I said all along that it's the one thing that we have in common and that our students have in common. When people want to know what is unique about a Penn State education, they may be referring to things outside of the classroom, but when they are really thinking about inside the classroom it's the general education curriculum that we all have in common. I think people in the Faculty Senate and in college curriculum committees worked very hard to get where we are right now. So I think it's very important that we stick with our plans to move ahead with that. I think there are two concerns that I pick up. I have a couple of campuses yet to visit, but I have just about completed my state-wide tour of all the campuses, and of course I read my email and other mail, and I think two concerns that are out there are: 1) flexibility, and 2) funding. I think with the flexibility concern, I want to promote the concept of flexibility. Sometimes you work things through a committee structure, and the word comes down from above that a course has to look this way and it has to have these things in it and has to have "X" number of students and be taught by this person in that way. I think we should treat those as desired things and as good guidelines, but there has always got to be an opportunity for some flexibility, because not everything works perfectly well in each college, at each campus, in each format. There are some good reasons why we might need to fine tune things around the concept of flexibility. In terms of funding we have done our darn best to allocate funds for this. It is not just the funds that we originally put a label on and said these funds are specifically to implement the new general education curriculum. You will also recall I hope, that on at least two other occasions we have given out very substantial new funding to colleges and campuses for new faculty positions and other initiatives, and we have had--let's call it fine print attached to it, but it's been more than a footnote at the bottom--saying, however, first and foremost what you must do with these positions is to help implement general education. So if any of you are in departments where you saw some new faculty positions popping up, remember that those weren't just about hiring the top scholar in some narrowly defined area that is going to be great for your department. It is also to help bring down class size, to implement the general education curriculum, and to meet your overall teaching mission. So please look at all of the new resources that you have seen in your departments over the last couple of years as trying to help bring this about. Having said that, I know that there will never be enough funds to do everything we want to do the way we do it. So funding is always going to continue to be an issue and we just have to kind of hold our feet to the fire, work around that, and do our best to make this happen.

Terry Engelder, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: A recent decision in the federal courts in effect lowered the standards for NCAA athletes across the country. How is this decision going to affect Penn State admission policies?

President Spanier: Well, I guess I could answer that in two ways. One is as president of Penn State and the other as the chairman of the board of the NCAA. In between some fabulous final four basketball games this weekend, I spent ten hours in meetings answering that very question. And we expect to see this week that issue resolved at least in some way. As we speak right now our attorneys have a hearing before a federal appeals court on an issue of a stay of the Philadelphia federal judges ruling on this. If a stay is granted, that gives the entire NCAA membership structure an opportunity to work through the process in an orderly way and come up with a permanent guideline on this question. But if the stay is not granted, we will almost certainly, using our emergency legislation authority, adopt new interim regulations, and we may adopt new interim regulations in any case because we have proposals working through the system that would change what you have been reading about called Proposition 16. So, from my perspective representing the NCAA, sometime in the next 24 hours I will be beamed up on the satellite from some room on campus here where I will be addressing the national media on this very question once we have the federal ruling. But I can tell you as president of Penn State my position has been--and it is similar to the position of most of the presidents I have talking to around the country--that we are very concerned about this ruling. Not because we necessarily disagree with certain elements of it. We were in the process of looking at changes in the specifics of Proposition 16. But there are other side issues as a part of this case that are very important for us to continue through with the appeal process. And I'm very concerned that any membership organization or any judge or any outside entity would wander into the territory of telling universities what their admissions standards should be, or imposing certain additional regulations on how we operate that may be intruding into an area of purview that has typically been reserved for the faculty of a university and its governing board. So we are very concerned about some of the issues that surround this larger question. Our position at Penn State has been that we want to see this resolved as quickly as possible and we want to, within the law--however it turns out to be--we want to maintain the highest academic standards we can for our student athletes. I think you know here, because you get an annual report from the athletic folks and faculty members from the Senate are involved in this, but there are NCAA rules and then there are Big Ten rules, which are more stringent academically than the NCAA rules, and Penn State's rules are more stringent than the Big Ten rules. So we operate in effect with the highest level of academic standards of any major Division I institution, and we would not like to see that watered down at all. So we will come out of this week one way or another with an operating standard which I don't think will be dramatically different from where we are right now. Right now you have to have a certain set of core courses, high school grade point averages in the formula, and a standardized test score--an SAT or an ACT. The court ruling was about using any one particular cut-off point in the standardized test score. We would like to see some element of a standardized test score continue to be in the formula in the same way as for our admissions at the university. We do give some weight to a standardized test score. High school grade point averages and other variables can differ from one high school to the next: what they mean by a 3.0, and what gets counted, and how scores are manipulated, and what kind of grade inflation is out there in different high schools. So these are very important issues to Penn State, and to me personally as the point person in speaking for the overall membership of the NCAA.

Chair Berkowitz: Time is moving along. If there are any more questions, we will limit it to one more at this time.

Helena Poch, Student Senator, College of Health and Human Development: I was wondering where you stood on the issue of mandatory computer ownership for incoming freshman?

President Spanier: It's an interesting question. As I have been visiting with student groups and visiting the campuses, somebody always gets up and says, "we are against it." And I say, "well, wait a minute, time out." It's not like we are ready to implement something right now. All I did was ask a committee to begin thinking about it because, hey, other schools are doing it, it's out there, there are some very interesting issues. We ought to begin thinking about it. So nothing is imminent, we are not going to all of the sudden send everybody a letter next week saying bring your computer next year. But I will tell you why it's important, and in almost every case, when I explain to students some of the variables around there, those who got up in the beginning and said we are against it said, "oh, well maybe we are for it after all." And I'll tell you what the issues are. As of this past fall, 60 percent of all new freshmen at Penn State arrived with a computer. So it wasn't like the discussion was five years ago when ten percent were showing up with a computer, or even two years ago when 30 percent were showing up. Now 60 percent of our new freshmen are showing up with a computer, and within three or four years I think it's going to be 90 some percent, okay. So one question is, well, if every student is showing up with a computer, ought we to be giving them more guidance as to what kind of computer it ought to be. I mean, sure, they could have any brand they want, but sort of what the insides should be like so that it can really be more integrated into the classroom academic experience for a growing number of faculty members who are using that. Our future classrooms are all going to be built with, at each seat you can plug in your laptop. Students can all bring their laptops and plug in right there and there are going to be some things you can do that way that will open up the experience. The other thing is that, if we say that it's required, then all of the sudden it becomes part of the mandatory cost of attendance which makes it available for financial assistance. So for students who are really poor and really have wide open grants and loans, it gets added in. I mean, for some it could conceivably be free if they are fully eligible to have their education paid for. For others it makes it amenable to a loan, and if they were all buying it anyway and all of the sudden it's available at a low interest rate instead of their parents or them having to go out on a limb for it, that is an interesting issue there. Another thing is, and you all notice this, that the university is increasingly negotiating site licenses for software. Like all of you for example, have Eudora or Eudora Pro available. Well, you don't have to go out and buy that personally. Your department doesn't even have to go out and buy it. We have one site license for all 110 thousand users. There is no reason why we couldn't do that with virtually everything. So, we could arrange for students at extremely low prices, lower than they could now buy a computer at home, to buy a computer, and then through our site licenses, instead of using the information technology fee to just keep on building more laboratories on campus, we could take that money and put it into buying site licenses. So you just bring a blank computer and we load it up with a phenomenal amount of software that a student, faculty and staff member could never really afford to go out and buy on their own. We could presumably turn over to you hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of software for a student to have on their platform. And so there are some things about it that are very appealing. But the reason we haven't rushed into it, of course, is because like with anything else it's always more complicated at Penn State. We have lots of students who are coming right out of high school. We have lots of students who are older than average. We have some people who already have computers, some people who don't have computers. We have public access laboratories, we have very poor students, we have wealthy students. We have people on all sides of any different issue, and this is another area where we might need to have a little bit of flexibility. So it's an important thing to look at, but it's not a matter of months away. I mean, it could be a year or two. We do have a committee looking at it, and that's kind of where I stand. Thank you, I know my time is up.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you, President Spanier. Regarding the last issue, Renata Engel is chairing that committee and her report will go simultaneously to the administration and to the Senate. So, the Senate may well have an opportunity to comment on whatever that report and its recommendations are. So, you may yet see the subject again. We now move to reports, and as we begin our discussion of reports, I'll ask you to please remember to stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent. You have been doing that very well so far.







Revision of Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11(c)

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

Nancy J. Wyatt, Penn State Delaware: These are mainly housekeeping, to make practice the same as the rules. It's more like to write the rules to govern the practice. The rationale for the first one is the simplest thing to read. We codified practices that we are already doing for the nominating committee, adding the immediate past chair of the Senate to the committee as the chair of the nominating committee, because that person has been working closely with all of the committee chairs and presumably has some knowledge that would be useful to that committee.

Chair Berkowitz: Since this comes from a committee it stands as a motion with a second, and amendments to the Standing Rules can be passed at the meeting at which they are presented by a majority vote. Thus we will be voting on this particular proposal today. Are there questions or comments on this motion? This could be a good meeting. Then are we ready for a vote? All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? The report passes. Our second report also comes from Committees and Rules. This one is a revision of the Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d) and it will be voted on next month, since it is a revision to the Bylaws. But Nancy will introduce it today, and if you wish to comment or ask questions about it you may do so.

Revision of Bylaws, Article I, Section 1(d)

Nancy J. Wyatt: We are changing the language in the Bylaws to reflect the changes we just made.

Chair Berkowitz: I'm sorry, we have to wait. Does anybody want to ask questions about it?

Nancy J. Wyatt: Do you want to grill me or anything? Okay, thank you.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you very much. We'll see that one again. Our next report is also legislative, and this comes from the Libraries Committee. It's a resolution supporting the efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition). This resolution is printed on page two of the Agenda, so don't go back in the appendices looking for it. Come back to the beginning. Felix is here to present this report.


Resolution Supporting the Efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)

Felix L. Lukezic, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries

Felix L. Lukezic, College of Agricultural Sciences: I want to introduce Bonnie MacEwan, who is the Assistant Dean for Collections. She has been very helpful in this resolution and she has a couple words she'd like to say.

Bonnie J. MacEwan, Assistant Dean for Collections: Thank you, Felix. You know we can't share a mike. If we're going to take this show on the road, we should get our own mikes. You have before you today a resolution from the Faculty Senate Committee on Libraries in support of the ARL SPARC project. SPARC, The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, is a newly formed alliance of libraries that aims to foster expanded competition in scholarly communication. It was launched with support from the membership of the Association of Research Libraries to begin creating partnerships with publishers who are developing high-quality but economical alternatives to existing high-priced publications.

The university and the Libraries have joined SPARC as one of many efforts we are engaged in to address the spiraling cost of commercial journals and the crisis in scholarly communication caused in part by these high prices and the difficulty libraries, publishers, and scholars are facing in finding viable pricing models for electronic dissemination of information.

We have received our first SPARC journal, the Evolutionary Ecology Research Journal, and we are quite pleased with the quality of the content, the fairness of the license, and reasonable cost of the title. I would invite you to look at the paper version in the library--it's in the Life Sciences part of the library--or the electronic version available to the entire Penn State community from your workstation or in the Libraries.

I'd like to place this project in context. To do this I have borrowed liberally from two presentations from last year's Association of Research Libraries meeting. Both presentations are available on the ARL web site, ARL.ORG. The first presentation is "Moving with Dispatch to Resolve the Scholarly Communication Crisis: From Here to NEAR," David E. Shulenburger, Provost at the University of Kansas, and the second is "Achieving Maximal Value From Digital Technologies in Scholarly Communication," by Charles E. Phelps, Provost, University of Rochester at the 133rd ARL Membership Meeting, October 1998.

Over the past seven years, the libraries have worked to explain the issues around journal prices. We know how frustrating it is for you and for us that we are unable to afford to continue all of the journals we currently have, and that we cannot purchase many of the new journals and monographic titles you would like us to have despite significant and generous budget increases to the libraries over the last several years. (We've talked about these issues in earlier forensics, and Dr. Spanier spoke very eloquently on this topic just a few months ago at this very podium, and I guess I should say a few minutes ago at this very podium.)

It is important that we all move beyond thinking of this as a library problem or a problem to be solved by Old Main. It is a scholarly communication problem, and it is a problem for everyone concerned about research and teaching. We must turn now to what it means to be aware that the extraordinary costs of scholarly communication must be controlled and new vehicles must be created to gain access to and preserve the burgeoning volume of available scholarship if we are to maintain access to scholarly information.

Journals claim that they are entitled to their profits because they add value to the process. We must remind ourselves that the universities also add value: they pay the salaries and contribute the space, supplies, and equipment to the scholar. Without the support and infrastructure of the research universities, much less new knowledge would be generated. Universities receive the funds to make expanded knowledge creation possible from all levels of government and from foundations, private contracts, and from the tuition paid by students. The majority of the value added by universities is funded from these sources, and it is time--in the opinion of these provosts--that an appropriate proportion of this value be claimed to ensure future creation and transmission of knowledge. What I didn't put in here, and now regret, is that there is the tremendous value added by the brains of everybody in this room: your research, and the value added to these journals by that.

