Penn State University Home




Volume 31 MARCH 31, 1998 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 1997-98.

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 31, 1998---------------------------Pages ii-iii

A. Summary of Agenda Actions----------------------------Page iv

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks-------------------Pages 1-31

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to March 31, 1998-----Appendix I

B. Attached

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on ARSSA -

Articulation Agreements--------------------------------- Appendix II

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on C&R -

Establishment of a New Position University

Ombudsman-----------------------------------------------Appendix III

Corrected Copy - Senate Council Nominating

Committee Report - 1998-99---------------------------Appendix IV

Attendance------------------------------------------------Appendix V

III. Tentative Agenda for April 28, 1998----------------------Appendix VI



Minutes of the March 3, 1998, Meeting in The Senate Record 31:5--------------Page 1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

(Blue Sheets) of March 20, 1998--Page 1

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 17, 1998---------------Page 1

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR - --------------------------------------Pages 1-3


F. FORENSIC BUSINESS - -----------------------------------------------Page 8


Committees and Rules

Student Membership on Senate---------------------------------------Pages 8-9


Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Articulation Agreements-------------------------------------------Pages 9-11

Committees and Rules

Establishment of a New Position University Ombudsman---------------Pages 11-14

Revision of Article II: Senate Committee Structure-----------------------Page 14

  2. Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation

    Final Report --------------------------------------------------------Pages 14-19



Economic Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications:

Implications for Scholars, Libraries, and University Presses-------Pages 19-28

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 1998-99

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure---------------------------------Pages 28-30

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1998-99

Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary

- Faculty Advisory Committee to the President-------Pages 30-31

Elections Commission

Roster of Senators for 1998-99---------------------------------------Page 31

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS - ----------------------------------Page 31


ADJOURNMENT - ----------------------------------------------------------Page 31


The Senate returned one Advisory/Consultative Report to Committee:

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation – "Final Report."

(See Record, page(s) 14-19 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

The Senate passed four Legislative Reports:

Committees and Rules - "Student Membership on Senate." This report proposes a change in the way student representation is allocated on the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 8-9 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Articulation Agreements." (See Record, page(s) 9-11, Corrected Copy, Record Appendix II, and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Committees and Rules - "Establishment of a new position University Ombudsman." (See Record, page(s) 11-14 , Corrected Copy, Record, Appendix III, and Agenda Appendix "E.")

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Article II: Senate Committee Structure."

(See Record, page(s) 14 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate received three Informational Reports:

Committees and Rules Nominating Committee Report - 1998-99 - "Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee." (See Record, page(s) 28-30 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Libraries/Research - "Economics Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications: Implications for Scholars, Libraries, and University Presses." (See Record, page(s) 19-28 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1998-99 - "Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President." (See Record, page(s) 30-31, Corrected Copy Record Appendix IV, and Agenda Appendix "K.")

One report was for information only:

Elections Commission - "Roster of Senators for 1998-99." (See Record, page(s) 31 and Agenda Appendix "I.")


The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Louis Geschwindner, Chair, presiding. One hundred and forty-two Senators signed the roster.

Chair Geschwindner: It is time to begin.


Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting. You have received The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings, of the March 3, 1998 meeting. It was also 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 Geschwindner: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for March 20, 1998 in the mail. Appendix "B" to your Agenda is the Senate Calendar for 1998-99.


Also, you should have received the Report of the Senate Council, the meeting of March 17. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.


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

We thought we would make a special effort at elevating the quality of our presentations today, and so we've raised the stage. Those of you who have to come forward, if you look down these center two aisles and can't make that step, I urge you to walk down the ramp and you'll be able to come up the steps on stage. We don't want to lose any Senators or any one else who's coming forward to make comments today.

Before we begin our discussions I want to inform you that I must leave the meeting today by 2:50 p.m. in order to catch a flight out of town. I wanted to be sure that you did not take my early exit, if we are still in session at that time, as an indication that I am unhappy with your discussions or that the heat has gotten to me. You can be assured that Len's asked to continue the meeting; he'll do a fine job and will work at getting you out in a timely fashion.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on March 17 and discussed a number of issues including: faculty issues surfacing at a few locations; an update on our interaction with the state legislature and budgeting; post-tenure review; the faculty teaching development and evaluation report; the university's commitment to free mobility of students between locations which was reaffirmed by President Spanier. We talked about electronic communication across the university; an update on the president's initiative on information technology; a discussion of strategic planning and an assessment of those activities. We also had a report by Provost Brighton on the joint CIC/PAC Ten meeting he participated in, and again we are leading the pack. The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee is scheduled for April 9. If any of you have agenda items that you would like us to discuss, I urge you to get that to any of the members this week.

The General Education Implementation Committee has been meeting on a regular basis and will be presenting two informational reports to the Senate at our next meeting on April 28.

I am pleased to report that I had the opportunity to represent the faculty as a member of the platform party during the Dickinson School of Law convocation held on March 21 in Carlisle and welcomed the Dickinson faculty into our community and thanked them for welcoming us into their community. It was a very nice event.