Fundamentally, the issues of journal pricing can only be resolved by systematic and widespread introduction of vigorous competition into the world of publishing--competition that has not emerged until recently, in part because the producers of scholarly manuscripts (the faculty) and their institutions (universities both individually and collectively) have left the world of scholarly journals entirely to other entities, both commercial and not-for-profit learned societies. Particularly the commercial sector has made strong and successful efforts to expand the realm of journals that they publish and control, and have succeeded through time in establishing an intellectual stronghold in our worlds of scholarly communication by creating excellent editorial boards, attracting (partly through a lack of viable alternatives) our best scholarly work, and hence staking out the high ground in the intellectual hierarchy of our disciplines. Having achieved that high ground, they are now in a position to exploit the economic value of that reputation, and they do so by raising prices far above production costs, making journal publishing a highly profitable enterprise. They have also succeeded in stifling competition, not only through provision of excellent support for the editorial boards that they have recruited (often the best minds in the field, often minds from Penn State) but also by such tactics as requiring five-year, non-competing clauses for editors who sign on, or by simply buying their competition.

Ultimately, to introduce effective competition into the world of scholarly publishing, the institutions of higher education must either separately or collectively create effective alternatives that serve all of the functions now provided by print journals, and make these alternatives at least as attractive to scholars in their roles as author, referee, and editor as the current journals do.

In closing I’d like to refer you to the March 25 issue of Nature (the one that just came out) which announces a half-million dollars in grant awards for innovative e-journal ventures based at universities that will be offered through the SPARC project. I hope you will join the libraries in supporting this venture as one step in exploring solutions to the crisis that is affecting us all as scholars and teachers. Thank you for your time today. I will be happy to join with Felix in answering any questions.

Chair Berkowitz: I remind you that what we are voting on is the resolution printed on page two. Are there questions or comments on this resolution?

Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture: First, let me say I support this very much. I think the idea of electronic journals is very good. But my question is this: in my field, at least, a number of journals are published by University Presses, and I'm curious, is this an alternative? I guess the question is this: in general, to what extent do universities either control or have leverage with their own presses?

Bonnie J. MacEwan: I guess the simple answer to your question, Michael, is that University Presses aren't really the problem. Were all journals published the way that journals in your field are published, I think we would be having a lot easier conversation. That is not necessarily always true of the scholarly associations, and in some cases the scholarly associations have turned over publications to the same large commercial presses. And it's not well understood by the members of the association, and in fact until ten years ago, probably, the implications of that were not well understood by the libraries either. But I think that the university presses are another partner in this. Another very exciting project which I don't have a resolution about today is the MEWS project which Johns Hopkins University, which is another project that the library is supporting and is providing a really rich store of journal literature, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. The Penn State University Press is working with MEWS, and I would expect Penn State University Press journals to be available through MEWS sometime in the next year or two, and many other university presses will be doing the same.

Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education: But I'm a little bit concerned, and I'm curious what kind of conversation you had in your meeting, around the question of market-place driven models and unpopular ideas. What kind of an impact can we anticipate this sort of move toward more electronic journals and more open competition in the market place may have on unpopular academic ideas? Did you discuss that in your meeting, and can you comment on that?

Bonnie J. MacEwan: I don't remember us talking about it. I guess I think often unpopular ideas have less money to work with than popular ideas, and so I would expect that lowering the costs would make more unpopular ideas more readily available. As a person who has stood on many a corner handing out pamphlets, you know that's the budget you work under. So that would be my expectation. I think part of the objective of something like SPARC is, we really don't know exactly what the future is going to look like, and we have to get started on it to build it. But the intention is certainly to have a broad spectrum of ideas.

Chair Berkowitz: Further questions or comments? Then are we ready for a vote? All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? The resolution passes. Thank you very much. That completes our legislative reports. We now move to advisory/consultative reports. Our first advisory/consultative report comes from Faculty Affairs and it's Appendix "E," "Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier" and the chair of Faculty Affairs, Cara-Lynne Schengrund, is here to present that report.



Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine: This advisory and consultative report is brought forward in response to concerns about the inclusion of electronic publications in tenure and promotion dossier, and it is the result of work done by a subcommittee that was chaired by Felix Lukezic and consisted of members from the libraries, research, faculty affairs and university P&T committees as well as the administration. It's brought forth by the Faculty Affairs Committee because it is the charge of the Faculty Affairs Committee to deal with HR-23 and the guidelines that are related to it. There is one editorial correction that I'd like to have you make on the very last sentence on the page where you have the italicized bold print. The last sentence ends with the statement "as well as the names of the editorial board," and I was asked to have you include "as well as the names of members of the editorial board." If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, and if I can't, I'm sure that Felix can.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any comments or questions on this report?

Alan W. Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: The Earth and Mineral Sciences Caucus spent considerable time on this yesterday, surprisingly. We felt that the intent was contained in the first paragraph and that the subsequent paragraphs you have we didn't feel were necessary. And so my first question would be, what was the thinking of the committee in outlining the details in the second and third paragraph? And the second part of the question would be, in those paragraphs the words "department" and "departments" appear. And is the intent there the assurance that the "departments" that is called for is by the department head and the person preparing the dossier, the department promotion and tenure committee, or either, or both?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: When you say "department," we wanted to make sure the documentation was included at the department or synonym word. "Department" is used as a general word when we are dealing with HR-23, which also covers division or school, whatever the proper name for the unit should be. And we emphasize that in a previous piece of advisory/consultative legislation that we brought forth, and we did not define the word department in this one. But as long as it is included, it would be up to...since the candidate signs off on the completion of the dossier, the candidate should include that information because he/she should have it, having submitted the article to the electronic journal for publication. They should have a list of the editorial board available to them. You asked why we included specifics in the second and third paragraphs, and in a sense the reason for including the specifics is that including electronic publications in the dossier is still somewhat new. We have no way--review committees--don't have a way of necessarily knowing, or may not know, all of the electronic journals at this point in time. And, therefore, we felt it was a wise precaution to require documentation as we become more familiar with them and we know how they rank--or however you would care to phrase that statement--in their field. For instance, business I believe is one college that lists A and B journals. Until we know more about electronic publications, we need a little bit of information in order to have a feel for how much reviewing is done, how it is done, and how it would fit into the dossier, and I think that is why we have included a little bit of specifics. Does that answer your question?

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: The second italicized paragraph towards the end, you have what is undoubtedly an electronic error. It has "referred" rather than "referee."

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Thank you. We will note that.

Chair Berkowitz: One of the problems with spell check is you don't reduce your errors but your errors are always other words, making them much more interesting. Further comments?

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I was wondering why, in the final paragraph, the statement of the names of editorial board seems to apply to non-refereed publications? And just above it, the refereed publications were indeed refereed and there will be an editorial board?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: The refereed publications--and you can correct me, Felix, if I'm incorrect on what I'm about to say--we just asked for the policy for the review or for the refereeing, and that they indicate a procedure for archiving the electronic publication. When it is a non-refereed publication, it becomes more difficult to understand perhaps what the criteria are for acceptance. And, therefore, they wanted a listing of members of the editorial board. Do you have anything you'd like to add? I don't know if that answers your question satisfactorily.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: It is really confusing me, because many non-refereed publications have no editorial boards. It is part of what makes them non-refereed. But this may be an oddity in my own industry.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I can't address that part. Felix, do you have a comment for that?

Felix L. Lukezic: Would it clarify if we just drop that last phrase there, "as well as the names of the editorial board"? Is that what you are driving at? Because what we are asking here...the main thing that we are looking for is how they selected, and how are they preserving it, and will it be available for future use. The person who is putting the information in we are trying to assure that, "hey, it will be archived, and it's not a popular journal." So I see no problem at all with just dropping that last phrase there.

Chair Berkowitz: Then the motion has been changed.

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: I thought that was supposed to apply to both--that editorial boards can be both refereed and non-refereed, and I suggest we do this. We would not want members of the board of editors to be known both referees and non-referees. So it should be on both of them.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I think, then, if we combine your comment with Carey's comment, that perhaps we should just move the second half of the sentence in the third paragraph to the second paragraph and leave if off the third. Since there are journals that are non-refereed, apparently that lack an editorial board, you can't request the names of the members if they don't exist. But you can request how the article is reviewed or how it was selected, and you can also request that a statement be included about the archiving process. So you would just move it from the third to the second paragraph and that would be an editorial change.

Chair Berkowitz: Would you please specify where you want that placed? For example, would you like it after the word "archiving"?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: "Indicating the refereeing process, the names of members of the editorial board, and the procedure for archiving must accompany all listings of publications as refereed when they are published only electronically." That would be in the second paragraph. Did you follow? Would you like me to read it again?

Chair Berkowitz: Yes, please.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: "A policy statement from the journal indicating the refereeing policy, the names of members of the editorial board, and the procedure for archiving must accompany all listings of publications as refereed when they are published only electronically."

Chair Berkowitz: And the last paragraph now ends...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Would end with, "the department must supply an assessment of the selection process and the dossier must include a policy statement from the journal outlining the selection and archiving process."

Chair Berkowitz: And it is the end. Is the new version of this motion now clear to everyone?

Louis F. Geschwindner, College of Engineering: I'd like to know what the editorial board has to do with the refereeing of the paper? I mean, you can pick out a journal that has either editors or associate editors.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I think from the discussions, generally, when you look at an editorial board, the people on editorial boards are experts in the field in which the journal covers. And therefore, by looking at the names of the people on the editorial board, you get some idea of the rigidity or the quality of the review process. You can't guarantee it, but it is there to try and give some validity to what we're doing.

Effy Oz, Penn State Great Valley: Maybe what we should ask here is not who referees, because this may create a change all the time. Maybe we should say something about the refereeing process?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: We tried to make this in a sense akin to what is currently done with journals, and I don't know if you know exactly what the refereeing process is for a journal when you send your paper in. You know you send it to the editor or to an address, and you know who the members of the editorial board are. They are listed inside the journal cover usually--at least in science--which is the field I'm coming from. But then do you have any way of knowing whether it is sent to two reviewers, or three reviewers? The only way you find out--at least the only way I find out--is traditionally they send it to two reviewers, and if there is a conflict it is sent to a third. But I think if you have the editorial board and the archiving process, that that is sufficient at this point in time for listing them in the dossier, because when you list them normally you just list the journal title--if it is paper-published--the journal title and whether it is accepted or in press, and you do not give any more information than that. We are just requesting the editorial board so that we have some idea early on as to what's involved, as to the people that are sort of overseeing the review process for that electronic journal.

Chair Berkowitz: In case you have forgotten, the weather is really nice outside. Are there further comments and questions?

Anthony J. Baratta, College of Engineering: I guess I agree that having the editorial board there is really quite ridiculous. I've served on editorial boards, committees...

Senators: Laughter.

Anthony J. Baratta: ...having been from experience. Knowing the review process is much can't usually find any more about it. To say how many reviewers he has by no means indicates you can have any copies that you're asking for. If it is four or five, you know there are probably two or three reviewers. I guess I would agree that having the editorial board there is not going to give you a lot of guidance.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: If it is an electronic publication, do you ask for copies or do you ask for a disk, and do you send it out electronically frequently to be reviewed?

Anthony J. Baratta: You ask for a disk, and you can call the secretary who is receiving them, and they will gladly tell you that their policy is we send it out to two or three reviewers. It takes "X" number of months to review. I think that kind of information gives you some idea of the depth of review to be expected rather than who is on an editorial board. We often times find somebody who is retired, who has the time to basically do paper shuffling.

Chair Berkowitz: The motion already indicates that we are requiring a statement indicating the refereeing policy, does it not?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Yes it does.

Chair Berkowitz: Okay.

Kevin Berland, Penn State Shenango: It would be simple just to add the words "where applicable". That way, there are some electronic journals that list both the editorial board and their consulting editors.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I think we actually cover all of this by saying that you have to indicate the refereeing policy, the procedure for archiving, the names of the members of the editorial board. I mean, that should cover all three questions. It covers how what you are sending out will be refereed, it is covering who is on the editorial board, and it is covering the fact that it will be archived, unless I'm missing something.

Sabih I. Hayek: If I may, I would answer that one. The reason is, suppose I start a project with a web journal. I put 10 to 40 names on an editorial board, and you can submit papers, and I accept them, and they show up on the journal, and I can archive them too. What makes you sure you have a quality journal? The editorial board basically tells you the quality of the journal. That indicates the quality of the journal. So, I think we still need to have some sort, or otherwise anybody could be put on the board and we would have no idea who they are.

Chair Berkowitz: Further comments or questions? It looks like we may be ready to vote. What we're voting on is adding just section seven--the material on page two of this report and the top of page three in bold italics--to the administrative guidelines as changed and revised here on the floor. Does anyone have a question about what it says? Good. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Berkowitz: The motion passes. Thank you very much. Our next report comes from Faculty Benefits. It is an advisory/consultative report found in Appendix "F" of your Agenda, "Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans," and Allen Phillips, Chair of Faculty Benefits, is here to present this report. Allen, if you thought the last one was difficult, good luck.


Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans

Allen T. Phillips, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

Allen T. Phillips, Eberly College of Science: This is the second of two reports that are coming from Faculty Benefits that are essentially commenting on the earlier Task Force on the Future of Benefits report that all of you saw back in September. This particular report, the second one, deals only with the topic of costs for the HMO plan--to members of the HMO plan--the ratio of how much the university pays versus how much the employees pay. And since the original task force recommended changing the numbers from what are currently done--an approximately 95 percent university contribution, five percent employee, up to a recommended 80/20 for the university to employee--and also the phasing in of this over some period of time, our analysis was to try to either agree with this recommendation that the task force put in or to recommend changes to it. We studied this fairly intensively, and I can assure you that a number of different scenarios were examined. But in the final analysis we agreed that we could support the recommendations of the task force with respect to the actual percentages recommended--the 80/20 for university to employee and additionally the recommended 70 percent university/30 percent for dependents. And that was included as well in the original task force report. The major change was that the task force report recommended, "that this same contribution formula which was 80/20 be adopted for HMO participants to be phased in over a period of seven years but in no event less than five years." Our committee wishes to recommend that this in no case be less than seven years. So we have sort of nailed down more specifically the time frame over which the phase-in would occur. So let me just take a moment to give you a little background on this. In case you are wondering why all this came about, it was as a result of the changes in federal legislation that occurred a few years ago, which originally had mandated that the university contribute toward an HMO plan an amount equal to what they were contributing towards the most expensive plan, which in our case is Plan A. Having done that, then there wasn't anything left for the employee to contribute, and that is how the ratio of 95/5 came in, whereas all other plans are currently and have been for a number of years at the 80/20 ratio. So this is really normalizing the HMO cost ratio with the other plans that are in effect. So that was the history of it, and currently our recommendations--which are listed on the second page of our report in Appendix "F"--you will note are three and they really cover more than just the ratio itself. The first is that we are recommending that the aggregate contribution to all health plans should increase accordingly to keep up with medical cost trends, and that we are really most interested in making sure that the aggregate contribution does not decrease from one year to the next, and so we would like to see the monies there available to support any health plans that the university has. The second of the recommendations is more the specific one having to do with our recommendation of an 80-20/70-30 ratio for the university to either employee or dependents and be phased-in in no fewer than seven years. We think this would probably be sufficiently slow enough that most people could accommodate themselves over seven years. Our final recommendation was to say that, if as a result of this phase-in and probably unanticipated declining changes in medical cost trends--nobody really expects that, but if we were all very lucky and it happened--that we would ask that any surplus dollars that were generated as a result of phasing-in while during a period of declining costs, that this be used not to reduce the university's contribution but instead to provide additional health benefits for all coverages or to reduce the percentage that employees pay towards the health plans. So those were our three recommendations, with one additional request, and that being that in the last paragraph that we would like to see the administration, president, someone, provide back to the Senate to some committee, possibly to Faculty Benefits, information preferably on an annual basis that would allow us to monitor the application of this phase-in. And so with that I would like to just make one other point, and that is, in addition to our report as a result of a request at Senate Council, we appended at the last minute the table that you see on the next page, which is some estimated projections. And I want to emphasize these are estimates and projections. Nobody knows for sure if these numbers are going to be correct. So I guess you could term them best-guess estimates of the cost that would be projected for phasing in the HMO over the next seven years at a rate that would bring us to an 80-20/70-30 contribution at that time. And you will find your health plan along the left-hand edge, and then if you read across you will see how the costs will increase over the next years. So with that I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any questions or comments on this report?

Kevin Berland: I have a few brief and I think related comments. First the report and the special report mentioned normalization and equity. I note that there are two directions. With funds to be adjusted to achieve equity, you have only considered the downward adjustment. Have you considered perhaps an upward adjustment for the non-HMO ratio? I find it odd that that doesn't enter the calculation. The second comment is, a group of my colleagues have reported that they signed on the HMO precisely because they had been promised savings, and now that the savings are gradually being eliminated during this process. They have stated that it seems to them to be a kind of bait and switch system. Can you comment on that?

Allen T. Phillips: I won't touch the last part. But I don't think that was the intent. I think all you could say in hindsight is that no one knew maybe early on that the legislation would change that would cause the--this was federal legislation--that would cause the university to have the opportunity let me say to raise the rates on HMO. They have been--officially, in some views--held down, but in reality, to say to those who are worried about the problem the HMO will still be the cheapest, I can't say this in every case. But it is very likely to be one of the less expensive of the health plans. So all I can really say and comment to this is that some of the other plans will be more expensive.

Kevin Berland: I'd just like to note, however, that although they might not have anticipated this, they did see far enough into the future to build in a clause that people who elect the HMO can't get back out.

Allen T. Phillips: I don't think that's correct.

Kevin Berland: You can't step back, can you?

Allen T. Phillips: Yes, you can.

Kevin Berland: Then I've been misinformed. I withdraw that comment.

Linda P. Miller, Abington College: I'm confused about this, because I thought initially when this HMO plan was offered it was offered to induce faculty members to join that plan because it was more economical for the university to manage it and also more economical for the employees. But now it seems...are you saying that it is costing more to manage that HMO at this point? I'm confused.

Allen T. Phillips: I think the only thing is that the university has certain costs associated with each plan, and it just so happened that the cost of the HMO has traditionally been less than some of the other plans. But now it is just a matter of the...all I can say is, I guess the desire is to have an approximately equal percentage of the costs for each plan, an approximately equal percentage paid by the employee. Whether you are in Plan A, whether you are in PPO, whether you are in HMO, you'll pay the same percentage of that plan's costs. And so I think that was at least one of the factors that has been driven to cause this number to go where it is currently.

S. Diane Brannon, College of Health and Human Development: This is comparing and trying to adjust the cost of benefits, as I understand. But Penn State is self-insured; therefore, we should be able to have a number that says how much does Penn State spend overall on the care of people in the different plans. And that seems not to be included in the conceptions of what's fair and what's not fair.

Allen T. Phillips: Well, I think all the plans are not self-insured.

Chair Berkowitz: George Franz was chair of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits and would like to address some of this.

George W. Franz, Penn State Delaware: Since I chaired the group that started all this, because of all the comments raised over the initial report, the president and the chair of the Senate reconvened the task force and we met and finalized an addendum to our report yesterday. It will be out in two weeks and it will address just the kind of thing you want. It will give you the total costs of all the plans so you can draw a comparison across the years, and you can look at the cost of each plan, and it does an analysis based on percentage of salary using two different salary groups within the university. And that may provide the comparative data you want. I would hope we would have it before we close the academic year.

S. Diane Brannon: I was talking about the cost of care, not the cost to the employer.

George W. Franz: Well, it includes the total cost for each plan, right? It does not do it on care.

Billie S. Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: I'm not sure we are going to answer your question, Diane, but please understand our HMOs are not self-insured. We pay community-based premiums as compared to the PPO and Plan A plans.

James P. Crawford, Penn State Fayette: I'd like to amplify what Kevin said: I agree, I think it was bait and switch. A lot of us agreed to take a lot less opportunity for choice to see a substantial savings. Now that seems to be going away. And, George, is it not true that you cannot choose Plan A again, for example, once you are out of it?

George W. Franz: You can go back to Plan A after you have been out of it. New employees may not opt for Plan A. If you opted out of Plan A, you can go back to Plan A. And, in fact, at this point in time if you are going on sabbatical you are encouraged to go back into Plan A if you are going to be out of network.

James P. Crawford: The notion of equity can be viewed in a lot of different ways. As Kevin pointed out, we could ask the university to contribute more to the other plans to make the percentages the same. On the other hand, why is a percentage necessarily the correct way to go? I mean, you could also as a university agree to pay everybody the same amount of money and they can choose...

George W. Franz: The report deals with that. That is coming out, besides going into greater detail as to why, in the opinion of the task force, this approach is the better approach.

James P. Crawford: In which case we don't right now have enough information to vote on this advisory/consultative report. I mean, you've got another one coming out in two weeks or so.

George W. Franz: It is just an addendum to the task force report that I think supports what they are saying.

James P. Crawford: I would urge the Senate to sit on this until we get some more information, and at that time think about it some more.

Allen T. Phillips: Let me just remind you, though, that what we are recommending is basically what was in the task force report. If they are not planning to change the recommendation, you aren't likely to see anything really different come out.

Chair Berkowitz: Before we move on, I just want to say how surprised I am that anybody thinks anything Kevin says needs to be amplified.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: Just a couple of comments, and that means I should not talk to the folks over here. You aren't saying anything...

Senators: Laughter.

Chair Berkowitz: These are the people on the HMO, and these are the people...

Jamie M. Myers: The third point is, the last sentence is really meant to deal with one of the things you mentioned, and that was to reduce the percentage of employee contributions to all health care plans. So we assume that the university is going to put in more money each year and that the employees are going to put in more money each year. And if the trends don't accelerate, if the trends come down and you're putting more money into an HMO, you are going to reach 80 percent of the cost of the HMO maybe in two years. In which case, then, if the premiums continue to increase, they can be used to reduce the percentages of contributions to all of the health plans--not just the HMOs. I think that's in here. It's hard to see, but...

Chair Berkowitz: Jamie, I have good news for you. We have this section to be heard from.

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: I dispute the use of equity to describe this plan of 80/20. I think the federal government defined equity. They are now not enforcing that to the letter of the law, and we've taken it to mean something very different than what the federal government intended. I believe that giving each employee the same dollar amount, and allowing that employee to spend it as they choose on what plan, is considered equity. Among us this may be an academic discussion of which is fairer, but this is a very important issue to the staff. And their benefits that they receive and the health plan promised to them is something that they look at very carefully when they are employed. And to those staff this is bait and switch because their benefits are greatly altered when we changed the guidelines of the HMO and how much the university will pay. We are lucky, I think, at this university to have very good staff, and the reason they come in is not just their salary but the additional benefits. And reducing those additional benefits will greatly change the quality of staff that we can hire.

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries: I would like to affirm that, because a lot of staff within the University Libraries have spoken to me about this issue, and it is a very important one to them. I also wanted to mention something that I think would concern single parents with one child--which I'm not--but it seems that right now for example, for the HMO a single person...a family is double--just about double--of what a single person would be. But by 2006 it will be triple. So I think single parents with one child will probably be the most highly effected with the change.

Kevin Berland: I'd like to say that, although I have implicit faith in George and George's assurances, I think this report has some vaguenesses and has some kinds of information we've been told about that is not here. And I'd like to see the addendum. I would like to move that this report be tabled.

Chair Berkowitz: Are you asking that this report be postponed until the next meeting?

Kevin Berland: Well that's what tabling is...

Chair Berkowitz: No it's not. That's why I asked the question. I wanted to get your intention properly. If you would like it to be postponed until the next meeting, that would be the motion. That would be fine. That is in order.

Kevin Berland: Postpone it until then.

Chair Berkowitz: Postpone it until the next meeting. Until the report is out?

Kevin Berland: Yes. I'd like the opportunity to read the report.

Chair Berkowitz: There is a motion that has been made to postpone the vote on this report until the addendum George referred to is available. Is there a second to that motion?

Senator: Second.

Chair Berkowitz: Okay, we will now have debate on that motion. George will correct me as I make serious parliamentary errors as I venture into this new territory.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm not sure what postponing this until next month will do, nor am I sure what defeat of the motion will leave us with. It would be my understanding that you would have a set of recommendations offered by the task force that are going to be recommended, and what this really is attempting to do is ease the transition for those in HMO. So if we postpone this and then repeat it next month, then you are going to have what they say the recommendations are going to be, and then the people are probably going to have stronger objection to it. I'd also like to object to the language--bait and switch. There doesn't seem to be conscious intent to deceive, and I see nothing in the behavior of the task force or this committee to warrant that characterization.

Chair Berkowitz: I remind you at this point we are simply voting on the motion to postpone the vote on this set of recommendations.

Charles F. Gunderman, Penn State DuBois: I would speak against the motion. I think the committee has looked at all the aspects of it that was asked of them. It refers only to the procedure of phasing-in the HMO. It does not address any of the concerns that Kevin has brought out, and what does it do to all the other plans. It is focusing solely on one aspect, and other things are being brought into the discussion which really do not have any play--with one exception, and that is the aggregate cost that the university contributes. And by the committee suggesting and recommending to the administration that that aggregate remain the same, then there will be no diminution. Anything that benefits us in cost savings will then be put back into providing either better health care or reduced benefits.

Chair Berkowitz: Let's hold the substantive comments until we decide whether we are going to vote on this today. Just shall we vote on this today or postpone it until further information is available. That's what's on the floor.

Charles F. Gunderman: That was my rationale for voting against it.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you.

Helena Poch: I fail to see how postponing this until the next meeting will do any good. The same questions are going to arise. The only thing that should change this is the task force. That is my understanding. Postponing this advisory/consultative report until next month isn't going to change it.

Louisa J. Marshall, Altoona College: A point of clarification: there is not going to be a comparison, then, if we would postpone that and what it's going to do to the health care, and say Healthpass or Plan A. We are not going to have comparative charts. Because I'm getting very, very nervous since I'm not in the HMO. When I look at this, I'd be really annoyed if I were in the HMO at how high that is going up. I just have to say this. When I started in 1967, one of the benefits that they said to us was, "Remember you will never pay one penny for health care benefits at Penn State. Penn State will always pay for your benefits."

Chair Berkowitz: You will never have to pay one penny but you may have to pay many more. I remember the time we told them we wanted bigger paychecks. We got them. Are we ready to vote on whether we are postponing this? Thank you. This vote will take a majority. We will try a voice vote first. All those in favor of the motion to postpone this report until we get the addendum to the task force report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Berkowitz: I can't tell. I'm sorry. Okay. All those in favor of postponing please stand. I suspected all along you didn't care, you just wanted a chance to stand up. Please sit. All those opposed to the motion to postpone please stand. And, Jamie, you were right, there is a difference between this section and that section. Are you ready? Please sit. The motion is defeated. We are back to the main motion.

Nancy J. Wyatt: I'm going to ask a very stupid question. What happens if we defeat this motion?

Chair Berkowitz: Would you please respond?

Allen T. Phillips: Sure. I think you are left with the task force report itself and no comment from Faculty Benefits as to whether it is appropriate or not. Well, you already have our report. But I mean, in essence we were asked to comment on the task force report. This is our comment with respect to that particular item.