You are all aware, I believe, of the university-level awards that were presented recently, and it is appropriate that we congratulate all award recipients. There is one, however, that I would like to recognize here publicly. Our Executive Secretary George Bugyi was honored with the McKay Donkin award as the faculty or staff member contributing most to the economic, physical, mental, or social welfare of the faculty at Penn State. Will you please join me in a rousing round of applause to recognize George.

Senators: Applause and standing ovation.

Chair Geschwindner: Now we could keep the applause going and that would keep the air moving, but it would be hard to hear. The Committee on Faculty Affairs has been deliberating Post-Tenure Review, HR-40, as you know, and I want to thank all of the Senators who took some leadership in seeing that the draft document that we posted on the web server received the extensive discussion that it did. I also want to thank all of you for your feedback to the committee. The committee met today and has made some changes in the report that will be posted on the web this week. They plan on recommending a forensic session for our April meeting. I encourage you all to take a look at the web server again later in the week to see what changes the committee has proposed. Continue the discussions within your units and, assuming that Senate Council approves the forensic session, come to the April 28 meeting ready to discuss from an informed perspective what goes on in that particular area.

My last item is a request to permit me to move the joint Library and Research informational report to the head of the informational reports in order to keep the nominations reports together. Unless I hear an objection, I will make that move, and if you look at the back of the green sheet you'll see we're just moving it up ahead of the Committee on Committees and Rules. If I don't hear any objections then I will make that move.

We next move to comments by the President of the university. President Spanier is here and it looks like he's able to make the step.


President Spanier: I'll take my jacket off to make you comfortable, Lou. I did pick up that business about elevating the level of discussion here today. I have to deconstruct a lot of your introductory remarks. Speaking of that we have Jacques Derrida speaking at the Nittany Lion Inn tomorrow afternoon. Some of you know about that. So it should be a very interesting lecture. There is just a lot of wonderful news at the university. In my limited time I don't even know where to begin, but before I mention a few things I would like to take a moment to ask you to help me recognize someone who, undoubtedly, is making her last official appearance at the Faculty Senate meeting today. Gloriana St. Clair has been associate dean of the libraries for quite a number of years at Penn State coming from Oregon State University where she was assistant director of the libraries and starting tomorrow morning, I guess, she is going to be the dean of libraries at Carnegie Mellon University. A very nice promotional, professional opportunity for her. Many of you have no idea how ably she has served this university as interim dean and associate dean, and you can see the new library rising out of the ground right now. Gloriana just deserves a great round of applause.

Senators: Applause.

President Spanier: She's only down the road, so we've agreed that we will see her from time to time. Let me begin with just an update on budgets and enrollments and things like that. The Pennsylvania legislature is moving on a very fast track this year to deal with the state's budget, including Penn State's appropriation. I think things continue to be on track for approval of at least an appropriation increase equivalent to what the governor proposed in his initial budget and we are working very hard on trying to see if we can get a slight addition to our appropriation beyond that, which of course we desperately need. We should be able to hear about the status of our budget and expect that the state will have its budget passed before the end of April, and if that's the case it will be good for Penn State because it will allow us to engage in some good and thoughtful budgetary planning, getting ready for the next fiscal year and not having to wait until the very last moment in July to get our affairs in order. So that's moving along very well.

Most of you through your campuses, undoubtedly keep track of our enrollment situation and so many of you know this, but perhaps some don't. We will almost certainly this year break all records in attracting applicants to Penn State. We are not only 4,000 applications ahead of last year--if you can believe it, 4,000--but we are even ahead of the record-breaking year that we had in 1995. Is that right, John? Two years ago. It's quite remarkable. Certainly it tells us that Penn State continues to be the most popular university in the country, that with changes that have occurred at Penn State our applications are up. Certainly at the Dickinson School of Law we have seen in the tremendous increase in applications there--even at a time nationally when law school applications are down--the benefits of the merger in terms of the quality and number of applicants that they have received. The projected enrollments for all of our new colleges are up at this point, so really throughout the Penn State system we feel very good about what we're expecting in the fall. Despite the fact that our applications are up, it does not mean that our enrollments are going to be significantly up, because at this point we've actually--I'm using some very round numbers here--we've admitted something like a thousand fewer students to the University Park campus compared to last year. Yet the yield, the number of persons who've already accepted offers to the University Park campus, is about equivalent to what it was last year, even slightly ahead. We're slightly ahead of last year even while having to admit a thousand fewer students to get there, and of course admitting a thousand fewer students when you have 4,000 more applications means that it's getting increasingly competitive to be admitted to Penn State. We do have some capacity at many of our other campuses, and so we are looking to see some enrollment increases there, but keep in mind that our principle objective on our commonwealth campuses is to see enrollment growth at the upper division level. If we simply open the flood gates at the freshman level, many of those students will be here when they are juniors and we will not be able to accommodate that kind of growth at the University Park level. So our goal is to see enrollments increase at the upper division at our other campuses, and that will meet needs that certainly exist in the communities around the state and will better serve our freshman and sophomores at those campuses, many of whom are place-bound and would like to continue with a Penn State education.