Nancy J. Wyatt: Then my understanding is that these changes may take place more rapidly if we defeat this report?

Allen T. Phillips: I don't know that for certain. But that was our concern, and that is why we more explicitly stated that this was to take no less than seven years phase-in. In the task force report it said no less than five. So we were just tightening up the length of time.

James T. Elder, Penn State Shenango: What was the magic to seven? Why didn't you say 15?

Allen T. Phillips: Well, I think it had to do with commenting on the task force, and they recommended the seven. We didn't have any additional new information on the feasibility of taking it out to 10 or 15 years. We had no new information other than what the task force had provided. So I think the whole idea was that, if you could reach that goal of 80/20 in seven years, that was considered to be maybe as good as we could ask for. But there may have been others. I'm sure we could have probably recommended a longer time, but then we could have also recommended a 90/10 ratio, and we understood those numbers weren't likely to be embraced by the university because they weren't considered to be economically attractive.

P. Peter Rebane, Abington College: Let me try to clarify in my mind. There were some questions at Senate Council, and I believe I asked them and talked to the chair about this. Do I understand correctly that the horse is out of the barn? That is, that the Senate, by voting in September, in essence and in theory agreed that the ratio of employee to employer contributions would be changed, and the question here became what the ratio would be and how quickly it was grown if that would be implemented? Am I in essence correct?

Allen T. Phillips: I think to the extent that Faculty Benefits was asked to look at the recommendations from the task force and comment on them, you are correct. But I don't know that the task force recommendations are binding on the administration.

Chair Berkowitz: May I correct something first before you go further? The Senate received the task force report as an informational report. We did not vote on it at all. It was then sent to Faculty Benefits in case the Senate wished to make any comment or recommendations of its own. So there has been no vote on that aspect at all by the Senate.

P. Peter Rebane: Then I will simply assume that, somehow, because we have an employer/employee relationship, that we passively accept the idea that benefits are going up and that the employee/employer contribution ratio as it is going on currently is shifting to the fact that employees are paying more. In connection to that, then, if I remember what you said correctly, what appears on these tables are a best-guess estimate. And so, in other words, if there would be some federal legislation or sudden changes in HMOs--a university budget crisis--these figures may not all be applicable and the costs may go up triple or quadruple if something happens. I want to get this straight in my mind what I'm voting for. I don't want to buy another pig in a poke. I got a whole row of them in my garage.

Senators: Laughter.

Allen T. Phillips: I think you're correct in that these are estimates. I'd like to see if Billie Willits has a comment on this because she has provided the information. How would you put this information, as educated guess or better than that?

Billie S. Willits: As you can see, it's something more than that. There are industry consultant that we retain to try to understand what these rates are going to look like. We looked at the worst case scenario. If you remember the original task force report that we looked at in September, it had a worst case scenario, a best case scenario, and a most likely scenario. And others that we used in this particular chart are the most likely scenarios. They are estimates at best.

Jamie M. Myers: This is as close as we get to a union. And you are an awfully big bargaining unit. It is hard to negotiate with an administration when we don't really have a union structure to do it. They want to increase our medical costs. I don't like it at all. I'm in an HMO, I joined immediately because I'd saved some money and my doctors happened to be in the HMO. So it made sense, okay. But the medical costs are increasing. The best that we could do as a Faculty Senate is to try to make sure the money the administration kicks in does not decrease, that the total money they contribute to health care increases each year. And the first item says it should increase to keep up with medical cost trends. So we are saying to them, "you have to put in more money each year and it has to be more money to help with medical cost trends." We can't do much more than that I don't think. The other thing we can do is, we can try to put some condition in as the third bullet does, that if the cost of these different plans--the HMO, the PPO, the Plan A--if they fluctuate and happen to go down, that the money the employees are contributing is cycled back to the employees in one of two ways. One is additional health care benefits, or reduced premiums the following year. So you would reduce the premiums in all plans. That's where we bring equity. Now I do think that the percentage is a better way than the flat dollar amount, because the percentage is a simpler way to keep up with medical cost trends each year. When medical cost trends go up seven percent and the university is contributing 80 percent to a plan, then their cost is going to increase by the appropriate amount. We don't have to try to figure out how much to increase the flat dollar amount each year. The university increase is already figured into the percentage in this each year. And so I would support this on the basis that Faculty Benefits as a smaller group has studied and wrestled with this for many months, and they are the closest thing you can find to a negotiating group or a union. If you don't like this, then maybe you should be thinking about a union at Penn State. Then you can spend your union dollars, your dues for the union, and have lower health care dollars.

Chair Berkowitz: Can I be shop steward?

Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley: I wonder if it would be appropriate to include wording on the particular impact a group like the single family--mother raising one child sort of thing--just so that is an awareness that there's not going to be anything done about it.

Chair Berkowitz: Was that a question directed at me? Okay, there are two ways to do that. One is formally in the form of a motion where you would have wording you wanted to add as an amendment to the recommendations. The second is to make the comment as you just did on the floor and hope the administration pays some attention to the floor debate. Are there further comments?

Robert G. Price: The committee, as I understand it, was asked to comment on the task force report. The committee has delivered the recommendation and it modifies I think in a good way a small feature of that report. But I think it is disingenuous to say that is all we are voting on today. To accept this recommendation is to imply that there were no other needed recommendations, and to accept the substance of the task force report as our recommendation. I'm not prepared to do that. I really think we ought to vote no today, and perhaps someone at the next meeting--if the committee chooses--can come back to us with some broader set of data, perhaps broader recommendations, to revisit that.

Tramble T. Turner, Abington College: Again, addressing the impact of the task force report that was discussed, if I am remembering things correctly in the fall, we did have a subsequent vote on one recommendation from the task force, that subsequently there was a decision not to act on it--health benefits. So it seems clear to me that there was a recommendation in the task force report. It does not necessarily follow, as with this recommendation, that it should come into being. I'd like to suggest that we vote no on this and ask the committee to reconsider whether a move from 95/5 percent to 90/10 percent would adequately cover the interest of that.

Allen T. Phillips: That particular point was discussed and from all the information we had available--which was limited. Now, the task force spent a lot longer looking at this thing than Faculty Benefits did. That was not considered to be a viable number, the 90/10. Maybe other ratios might have been, but that one was not.

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: I am supporting what you are saying. We did have Billie Willits with us for hours at a time, and I think it is reasonable here to say that the percentages that we arrived at were, at least in the opinion of Billie Willits, probably what the administration would accept. In other words, yes, we may suggest 90/10, and it is just our word against the administration's, and there will be very little chance that it will be approved, and as such it is certainly--if you as a body would like to change percentages or whatever it is--I think it is worth the time if that is what you want to do. We will go back as a committee and probably not arrive at any different conclusions because our negotiators are suggesting that it will not pass. But of course we will do this.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: The one leverage point here is phase-in time. By your own admission, phase-in time was, well, let's pick a number. The concerns raised will be addressed if you had a longer phase-in time. I move ten years.

Chair Berkowitz: Hearing no second.

JoAnne Chirico, Penn State Beaver: I guess I'm also thinking that 70/30 split that you are suggesting seems very generous on our part and wondering why that couldn't be something like 10/90 for individual, individual plus spouse maybe being 15 something, individual plus child something else. Because seeing those gradations, it doesn't seem right. I think it introduces a different kind of equity that somebody could take seriously. 70/30 across the board seems incredibly generous.

Thomas N. Jackson, College of Engineering: Just a clarification: if the aggregate contribution to all the health care plans is to increase as rapidly as the medical cost trends, how do the percentages change? They stay in the program they are, and the payments go up as fast as the health care trends, wouldn't the percentages stay the same, if this first bullet actually works?

Allen T. Phillips: I'm not quite sure I understood what you were driving at, but maybe say it again?

Thomas N. Jackson: I'll say it again. The first bullet says aggregate contribution by the university to all health care plans should increase each year to keep up with medical cost trends. If that is true, how did the percentage of contribution fall?

Allen T. Phillips: Well, I think this is just saying that if there was a decrease in medical cost trends, the university could conceivably put in less dollars and still maintain its goal of 80/20 after seven years.

Thomas N. Jackson: That's right. So if the first bullet is adopted, percentages should not fall. If the first bullet is to be taken seriously, that the aggregate contribution by the university to all health care plans increase as rapidly as the medical cost trends, then we all just stayed where we were, how can there be a change?

Allen T. Phillips: Well, I don't think that statement about we all stayed where we are--obviously, what we are talking about in the bullet here is all health plans, all aggregate university cost. What we are talking about in the legislation only applies to HMO, and adjusting the ratio from the current 95/5 up to an 80/20 over a period of some years.

Thomas N. Jackson: Couldn't we use that additional money to subsidize Plan A?

Allen T. Phillips: No, there may not be any extra money.

Thomas N. Jackson: Then I don't understand the first bullet.

Jamie M. Myers: In answering that, that makes sense. In fact, I hope it works. Good. That's great. If we can get the administration to agree to that, then that should be good, and the last bullet should take care of that excess money. See, that is what we do with the excess money, there in the last bullet. And that is to change the percentage on the other plans. To bring all the plans up to a different percentage. The reason I stood was not that, though. If you want to change the numbers in these contributions--80-20/70-30 to some other number--then you do it now. Then you make a motion and get a second and vote now, because if you send this back to committee now you will not see it next month, because it is going to miss the time line--go back a year--and therefore, again come about next fall it could miss the time line in terms of the Faculty Senate having any input to the administration on this.

Effy Oz: What exactly do the words "aggregate contribution" in bullet one mean? Do you mean fixed dollars, inflation in health care? What does that mean there?

Allen T. Phillips: I think we were just thinking of that in terms of all the money that the university puts toward health costs.

Effy Oz: Nominal dollars?

Allen T. Phillips: Nominal? Actual dollars.

Effy Oz: Real dollars?

Allen T. Phillips: Yes.

Effy Oz: Next to what?

Allen T. Phillips: Actual dollars from one year to the next.

Dennis S. Gouran: I think it does us good to sort of second guess on the basis of the conversation and personal concerns about what contributions towards plans are going to be made. Trying to undo the work of the task force will provide along the lines that these implications were not fully implicated and dealt with at this time. If you were to undo that report and in fact substitute our own version of this, the administration is under no obligation to implement it. I don't know what anyone here who is having insight into where the differences that have been recommended and what we might come up with will find their way into, in terms of other kinds of support, like salary increases, equipment, academic programs and all kinds of other things--where the money might be coming from. We are talking about a complex system here, and I do not believe that the representatives in this kind of discussion can articulate a plan that represents a substantial improvement over what has been recommended. Could end up being a whole lot worse.

Patricia A. Book, Associate Vice President for Outreach and Executive Director, Continuing Education: Can I call for the question?

Chair Berkowitz: Yes.

Senators: Second.

Chair Berkowitz: Non debatable, it takes a majority. All those in favor of ending debate please indicate by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you very much. We are now voting on the report as presented to us. All those in favor of the report please indicate by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Berkowitz: The "aye's" have it. Thank you very much. This ends our advisory/consultative report, but it doesn't end the meeting. But we are moving toward that rapidly. We move to informational reports, and the first of our informational reports is the Committee and Rules nominating report. Don Fahnline is here to present that report: however, if you will look in your Agenda you will find that there are three reports that Don will be responsible for. There is this one. There is the "Elections Commission Roster of Senators" report, Appendix "I." And there is the "Senate Council Nominating Committee" report that he presents as chair of the elections commission, that is Appendix "K." In the interest of time, if there are no objections I will ask Don to present all these reports at this time. Seeing no objections, continue.



Report of Nominating Committee - 1999-2000

Donald E. Fahnline, Secretary, University Faculty Senate

Donald E. Fahnline, Altoona College: Appendices "G" and "K" contain the reports of the nominating committees for 1999-2000. 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. The Senate Council nominating committee met and made nominations for Senate Officers and the Faculty Advisory Committee. I will read the nominees for each of the offices and committees, and after each, I will ask Len Berkowitz, the Chair, to call for nominations from the floor.

Chair Berkowitz: Before you volunteer any additions to the slates--that is, make any further nominations--may I remind you that before you do so you will need to have the permission of the person whom you would like to add to the slate. Also, if you are nominating someone from the floor today, the Senate Office will need to have the biography for all those candidates to join the election material, and that will be necessary to be in to the Senate Office this Thursday. That's April 1st. No foolin', so we can get the ballot on time.

Donald E. Fahnline: So we are starting with Appendix "G," the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with four (4) to be elected for two-year terms. The nominees are: John Beard, HHDEV, UP; Christopher Bise, EMS, UP; Gordon De Jong, LA, UP; James Dunn, AG SCI, UP; Thomas Litzinger, ENGR, UP. And the next name is not in your Agenda, editorial mistake: Philip Jenkins, LA, UP; Andrea Mastro, SCI, UP; Louis Milakofsky, SCI, BERKS-LEHIGH VALLEY, BERKS; and Andrew Scanlon, ENGR, UP.

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

Senators: So moved.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". That is done.

Donald E. Fahnline: The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, a three-year term. Two (2) will be elected: one member and one alternate. The nominees are: Albert Anderson, A&A, UP; Kevin Berland, LA, PENN STATE SHENANGO; Priscilla Clement, LA, PENN STATE DELAWARE; Thomas Frank, HHDEV, UP; Mary Jane Irwin, ENGR, UP; Ernest Johnson, Cellular & Physiology Biology, MED; Molly Wertheimer, LA; PENN STATE HAZLETON; Tramble Turner, LA; ABINGTON COLLEGE.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there further nominations from the floor? I see none. May I have a motion to close the nominations? And a second?

Senators: So moved.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". That is done.

Donald E. Fahnline: For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, 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: one member and two alternates with terms to expire in 2002. The nominees are: E. Alan Cameron from the College of Agricultural Sciences; Lee Coraor from the College of Engineering; Donald Epp from the College of Agricultural Sciences; Larry Kenney from the College of Health and Human Development; Margaret Lyday from the College of the Liberal Arts; and Jamie Myers from the College of Education.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? We'll continue on. We'll close all of these at once.

Donald E. Fahnline: Faculty Other Than University Park Locations. Two (2) to be elected: one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2002. The nominees are: Annette Caruso from Abington College; James Conner from the College of Medicine; Bill Ellis from Penn State Hazleton; Peter Georgopulos from Penn State Delaware; Michael Jarrett from Penn State York; Valerie Stratton from the Altoona College; and Jane Sutton from Penn State York.

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

Donald E. Fahnline: For this same committee, deans. Two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with terms to expire in 2002. The nominees are: John Dutton, Earth & Mineral Sciences; Frederick Gaige, Berks Lehigh Valley; John Lilley, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College; Robert Steele, College of Agricultural Sciences; and Joseph Strasser, Commonwealth College.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? I need a motion to approve the slate as presented.

Senators: So moved.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". That slate is complete. That completes that report.


Roster of Senators for 1999-2000

Donald E. Fahnline: That completes Appendix "G" and Appendix "I" is the roster of Senators for next year as of this moment.


Report of Nominating Committee - 1999-2000

Donald E. Fahnline: And then we will go on to Appendix "K." For the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, one person will be elected for a three-year term to expire in 2002. The nominees are: Michael Broyles, College of Arts & Architecture, UP; Gordon De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts, UP; and Sara Lou Whildin, Librarian, Penn State Delaware.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? I see none. Is there a motion to close nominations?

Senators: So moved

Chair Berkowitz: Second?

Senators: Second.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". Let's move on.

Donald E. Fahnline: For the office of Secretary of the Senate, we have two nominees from the Nominating Committee. Christopher J. Bise, Earth & Mineral Sciences, University Park; and Andrew Romberger, Science, Berks Lehigh Valley College, Berks Campus.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? I see none. Is there a motion to close?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Berkowitz: Second?

Senators: Second.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay".

Donald E. Fahnline: For Chair-Elect of the Senate, the nominees are: Donald Fahnline, Science, Altoona College and Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, College of Medicine.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? I see none. Is there a motion to close?

Senators: So moved.

Chair Berkowitz: Second?

Senators: Second.

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

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". We need now to accept the slate as proposed by all of us.

Senators: So moved.

Chair Berkowitz: Second?

Senators: Second.

Chair Berkowitz: All those in favor of accepting the entire slate, please indicate by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Any opposed, "nay". Nice job. If you will go back then in your Agenda, we are going back to Curricular Affairs. Peter, do you remember you had a report coming? This is Appendix "H," a "Review of Recent Changes in, Current Practices of, and Future Plans for the Curricular Approval Process."


Review of Recent Changes in, Current Practices of, and Future Plans for the Curricular Approval Process

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you, Chair Berkowitz and colleagues, for giving me the opportunity to address you on recent changes and the work that has been done in Curricular Affairs. Outlining briefly the process that we undertake, we receive proposals from the departments in the Senate Office. They are split into portions. One part will go directly to the Curricular Affairs Committee (SCCA we call it), and the other part will go to the general education groups--the general education subcommittee, the intercultural & international subcommittee and the writing across the curriculum subcommittee. Last year the general education process was turned off as we were working on the implementation of general education. This process was turned back on at the beginning of this year. The intercultural & international part of the process was turned off until last month. At the beginning of the month you heard a report on the criteria to be used for intercultural/international courses, and since the middle of February we have been able to operate that process. The writing across the curriculum process has gone on all along. Typically, a proposal will get to the Senate Office and a decision will be reached in approximately the length of time that it takes between two Senate meetings. The Curricular Affairs Committee in my experience has always completed the Blue Sheets. It has never had a lag on the decisions on the Blue Sheets. So this process goes fairly rapidly. I have heard some recent comments concerning the implementation of the IST program and how fast it was moving, that there was fast track processing in Curricular Affairs to achieve this. I hate to disappoint you. There was no fast track process. This is normally the way we do business. The major difference between this set of proposals and maybe some other set you see is that the preparatory work that went into the proposals prior to them reaching the Senate Office was very careful. We had a lot of consultation and communication. So Curricular Affairs did not do anything different. We just did our normal work. I will not dwell further on what we do normally. There are some issues that we had to address recently that have to do with things that the university has done. We have created several new colleges, established a First-Year Seminar, revised all of our domain general education courses for introduction of the active learning elements, revised the diversity requirement, and we are restructuring the curriculum development and approval process. So work has gone on in all these areas and I will just briefly comment on some aspects here. The creation of several new colleges has required us to restructure the curricular process. This task has been completed, and the guidelines to completion of this process are based on a set of principles that I brought to your attention last spring. They have been discussed by the academic deans and the provost, and there is a general agreement for what those principles ought to be in the Guide to Curricular Procedures introduction. An important element of this revised curriculum process is the process of consultation among faculty within each discipline. It is the belief of the Curricular Affairs Committee that the goal of achieving a coherent course offering across Penn State can only be achieved if we have a carefully carried-out process of consultation and collegiate cooperation across the institution. For the establishment of the First-Year Seminar we had to revise the Guide to Curricular Procedures. That has been done. Since we had anticipated the submission of a very large number of proposals, potentially, we worked to have a process that is fairly well streamlined so that we would look at the minimum number of proposals while at the same time giving the faculty a good amount of flexibility to do what they wanted to do in the implementation of the First-Year Seminar. I think the process has worked very well, as far as the Curricular Affairs Committee goes. We have been able to move the process along rather rapidly. There have been really few proposals that have gone directly to Curricular Affairs to be discussed. The introduction of active learning elements is another area where we have worked. We have reviewed and accepted the suggestions made by the General Education Implementation Committee. We developed a process that is the university-wide process that will make sure that we approach the review of these courses in a reasonably deliberate way, so to give the colleges time to think through what needs to be done in order to change the courses. This process is spread out over four years, so we do not force any departments or any colleges to do everything at the same time. So this again provides some flexibility for the colleges to shift which courses they might like to have on route early and which later on. The process has started, and we have reviewed, the weekend before last, the first set of courses. The review of the general education subcommittee has focused really on three major items: which of the active learning elements were to be integrated in the course--that's one--how well was this explained; how well did the proposals explain how the specific general education knowledge domain objectives would be attained in the course; and finally, how well the extended course descriptions reflected what the course was about.

There are some outcomes that I would like to mention. We have reviewed 40 courses; 34 of these were accepted. The most frequent reason for not accepting the proposals were that the active learning elements were not really well explained. In this current cycle, the committee was a little bit lenient about what it found to be acceptable, because most of the courses that we looked at were First-Year Seminars and it is sort of a given that in those small section courses active learning would be taking place. This is naturally different when we start to look at the larger section classes, in those cases where there was a need to have an amplification of what was intended by the course we asked for that. But we did not reject any courses because their description was not quite up to snuff. Some proposals were prepared by a pretty standardized approach. The committee wasn't particularly impressed by that. It didn't reject any courses because of that, but we would prefer that the courses be prepared on an individual basis. Here is an important point. Evidence for consultation and cooperation among the faculty was not very clearly represented in many of the proposals. I think that the course proposals should be prepared jointly by the faculty that are teaching the course, and this cooperation should be evident in the proposal. The course might be taught at different locations, and so there may be a different aspect of the active learning elements that would be used in different parts of the institution. That's okay, it just needs to be described. We didn't reject any of these proposals because there was no clear indication of what consultation has occurred, but this is an issue that we will look at very critically in the next round of reviews. I think everyone agrees with that. We will try to make that easier by making it more clear in the course proposal forms where that consultation needs to occur.

Revision of the diversity requirement: we have done the necessary work in order to get it into the Guide to Curricular Procedures, and I would like to emphasize that all intercultural/international competence courses should be prepared using the current edition of the Guide to Curricular Procedures. You can find it on the Senate web page. The last point that we have spent quite some time on is the restructuring of the curriculum development, approval and authorization process. Our long-range goal is to simplify the curriculum process and make it more efficient than it is now and make it user-friendly. We'd like to use electronic means to achieve these goals. A couple things have occurred. We have a Curriculum Development, Approval and Authorization Steering Committee that has been set up. The committee members are here. We also have a committee that is dealing with the nitty-gritty of this, actually doing the programming and getting the codes into place, and these are some of the members of that committee. What has been achieved to date? The Blue Sheets are now electronic, and to make sure that they are clear on blue background from now on rather than whatever it is. We have also developed a working model of an electronic course approval process. We have had some demonstrations of it. Now two colleges--the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences and the Commonwealth College--will use in the near future this process to submit their courses. Now these are non-general education courses, I should say. Further, the curriculum programs are available on the web via the electronic Bulletins. The Office of Administrative Systems has put together an application that will reference the 400-word description that we are asking for the courses now so that they can be used by the students and the faculty to learn more about the courses. We have also developed a new set of course proposals for the general courses as well as the general education courses. And we are reviewing these now in the committee. They need to go out this week yet to the General Education Subcommittee, and we will ask ACUE deans to comment on these to make sure that everyone understands what the forms are about and that they are developed as well as they can be developed. The plan for the immediate future is to make these course proposal forms available to the faculty, and they would be accessible from the Senate web page. The intent is that you can complete these proposal forms on the web. They will be expandable pages so that you can type in your proposal once you are done, you print it out, and you submit it in the regular process. That is an interim measure. For the near future we hope to integrate these new proposal forms into the electronic course approval process that we have, and we hope to complete that by the early fall, I hope. I'm sure that there will have to be some refinement of the process as we gain experience using it--the electronic process that is--and the hope is that maybe by the end of the fall--and that may be an ambitious hope here--that we could make this electronic course approval process generally available to all of you.

There are longer-term goals that we have. We would like to make the whole process electronic, that is, not only the submission but also the review process, and that will be a second major goal here--a long-term goal--so that at the end of the completion of that process you would have a rolling curricular review process so that we could review the other committee proposals as they come in. And we would anticipate that only proposals that are highly complex, that are really not suitable for being reviewed via electronic means, or proposals that are controversial, we would put those onto the agenda of the Curricular Affairs Committee. The very long-term goals is to assist in the re-engineering of the University Course Master File. All of the changes that I have discussed with you are influenced by what the University Course Master File can or cannot do, and we have run against some very serious limitations, so there is general agreement that something needs to be done about the University Course Master File and so this is one of the real long-term goals of Curricular Affairs. Thank you very much for your attention. That's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Chair Berkowitz: You recall that at our last meeting one of the requests from the implementation committee was that we hear from Curricular Affairs about how we are streamlining the process. This is a pretty quick response. So you see now that the process has been streamlined and what the plans are for further streamlining. Are there questions for Peter?

Arthur E. Goldschmidt: I think I speak for many other people. I'm obviously very appreciative of the very efficient response that we got. But some of us have been putting in course proposals for general education, intercultural or international competency based, trying to use the most up to date version of the Guide to Curricular Procedures. Consulting with other departments, consulting with our colleagues--yet we get no response. We find that things are frozen somewhere in the process, and it seems as though the gestation period of these general education courses is approximately the length of gestation for an elephant.

Peter Deines: We need to be a little bit specific about this, I suppose. We asked for new general education courses at the beginning of this year. We received none. There was a question of how many courses the committee could deal with, and there was some negotiation with the colleges, and finally a deadline of February 1 was established for the submission. Now the courses were submitted in February. They were reviewed last week. We made decisions about them this morning, and they will be available, and the Blue Sheets will be transferred to the Course Master File. Now I'm not quite sure that I could completely understand your comments in the context of this actual experience. I mean, I've looked at your course within the last two weeks--decisions have been made. And so I'm not sure where your experience comes from. It does not coincide with my physical work with your course when it first arrived in the Senate Office, when it was dealt with by the General Education Subcommittee and by the Curricular Affairs Committee. Now there is a little aspect to this that I think we want to think about, and that is the diversity--or what used to be the diversity--component of some of the courses that we have received from Liberal Arts. I think there probably was a misunderstanding along the line. Last fall the General Education Implementation Committee had an informational report, and that was widely circulated; however, when we looked at that report carefully, it was found that there were flaws. And so that report never reached the Senate floor until February. But somehow it happened that that particular course was used as a template for course proposals out of the Liberal Arts. So, we have an unfortunate situation where you used the wrong information. So I understand your grief. I am anxious to move everything along as fast as we possibly can. So this morning I impressed on the chair of the Intercultural and International Committee to see whether we cannot sift through the proposals from the Liberal Arts--there are about ten--to see whether, in the way they were submitted, we cannot extract out the information that we need, and I'm very hopeful that by the end of this semester we will have gone through this process and everything will be on the books for the fall. Now having said that, I should say this: that no matter what the outcome of this international/intercultural component is, the First-Year Seminars will be on for sure, and there will be general education courses for sure. Whether that third component is going to be in there, I hope and I am pretty hopeful that that will happen, but there is this last part of the process that we need to complete. So that's where we are now, okay?

Robert G. Price: Peter, can you say a little bit about how the Guide to Curricular Procedures is being changed, in particular reference to problems about judging the courses under the standards under which they were in existence where they were perhaps submitted more often? Because it takes consultation, takes more time than when they were first written. It takes typically a couple of months before the form gets to you.

Peter Deines: Well, I have no comment on the college process that lies before the proposals come to Curricular Affairs. And understand that sometimes within some of the colleges--and I don't want to say that is the case in the Liberal Arts, I don't know--but I am aware of cases that there are things that have been sitting in colleges for two years before they move throughout this process. Now what we are hoping to do with the electronic process is that early on in the process, there will be an automatic call for consultation, and I have twisted George's arm to help me with that issue so that the consultation among the faculty will occur early, so no questions can be asked in Curricular Affairs and that process is limited in time--so that we can ask our colleagues, "please comment within the next couple of weeks." And then if there is no comment, well, you have done your duty and the thing needs to move on. I think Curricular Affairs has no real sympathy for things being held up on desks because somebody doesn't really want to respond. So we put into this process some time limitations of moving things. And one nasty comment has been made, maybe we should have a flashing red light with the name of the person who doesn't respond for some months. No, we won't do that.

Jane S. Sutton, Penn State York: How do you define consultation across a discipline? And do you require evidence--and what would that look like--that consultation has occurred?

Peter Deines: I think it will depend on the individual course. How this would occur: I think the idea is that if we propose--I'm thinking now specifically about general education courses--if a course is offered at several locations, then the faculty who are teaching the course, that are involved in the delivery, get together and talk. What is it that we want to do collectively? I see the course's responsibility, and I think Curricular Affairs does. The course being taught is the responsibility of the teaching faculty, not just one faculty member. So we would hope to find in the proposals that we get on the general education courses some evidence that the person has gone out and talked to some other people--that there is some feedback.

Jane S. Sutton: What evidence would you like to be there? Letters or...

Peter Deines: It might be a letter. It might be an email message saying, "That is fine, I have looked at your proposal. It looks like a good idea. At this location, however, we think that the active learning elements that we want to use may be a little bit different than what you have, so please explain in your proposal that you are sending forward that this is the way that you might want to do it at location x, y, z."

Jane S. Sutton: Is this required or is this just a good idea?

Peter Deines: No. We will actively look for it, because the general education courses are courses that are transferable across the institution. So we would like to make sure that they have some common learning objectives that will be addressed in all of the different locations, and if there is some place where people will say, "No way can we do this here." Then maybe we will have to have another course. But it should be apparent to the student in the end what the student can expect to learn in the course, and that is why we have this extended course description. It will be transparent to the student what he/she signs up for and what they can expect to learn in the course.

Chair Berkowitz: If I may be permitted to comment on that issue, we should all understand that among the principles that we have adopted with the reorganization and changes in general education is that courses belong to faculty in the discipline, not necessarily to departments, and that is why the consultation is so critical. Other questions for Peter?

Robert N. Pangborn, College of Engineering: I guess I begin with a comment that you still didn't answer the question. Why has that course changed? Does it not have to go through the same college that originally proposed the course? As I understand it right now, the Senate is accepting proposals for colleges coming from the originating college and then requesting that a brief consultation that has not occurred be done by the pre-approval of the course, where that course should be going through the approval process of the originating college. In which case, the consultation obviously is going to happen. So I'm wondering why the Senate...or if the Senate has changed their policy, or...

Peter Deines: No, the Senate has not changed its policy and we are trying like the devil to look out for this. Something every once in a while slips. Do you have a particular course that is on your mind, I understand? I have not sat down to figure out what the mechanism was, or why that was that the thing slipped the way it did. I have no idea. But I'm very anxious to turn it off, and so one of the things that I will discuss with the president and the provost is to find ways to make that not happen, because I think it is an important issue. I understand what you say. We must have the people that are involved have the responsibility for the course, involved in the revision of the course, any changes that are being made. It should be a collective effort, but we can't leave anyone out. So the process goes from here to the outside, but it also needs to come from the outside to here. It must all fit together. It is a difficult problem.

John J. Cahir, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education: I think that's an interesting exchange, and I think that's rather sensitive that both of you registered. I think it's correct. The word that caught my ear, though, is proof. I don't think that this process does require or should require approval of any of the players in consultation. What we are seeking is cooperation and collaboration and agreement. If agreement couldn't be reached, then some other solution has to be arrived at. Maybe a new course has to be submitted or something like that. So we would want people to agree, and of course you are not going to have agreement if you don't have consultation. So what we are trying to get away from is the idea that in the newly organized university, that people have to be approving of people.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: John, I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand how you differentiate agreement from approval? I got lost in that.

John J. Cahir: Well, I'm just saying that this is not a sign-off process, that people don't have ownership and that other people have to come to them for approval. They do need to consult. If they can't agree during the consultation process, then I think that in our March 27 letter we talked about that, and the provost's office talks about it, and colleagues need to work together to try to arrive at some consensus. And if that can't be done, then that has to fall under the purview of the deans and provost in order to settle such things. I would hope that there would be no such cases.

Chair Berkowitz: There's a rumor that there is still decent weather outside. Many of our colleagues seem to have gone for it. Can we end this? Thank you, Peter. Moving on. Our next report is from the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities, and Jake De Rooy is here to present the report on "Off-Campus Graduate Programs," which can be found in Appendix "J".


Off-Campus Graduate Programs

Jacob De Rooy, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg - The Capital College: One of the problems we are having in the Outreach Committee is reaching out to the Senate, because we're always the last ones and we address an empty house. We wanted to reach those many members of the Senate who suffer from Saint Vitus dance, all right? Ladies and gentleman we are aware of the fact that there are many advances in communication technology which provide us with innovative means for offering graduate education to a wider than traditional audience. The Outreach Activities Committee has been responsible for monitoring policies and procedures for assuring the quality of instructional delivery in off-campus locations, such as in courses offered through the World Campus. With respect to this, the concern with monitoring the quality and the procedures for approving such courses, the Graduate Council of the university has been considering and re-considering that question of residency and its role in courses offered off-campus. They have identified the important components and objectives of residency which are listed in this report and have adopted for Council a procedure for the approval and review of courses, so that if they are offered off-campus they embody these essential elements of residency. After careful review of these procedures and these standards, the Outreach Activities Committee reports that these policies of residency and the approval process for submitting proposals for off-campus degree programs are satisfactory to us, and we wish to use this means to promulgate them to the Senate. The report consists of a statement of the elements of residency, policies for off-campus graduate degree programs, and guidelines for submitting these proposals. Therefore, since the report is available to you and before you, we are ready to entertain any questions you have concerning this report.

Chair Berkowitz: Does anyone have questions?

Alison Carr-Chellman: You specified early in the report that you're looking specifically for professional master's degrees. Then you cease to use that language later on. Throughout the rest of the document you describe it as graduate degree programs which can include graduate and less professional master's degrees such as Master of Science. I'm wondering if there is any way to introduce that language to be more specific, that you are looking specifically at professional master's degree programs. Also, at the very end of the report on the last page, number II, item four, one of the requirements is the statement of how the new offering does not unnecessarily duplicate other degree programs. I was wondering why you ought not to have a statement how new offerings do not duplicate other degree programs unnecessarily or necessarily. I'm wondering why we have that unnecessarily there.

Jacob De Rooy: May I call on my colleague Professor Babu to come forward, if he will please, and address those issues? The two issues that you are identifying are number one you want to know why the term professional degree program is not consistently used...

Alison Carr-Chellman: Master's degree program.

Jacob De Rooy: ...Master's degree program is not consistently used, and number two why the... The second reason was what was the unnecessary duplication of other programs. So, if you will address those, I would appreciate that.

G. Jogesh Babu, College of Science: The first one is professional master's programs; therefore, we wanted to include all master's programs.

Alison Carr-Chellman: For all master's programs? So that would indicate that we would be potentially looking at a different kind of program degree that we've had in the past, or World Campus Master's degree programs that could be scientific in nature, for example...

G. Jogesh Babu: I think that professional degree programs have no specific resident requirement. If you look at this white graduate courses book, you would see that there is no specific listed requirement by a new master's degree program, for professional master's degree program.

Jacob De Rooy: The second question concerns, under procedures for submitting proposals, number II, item A, sub-item four, statement of how in the proposal such a program--a statement of how the new offering does not unnecessarily duplicate any other degree programs. Would you address that please? I think the intent was--maybe you could back me up on this--the intent was to clearly show that the purpose of offering off-campus degree programs is to make these programs accessible to people who would otherwise be unable to take advantage of them in a traditional residency situation.

G. Jogesh Babu: At the same time, we don't want, though, these students to go on off-campus programs. That way, you don't want to have unnecessary duplication.

Alison Carr-Chellman: Why would you want duplication at all?

G. Jogesh Babu: Some courses, like statistics for example, who some fields people working in statistics want to have those professional courses.

Alison Carr-Chellman: Of course, but...

G. Jogesh Babu: Of course, our master's degree program. So we want our students to have access to such programs. We do not want to exclude that ambiguous language.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there other questions?

John J. Cahir: Item three under policies. The third policy makes reference to delivery of individual courses at various locations by electronic and other means, and I'm wondering, does that reference apply only to graduate courses or would it also refer to 400-level undergraduate courses?

Jacob De Rooy: At this time, this proposal was put forth by the Graduate Council to represent 500-level courses and above. It did not include 400-level. I think a 400-level course may come in if you are considering a Master's degree program that might use 400-level courses.

John J. Cahir: My suggestion: perhaps there could be some reference. There is a lot of discussion going on just now about how the delivery of courses by electronic means across the university and to external customers and in the CIC--how that's all going to be handled. And we are looking at that right now. Perhaps there could be some reference to the subject of policies that are adopted concerning the delivery of courses and we could use those discussions and involve the World Campus, World Campus course exchange, the common market courses, and all the rest. And there are some policies that are being worked on right now that could govern how the fees would be collected, how they would be shared, and so forth.

Jacob De Rooy: Well, let me ask you, John, to articulate that a little more. Are you saying that currently there are graduate programs offered off-campus that do not seem to adhere to this? Is that what you're...

John J. Cahir: I'm not speaking of programming. I'm talking about course delivery.

Jacob De Rooy: Professor Babu, would you like to answer this?

G. Jogesh Babu: I didn't get your point.

John J. Cahir: The question that I raised first is whether this would refer only to 500-level courses...

G. Jogesh Babu: Yes, only graduate level.

John J. Cahir: The problem in that case is probably not a major item, but the delivery of 400-level courses which are technically undergraduate courses--there are many discussions going on right now about how, and under what rules, and how that's going to be done, and how the financial arrangements would be arrived at, and so forth. And so I'm just saying that this statement says that this can be done without any approval--that being approval with respect to the Graduate Council?

G. Jogesh Babu: That is only for graduate courses.

John J. Cahir: There are going to be policies in place on the delivery of courses?

G. Jogesh Babu: All 500-level graduate courses have to be approved by the Graduate Council for programs and courses coming in. Those are separate cases...

John J. Cahir: I'm not speaking of the proposals of those who offered a course. I'm talking about delivery of existing courses.

G. Jogesh Babu: Yes there's...

John J. Cahir: What I'm saying is, I'm suggesting that it should be a requirement that there is some consultation of some sort. Course delivery should be done within the context of agreements on how a course is going to be offered electronically across the university or across the world. So I think this statement sounds as though these policies don't exist, but in fact--and they don't right now as a matter of fact--but they will soon.

Jacob De Rooy: John, we are going to convey that in communication to Graduate Council from our committee.

Peter Deines: I was going to suggest that this last line, if you would have Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs listed in this section, I think we would have great difficulties with this.

Jacob De Rooy: So we're talking about under policies, item number three?

Peter Deines: Right, where it says Committee on Programs and Courses. This is the graduate committee that's equivalent to Curricular Affairs. If the Graduate School thinks about 400-level courses, this would have to read Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs. We would not want to see that part in the discussion.

Jacob De Rooy: Yes, okay, let me just fill in a little bit of detail. The reason that we don't have a parallel document presented for Curricular Affairs for undergraduate is because, remember, this concerns programming. And there is a discussion now that we may be offering programs, packages of courses, on the graduate level through the World Campus. The World Campus does not on the undergraduate level offer programs. So therefore we did not at this time include your committee.

Peter Deines: That's okay, I'm just saying that it would be a problem...

John J. Cahir: That's not true. There are two associate degree programs offered through the World Campus now. Still we're talking about courses...

Chair Berkowitz: Okay. Other questions? Thank you, Jake. We now come to our final report and I'm sorry for holding you up so long but this is the way things are. We recently had the University Park Master Plan presented to the trustees, and it was thought that people would be interested in seeing that, especially Senators from University Park. But as usual many of them found that they had such a long way to travel to get home on time that some of them have left. But we will still do what we can to provide that information. Shel Alexander is here to introduce this report.


The University Park Master Plan

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences: I just want to correct Jake to say that Outreach Activities is next to the last in the hierarchy of these presentations. And for you privileged few who are still here, we'd like to give you some information about the Master Plan. Our committee heard briefings on it and as well on the Arboretum Plan, which is recently completed, which most of you probably haven't heard much about. So today Bill Anderson is here. He is Assistant Vice President for Physical Plant, and he also serves on our committee. He spent a lot of time putting together and integrating all the elements of the plan, and, as Len said, the Board of Trustees was briefed on this just this month. So we wanted to have you hear some of the same information.

William J. Anderson, Assistant Vice President, Office of Physical Plant: Thanks, Shelton. For those of you who have stamina, I'll try to make this short. I had a cast of thousands here to help answer questions, but most of them have gone. I do have a couple who are still here: Jawaid Haider, Head, Department of Architecture, and Charles Brueggebors, University Architect, who was a project director for the Master Plan. And the ones who were here who also played a key role in it were Eliza Pennypacker, who is a faculty planning consultant--she is the head of the department of Landscape Architecture--and Kim Steiner, who is a professor of Forest Biology who is sort of the proponent and the driving force behind the Arboretum Plan. I won't go over the process that we used. We've been working at this for two years, though, and it actually got its initial birth back in 1994 by the Facilities Planning Advisory Board, which is a committee that was formed as a result of a Senate recommendation, which is a committee of faculty members that review campus designs and building designs, and that committee started the process back in 1994. This is the organization that we used to execute the Master Plan. Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, is tasked with developing a Master Plan, and we had a steering committee with Dick Rigterink, who is the head of a planning/consulting firm (Johnson, Johnson and Roy out of Ann Arbor, Michigan) who is the leader of that, and then Eliza Pennypacker and Charles Brueggebors were also on the steering committee. And then I really want to talk about the advisory committee, because we tried to get as many stakeholders involved in this process as we could for the past two years. So we had academic, student, auxiliary enterprise, and administration and local community stakeholders. So the academic people who were involved included three deans, Peter Deines from this committee and also as I mentioned Jawaid Haider the Interim Head, Department of Architecture. As I mentioned we had a student representative and we had a local community representative--Robert Bini, who is the Director, Centre Region Planning Agency. We had about 150 meetings as we went though this process over two years. The consultant came to campus eight times. Half of those eight times we had open sessions in which local community people were asked to come and provide comments, and also campus community people. And then we also had a web site which got a lot of email comments, and we tried to factor all those comments in, and to come up with what we hope is a consensus plan. The plan itself is composed of these things--a physical vision for the University Park campus, some key planning principles, system concepts (we divided the campus up into really six layers) and we looked at each layer as a system. For example, transportation systems is one of the layers. And then we developed concepts based upon those systems and then designed guidelines. Then we developed system plans on each one of them--a composite plan, which we molded all of them together. Included in that is a plan for the Arboretum. We looked at three areas of campus--and I'll show you those plans which are about 25 acres--and we did a lot more detailed planning on those three, and they are called sub-campuses, and then we will produce a summary report, a technical report, and it is going to be available on both electronic and print formats. These are the systems that we looked at the campus in. We looked at them as kind of integrated layers of campus, slicing the campus in these layers: open space and natural system, pedestrian circulation, vehicular and bicycle circulation systems, architectural systems, utilities and service systems and then a campus-wide land use system. I'm going to get to the composite plan. We mold all these things together and then produce a plan that's a composite plan, which is the map that you see. I really feel that a lot of the things that I haven't taken time to go over are really enduring parts of the plan, the key principles of the vision, the key principles in the concepts, but I wanted to get to this because this may raise questions. The key features of the plan--it's a 25-year plan, a long-range plan--we called it an opportunities plan. It doesn't specifically say that a new math building is going to go in this location. It just looks for opportunities for growth. The consultant looked at our history, and they had a lot of experience in other campuses, and we know that physical plants of universities continue to grow. So we wanted to plan so that we could logically accommodate that growth. And the plan that we've developed enables us to grow another 2.6 million square feet. We've got about nine or ten million square feet of education and general facilities now, and the plan allows us to grow about another 2.6 million square feet, and that is on 48 different building sites on campus. Another key part of the plan is it includes development east of Shortlidge Road, and I'm going to show you a map in a minute and I'm going to go over each one these things: less robust academic development on west campus that had been previously envisioned, enhanced open spaces, an expanded pedestrian core, restricted roadways. It maintains parking in an equilibrium state, whereas we keep the same ratio of parking to building square footage that exists now, and it also involves improved transit. Now this is called a parameter plan and I'll just--obviously this is College Avenue here, Atherton Street, Park Avenue here, University Drive is down here, Shortlidge Road is here and Bigler Road is here. This is a little bit of a blow-up of that, and again, Atherton Street, College Avenue, Park Avenue. The colors on this overhead are kind of washed out, but they were to represent: the red was key destinations that visitors would come to or the public would come to; the blue over in these areas, for example, was supposed to be academic areas; yellow is housing; and the aqua color would represent athletics. And there are also two different shadings on this map, and you'll see that in some locations like these, those are future buildings. The ones that are darker color are existing buildings, or future building sites I should say. And I mentioned that part of the plan is a more detailed look--and I'll show you the sub-campus plans for three sub-campuses. We call this one the engineering block, which is engineering and earth and mineral sciences. This one here we call the science block, and then this one here which is currently parking lot 80 is the agriculture block. Now, just to review some of what I said were the key features of the plan. It entailed an expansion of the academic core. Currently, I think everybody would consider the academic core is from Burrowes Road in the west, along College Avenue, up Shortlidge Road, and along Curtin Road, and that is sort of the--at least the pedestrian core of the campus. This plan proposes expanding that central core so that it extends out here from Shortlidge Road out along Pollock Road up Bigler Road. This is the pedestrian core of campus, and then up Shortlidge again up to Park Avenue and back down North Allen Street. And in order to be able to accomplish that, there are certain things that would happen. Traffic would get restricted along Pollock Road, probably the way it is now, but maybe a little more so. Traffic would get restricted along this section of Shortlidge Road, and this section of Curtin Road would become transit only. And some additional examples of expansion east of Shortlidge Road would be development of this area which is now Pollock fields as an academic site, in which we would construct four new academic buildings. I mentioned this area here which is now a sea of asphalt--parking lot 80--Ag Science and Industries Building is right there. This would be expanded to accommodate eight or so academic buildings. And then there are other buildings, examples of infill of the existing campus like, two building sites on either side of Pollock Road at the intersection of Atherton Street, a site next to the Business Administration Building along Park Avenue. And those are some examples of some infill, and there is infill throughout here. I mentioned the fact that another key feature was a less robust development of west campus; west campus across Atherton Street. The existing buildings are right in here the ARL Buildings. There's two buildings currently under construction--the Leonard Building and a new research center are right here. Well, this plan calls for construction of five other academic buildings. The old west campus plan we had had those academic buildings extending way out in a finger, and what we decided to do was truncate the academic development right along there. But still, developing the rest of west campus for housing--for graduate student housing and family housing--and there would be a total of...built in two phases, 150 graduate student apartments. They would be four bedroom apartments, four students in an apartment. And also 250 family houses, probably constructed in two phases. Another key feature of the plan is to enhance green space. Again the same orientation map of the campus, what you see on this one are the green spaces. And we've just looked at that layer. This is the sub-campus layer for green spaces. The 1s are major green spaces, and you can see this is the Old Main lawn, this is the HUB lawn, this is Hort Woods. They are proposing an extension of Hort Woods down here into an area where currently the Forum Building is. An enhancement of this green space between Rec Hall and the Nittany Lion Inn, and the creation of a new green space right here on this, which would become the Ag sub-campus--a meadow area overlooking what is going to become the Arboretum. And I'll show you a slide of the Arboretum in just a little bit. The number 2s are sort of a lesser scale of green space. These are really sub-campus green spaces, and they are located there, and then the cross-patched areas are kind of lateral green spaces, and the one that we know of here is the Pattee mall, and then Henderson mall, and they show it extending up so that it runs up between the Library extension and the Palmer Museum and extends into Hort Woods. And then creation of a new green-way which goes from essentially that intersection near the Library extension all the way out here to Bigler, and it exists now but it could be improved and become very, very nice. And then turning Pollock Road into more of a pedestrian mall and again making this section of Shortlidge more of a pedestrian mall. The lighter color green, numbered 3, are regional green spaces, and the numbers 4 are environmentally sensitive areas and there is a duck pond down here too, that isn't showing, but that's another environmentally sensitive area. Another key feature of the plan I mentioned was parking equilibrium. Currently we have one parking space for every 995 gross square feet of buildings, and the plan is to maintain that same ratio. Now this means when we construct a building on top of a surface parking lot now we have to provide compensation for that additional parking. Also, when we construct a new academic building, even if we say that the enrollment is going to be capped at 42,000 students, we know that we are going to bring in additional faculty and staff for that new building. So we are saying that whenever we put 995 new square feet of buildings on campus we're going to build one more parking space. Now, how are we going to do that? We're going to do that through expansion of three existing parking decks. And those three parking decks are the HUB deck, the Nittany deck and the Eisenhower garage. And then construction of three new parking garages: one on west campus, one on parking lot 80 in the new ag complex, and one in the arts and architecture part of the campus which will become the arts and architecture zone of campus. Now these new parking garages will be built if and when necessary. If the campus grows, and if we need them then we will build them. It's not a done deal that we are going to build these new parking garages. But if and when we do, that's the plan in order to be able to accommodate that growth. Finally, another key component of the plan, the last one I mentioned, was improving transit. In order to be able to make the system work, we have to make the transit work better, and that's through a combination of things like better mass transit, improved ride- share programs, bicycle trails and increased parking. Currently ongoing--and it's not done--but is a transportation demand management study that takes a look at all of these things and then comes up with an integrated plan as to how to approach that and how to improve the transit on campus. Now, I'd like to take a look at the three sub-campuses and then I'll show you the Arboretum Plan. The first sub-campus is the engineering/earth and mineral science sub-campus. Let me orient you: you're looking south in this picture. Some of the key features of this shows the new alumni center constructed there. If you notice, it doesn't have the engineering units. It shows the engineering units have been demolished. It includes elimination of the central third of Hammond Building to be able to open the campus up to the community at the end of Frasier Street, so that the campus becomes more welcoming and that Hammond doesn't become a barrier or a wall to the community. Now whether the right thing to do is to put an addition onto Hammond or to demolish Hammond and start new, I think, will be an economic decision once we get to that. So, if you were to question me to say, "Well, why would you be so stupid to put an addition onto Hammond?" I don't know if we would do that, but we'd look at it and compare the alternatives and do an economic analysis of it. It shows a potential expansion onto Electrical Engineering East, Electrical Engineering West. It shows an enhanced green space all throughout this sub-campus. So that's the engineering sub-campus plan. The next one is the science sub-campus, and we'll orient you here: we're looking north in this case, and down here is Pollock Road and this is Boucke Building, Osmond Lab, Davey Lab, Ritenour, Wartik Lab. This shows a new building, and that building is actually going to be the Chemistry Building, because we've actually sited that building. So that will be the new Chemistry Building, and what's underneath there now is the Robeson Center and three cottages and you'll ask me what are we doing with the cottages, and we're looking at the feasibility of relocating one or more of the cottages and I don't know the answer yet. One of the key issues in relocating the cottages--they are feasible to move--but is interference with the tree canopy on the route we would take them out of, and I don't want to kill any of the trees. We haven't finished the evaluation of that. That's ongoing right now. This is Osmond Lab. Currently there are two very, very steep lecture halls back here. This shows elimination of them and putting an addition on to that building. There is a parking lot here, and this shows turning that parking lot into a green space. And it also shows enhancing the rest of the green spaces in that area. The last one of the sub-campuses--and the reason we only picked three sub-campuses is because that was kind of what our budget was in dealing with the consultant--we wanted to do more but we were only able to afford three. This next one is what is currently parking lot 80. This is Shortlidge Road, Park Avenue is up here, Bigler Road is there, and Curtin Road is there. The existing Ag Sciences and Industries Building is right there, Ag Administration and Mitchell Building are right there. This plan shows new academic buildings and the potential additions onto Mitchell Building in these two locations. It shows a new greenhouse in this location, and it shows new academic buildings here that would be built at such time as the existing greenhouses and headhouses are ready to be replaced. We wouldn't plan on doing that until they had reached their useful life. More likely than not, this will become the new Food Science Building, because that is another building that we have sited and this will become the Creamery. And then over here--which is not shown on here--is Borland Lab will be adaptable and reused for another less high-tech, more general use when that is done. Now I should mention that also there is a meadow here, and this meadow now which has a green-way that goes all the way up here would then overlook the Arboretum, and this is a little bit of a view of the Arboretum. And now let's take a look at the Arboretum Plan. Orient you with regard to the Arboretum. This is Park Avenue, this is Shortlidge Road. Bigler Road is here, University Drive is here, the Mt. Nittany Expressway is up here and the Arboretum is divided into 395 acres and it's mostly all natural now. It's divided into three major areas. What's called the Mitchell track is right here, president's residence is right there, and then there is another section called Overlook Heights there, and then the largest section is Big Hollow which runs right through there. This area here is really the public arrival area and most of the public areas. In that would be an educational center, horticultural and educational displays, trial flower gardens, demonstration gardens, theme gardens and display greenhouses and there would also be some administration buildings in there, and then the rest of the part is kept mostly natural. The natural plant communities--with one exception, and that's that the turfgrass plots which are currently off of University Drive--would be relocated over into this area. But then the others would include whatever the natural plant communities were, and it would allow for academic study in things like soils, forestry, general agriculture, turfgrass, hydrology, and then there would be a system of roads throughout here--roads mostly for operations and maintenance but also roads that I think visitors could use to visit parts of the Arboretum. But then there would be a series of walking paths and bike trails through there. So that's the Arboretum Plan.

Jamie M. Myers: I have a question on that. Where's the Inner Loop?

William J. Anderson: The Eastern Inner Loop, we showed the preferred alternative of the Eastern Inner Loop coming in through here like this and snaking around here and tying into Vairo Boulevard, and that's the way we showed the preferred alternative for the Eastern Inner Loop.

Jamie M. Myers: That's the university's preferred?

William J. Anderson: That is the university's preferred alternative for the Eastern Inner Loop. Now as you probably know, the community--and we are part of the community--is participating in an environmental impact study that's going to evaluate alternatives for the Eastern Inner Loop. And the university's position on that is that we like this as our preferred alternative, not using University Drive. There is a lot of environmental sensitivities--our well fields are right in here, there are some terrain challenges here because there is a lot of elevation differences right in through here. But moreover, we think that University Drive is going to limit us similar as Atherton Street does now on the western part of campus, and if that becomes the Eastern Inner Loop that is definitely going to be a boundary the same as Atherton Street is now, only on the east side. So we've said that we think the Eastern Inner Loop ought to come out like this. That's what the plan says, and that is what our position is; however, we've said that whatever the community--and us being part of the community--comes up with as a result of the environmental impact study, that we're going to support it. We're going to support whatever the preferred alternative is. We hope that this plan establishes a strongly defined philosophical and physical framework to accommodate future growth, and that it identifies opportunities that are based upon a composite of system plans, and that we arrived at this plan with the input of a lot of stakeholders, and hopefully we had consensus on developing the plan. It's a comprehensive and coordinated approach that represents a view of Penn State's future over the next 25 years. More information about this can be found on the web, and this is the web site for the Master Plan: Our consultant is coming back for one more round of sessions to present the final plan, and that is on April 29, 1999. The campus session is at 1:00 p.m. in Kern, and then in the evening at Ferguson Township on the 29th at 7:30 p.m. So that concludes my report, if there are any questions.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you very much. Only somebody who's sat through an hour and a half presentation to the Board of Trustees can appreciate how much Bill packed into this much, much shorter report. And I'm sorry so many people had to miss that. Are there questions about this presentation?

Sabih I. Hayek: What was the philosophy of back-peddling on the west campus? Would that mean that part of the engineering campus would be still on one side of Atherton and one on the other side of Atherton?

William J. Anderson: We are actually working with a proposal from the College of Engineering right now which has asked us to take a look at seeing if we can accommodate all of engineering on the west side of Atherton. We're kind of merging that with the Master Plan to see if it's a fit or not. But the real reason had to do with, once we looked at where we needed to grow the campus, we knew that we couldn't accommodate all the growth on the west campus and we knew we had to go east. And once you went east, and to have that long finger going out to the west, it became too long a distance. So we tried to truncate that a little bit, at least from the academic buildings, so that we weren't too strung out. I've got other ones that I didn't bring with me, but I've got a transit system plan which shows extending transit out to that housing on west campus, too.

Robert G. Price: Two questions: are there any assumptions about the numbers of faculty and students for whom you are providing these opportunities? And then, secondly, when you were doing philosophy, did you have discussions about the wisdom of growth?

William J. Anderson: I may ask for some help from the philosophical person on the team, Jawaid. I can tell you what the assumptions were on student growth. The assumptions were that we wouldn't grow past 42,000 students. The other part of the philosophy was that we--and this is based upon a lot of experience of the consultant who has worked in all of the Big Ten and really I think 30 major research universities--no matter what the student count is, they continue to seem to grow. Technology changes, and no matter if we say we think we're going to go to distance education and distance learning, we continue to grow new buildings, and we can look now in the near term. In order to stay competitive as an institution we know that we need to build a new Chemistry Building, we know we need to build a Bio-Sciences Building, we know we need to build an Information Sciences and Technology Building, we know we need to build a School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. We also have--and you probably know this better than I--tremendous space constraints. So part of the logic would be to take some of the less high tech space and turn it into more general space for either faculty offices or general purpose classrooms and then create new high tech space. So that was all part--I don't know if I'm addressing your issue--but that was part of the thought process. And finally we called this an opportunities plan and we said, "We don't know if we're going to grow, but if we are going to grow, what's a logical pattern in which to grow."

Alan W. Scaroni: You don't seem to have included sub-surface parking in your building. Can you comment on why that is?

William J. Anderson: I'll try, and again I'll ask these guys for some help. I think it's the cost of it. A surface parking lot costs--and I didn't point out there are some surface parking lots for commuter parking that we added and I didn't point them out on the map--but a surface parking space costs about $2,500 to $3,000 a space. A structured parking space costs five times that, and I would hazard a guess to say that a sub-surface parking space would probably cost twice as much as that. And I think it's a matter of economics. I think a lot of people would have liked--you know there were ideas of why can't we put under either HUB lawn or Old Main lawn a parking garage. Or under the area that's right now where engineering and engineering units right around Reber Building that parking lot there--and why couldn't we put an underground parking lot there? That was a non-starter because that place is a mass of utilities services under there. It was a matter of cost, and that's why we really didn't pursue it very vigorously.

Barton W. Browning, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm not going to get into parking costs, because I know that would take up the rest of the evening for us. But I do have a thought about the parking structures that would be put up. As I understand in the past, parking structures have been put up and then the costs of those structures have been absorbed by the people who park on campus who pay their permit fees. And at the same time this was not charged to the units that put up the structures, that brought in new people, that caused us to need these parking structures. Is there going to be a proviso that when buildings go up and they take away parking, new parking structures have to be built, that whoever is funding those buildings will pay for replacing those parking places?

William J. Anderson: We had--and I'm on Shelton's committee, as he mentioned--the Committee on University Planning and we had a briefing by Betty Roberts who is the Assistant Vice President for Business Services. We had a briefing this morning on the parking plan as part of the transportation and management study. And without stealing her thunder, the answer to your question is that parking is self-supporting. It is one of those activities that is self-supporting, and I know that it gradually evolved to becoming self-supporting over a number of years. The plan is that any new parking structures would be self-supported (i.e., people with parking permits would pay an increased fee in order for those). Now you could ask, "Well, we asked specifically the question, if it were a state funded building, would the state pay for the parking?" Say it displaces a parking lot, and we built a building on a parking lot. The state does not pay for displaced parking lots. Now the second question you might ask is, "Okay, if we're going to build one out in the field somewhere and we wanted to build parking around it, would the state pay for that?" The answer is probably yes, but it would eat into the scope of the academic part of the project. So that's kind of the real direct answer to your question, and I'm not sure of where the TDM study is going after this point.

Chair Berkowitz: Let's not get too deep into the parking issue. As you mentioned, Betty Roberts came to both University Planning and Faculty Benefits, and that may well come back and we will have fuller discussions with more people. Somehow, if we'd mentioned parking would be at the end, we might have more people here.

William J. Anderson: If I could, I just do want the plan, really, it's not necessarily the Master Plan but it's the capital plan that is really tied to the strategic plan of the university, in order to have the university become more competitive as an institution. So the things that I mentioned--bio-sciences, IST, hiring 200 new faculty members--they all take space, and you reach the point where you have to build on some surface lots and it becomes a matter of choice and a matter of choices, and I mean that's really the issue.

Chair Berkowitz: Anything else that must be said or must be asked? Thank you. That completes the Senate Agenda that I had.






May I have a motion to adjourn? The March 30, 1999 meeting of the University faculty Senate adjourned at 4:45 PM.


Committees and Rules -Revision to Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11(c) (Legislative)

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

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 19, 1999

Libraries - Resolution Supporting the Efforts of President Spanier and the University Libraries in SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition) (Resolution)

Faculty Affairs - Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Recommendation for Employee Contributions to Health Care Plans (Advisory/Consultative)

Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000 -
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Curricular Affairs - Review of Recent Changes in, Current Practices of, and Future Plans For the Curricular Approval Process (Informational)

Elections Commission - Roster of Senators for 1999-2000 (Informational)

Outreach Activities - Off-Campus Graduate Programs (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1999-2000 -
Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

University Planning - The University Park Master Plan (Informational)



Inclusion of Electronic Publications in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier



In response to concerns about the inclusion of electronic publications in promotion and tenure dossiers, the Senate Chair charged a subcommittee comprised of members from the Faculty Affairs Committee, the University Libraries Committee, the Research Committee, the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee and the Administration to examine the issue and make recommendations. The committee met and recommended the inclusion of specific items to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23. This information was sent to the Faculty Affairs Committee.


The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends that the following be added as item 7 to Section III, part C of the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23.


A. Forms for the Dossier. . .

B. Responsibility for Preparation of the Dossier. . .

C. Content and Organization of Information in the Dossier

1. A standard format for presenting and organizing the information in the dossier shall be used by all academic units.

2. The dossier shall contain the following sections, organized according to the sequence provided below:. . .

3. Items a. through I. in the list in section III.C.2. are factual and informational sections of the dossier; item j. is the confidential section of the dossier and shall not be accessible for review or inspection by the candidate.

4. More detailed descriptions of appropriate contents for dossier sections are printed on divider forms. (See Appendix E.)

5. Supplemental support materials (e.g., books, reprints, and syllabi) may be collected along with the dossier at the campus and departmental review levels, but these supplemental materials shall not be forwarded with the dossier unless requested by those responsible for the next level of review.

6. Outreach activities should be properly documented and considered in the tenure and promotion process: Under service when they are mostly service, under teaching when they involve teaching, and under research and scholarship when they result in publication or activity that can be valued in those terms.

7. Electronic publications--whether they be journal articles, book chapters, or conference proceedings, or fall under the rubric of any of the other categories of publication listed in the rainbow divider for Research, Creative Accomplishment, and Scholarship--should be treated the same as publications that appear in print and listed under the same bullets described by the rainbow divider.

Departments are responsible for assuring that articles published only electronically that are listed under refereed publications are indeed both appropriately refereed and archived. A policy statement from the journal indicating the refereeing policy, THE NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD, and the procedure for archiving must accompany all listings of publications as referred REFEREED when they are published only electronically.

Articles published only electronically and listed under the category of non-refereed publication must include documentation of archival numbers. The department must supply an assessment of the selection process and the dossier must include a policy statement from the journal outlining the selection and archiving process. , as well as the names of the editorial board.

Articles posted electronically by the individual faculty member without a formal review are not to be listed in the dossier.

7.8. Listings of work in progress should be eliminated from all tenure reviews beyond the fourth year and all promotion reviews beyond the assistant professor level or equivalent. Work accepted, submitted, or under contract should continue to be listed in all dossiers.

8.9. Dossiers should not contain the following items unless unusual circumstances prevail and the materials are necessary for making recommendations. (This judgment shall be made by the college dean.)

a. Evaluative statements written by the candidate;

b. Statements about a candidate's personal life unless they are germane to the quality of the candidate's work;

c. A vita which restates information presented elsewhere in the dossier;

d. Samples of the candidate's publications;

e. Letters of appreciation or thanks;

f. Course outlines.

9.10. All review committees and administrators shall have the same factual record available for the review.

10.11. Tenure decisions and promotion decisions are separate actions and require different documentation of prior reviews.

Wenwu Cao
Sabih Hayek
Frieda Holt
Felix Lukezic, Chair
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Robert Secor
Helen S. Wright

Syed Saad Andaleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Joseph L. Cavinato
Wayne R. Curtis
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy E. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair
J. Randall Woolridge


Abromson, Henry
Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Anderson, Albert A.
Arnold, Steven F.
Bagby, John W.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barbato, Guy F.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Book, Patricia A.
Brannon, S. Diane
Brenneman, Scott S.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brighton, John A.
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnne
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Cragin, Kelly
Crawford, James P.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Daubert, Thomas E.
Davis, Dwight
de Hart, Steven A.
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn Ellen
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Ferris, John A.
Floros, Joanna
Frank, Thomas A.
Franz, George W.
Friend, Linda C.
Frost, Tracy A.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Haner, William E.
Harmonosky, Catherine M.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hill, Charles W.
Holt, Frieda M.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Klein, Philip A.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lasher, William C.
Lesieutre, George A.
Lindberg, Darla
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, Louisa J.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McGraw, Kenneth P.
McGregor, Annette K.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Miller, Linda P.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Oz, Effy
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Pauley, Laura L.
Peavler, Terry J.
Pees, Richard C.
Phillips, Allen T.
Poch, Helena
Power, Barbara L.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Robert D.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor C.
Roth, David E.
Roth, Gregory W.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schneider, Donald P.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Brady P.
Smith, James F.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Stuart, Jessica L.
Sutton, Jane S.
Templeman, Arkady
Thomas, James B.
Tranell, Jeffrey R.
Turner, Tramble T.
Ventura, Jose A.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Ware, Roger P.
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.
Withington, Robert P.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Young, James S.
Zelis, Robert
Ziegenfus, Ted
Bugyi, George J.
Cunning, Tineke J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

143 Total Elected
4 Total Ex Officio
9 Total Appointed
156 Total Attending


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

Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 4 [5(d)] (Legislative)

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

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Revision of Policy 51-50 -- Cumulative Grade Point Average (Legislative)

Senate Council - Resolution for Provost John A. Brighton (Resolution)

Student Life - Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity (Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9) (Legislative)

University Planning - A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign (Oral Informational)

Senate Council - Resolution in Support of A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign (Resolution)

Faculty Affairs - Revision of Policy HR-13: Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Parking Facility Financing and Vehicle Registration Policy (Informational)

Faculty Benefits - Faculty Salary Report (Informational)

Faculty Affairs - Report on Promotion and Tenure Recommendations and Decisions in 1997-98 (Informational)

General Education - Skills (Informational)

General Education - Final Report (Informational)

Student Life - Student Services at Commonwealth Locations: Mental and Physical Health (Informational)

University Planning - Construction Programs Status Report (Informational)

University Planning - Task Force on Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures (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 1999-2000
Senate Chair-Elect for 1999-2000

Comments by Outgoing Chair Berkowitz
Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Nelson