I want to say a bit about our capital campaign progress. This is something that most of you don't hear much about, but it is one of the remarkable success stories at Penn State right now. You get just bits and pieces of it around the edges, maybe when you see a newspaper article like the $5 million dollar gift for the expansion to Eisenhower Chapel or the $20 million dollar gift for the School of Business at Erie. We have had, just in the last week, several new major gift announcements, and over the next few days there will be some additional gift announcements in the million-dollar plus category. I want to tell you all, the faculty who are here, that we have a lot of people around Penn State--your development officers, your campus executive officers, deans--who are working very hard. If you're seeing a little less of them these days or a little less of me, its because we're out working very hard to raise money. I'm going to give you a figure that we've not mentioned to anybody before, but it's quite phenomenal. At this point, our projection for the 1997-98 year is that we will conclude that year with $220 million in gifts and new commitments. That is far and away a record at Penn State. Those will be actual cash gifts in addition to pledges that will be paid off on a multi-year basis, but $220 million of new money and commitments is our current target for the current fiscal year. That is quite remarkable for a university that really is still kind of, I wouldn't say in its infancy, but certainly in its adolescence in terms of a long history of serious attention to philanthropy. And, by the way, just in the cash gifts, just in the actual funds received so far in this fiscal year through today, March 31 (I just got the numbers before I came over)--we close the books on each month and get a monthly progress report--we are up so far this year with three months to go, we're up 33 percent in cash gifts this year from where we were at this point last year. So we're very pleased with that, and I know you'll all begin to see some benefits from that down the road.

To convey to you a little something in addition about the excitement that I see week by week on this campus, I just note the following things, a few of which are happening in April. Tonight of course, we have Elie Wiesel speaking in Eisenhower Auditorium. He was stuck in San Diego this morning, was not going to make the connection that would get him here in time for the lecture, but we have a group of people working on getting him here. We're having to charter a plane from Detroit to fly to Chicago to meet his overdue plane there and fly him to University Park because he missed all the connections that would have gotten him into Harrisburg in time. So he'll be here, I'm pretty sure. I certainly encourage those of you who will be here this evening to attend that if tickets are still available. I'm not positive. At the Bryce Jordan Center this month there is just a phenomenal range of activities from the Steve Miller Band to the Bolshoi Ballet, and from Hank Aaron--who'll be giving a distinguished lecture there--to the NCAA national gymnastics finals. By the way, Hank Aaron has challenged me to a racquet ball match, I just don't want to get hit by one of his shots…one of his home run hits. We have scores of lectures on campus. I mentioned the Derrida lecture tomorrow. We have two in the Penn State Issues Forum. We have two programs coming up: David Scott who's the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who is one of the great thinkers in American Higher Education, in my opinion on the 17th; and on the 30th Lee Shulman. We have the space shuttle launch, which has a lot of Penn State focus on it because one of our faculty members is going up because he's teaching a course from space that's tied into our distance and continuing education programs. Didn't you know that? Probably the greatest distance yet. A lot of exciting things around that particular lab mission of the space shuttle. We have our first Nittany Lion baseball game this Saturday at 12:30. We're hosting the state business roundtable, which is a very important thing for Penn State to be hosting here. All the state's business leaders--major business leaders--will be here for a program that we're hosting. We're hosting the CIC conference. We'll have people from all the CIC institutions, the Big Ten plus institutions, here for a conference, and on the 25th we have the Blue/White Game. So, just a few things that happened to pop up on my calendar review this morning that I thought I would mention to you.

The last thing I want to mention is to kind of follow up on some comments that Lou made. I want to first of all commend the Faculty Affairs Committee for the hard work that they are doing in looking at the whole concept of post-tenure review. I've seen some of the email traffic on this, and it's been very interesting to follow. People are raising some good points, there's fine tuning going on, and I think the committee is trying to be very responsive to them. The question is how we get a system of post-tenure review in place that really works and makes sense to everybody, and that's not particularly burdensome from a logistical and resource standpoint. Post-tenure review really is occurring at some universities across the country right now I think for two principle purposes, the most important being a continuing way of supporting faculty development--trying to have the university in a mode where it can encourage faculty development and give members of the faculty more feedback on how they can get from here to there without slowing them down in any way. And of course a second increasingly important part--and I see this part of it very prominently as President--is public accountability. Universities like ours are constantly being asked to be more accountable for what we do and particularly what faculty members do. We are just on the cusp of receiving about $300 million a year from the state government. If we're lucky we can edge over that amount this year. We are governed, of course, by a board of trustees who are elected and appointed from various constituencies who, of course, continue to, as you all know, have some difficulty understanding what tenure means. We all live with it, we have a pretty good idea what it means, and we think it works pretty well. But there always continues to be a need for a greater degree of public accountability, and that centers principally on assuring people that those who have tenure are being reviewed and continue to work very hard and are making the sort of progress that we expect them to make. My own opinion about all this is that it's very important for us to manage our own destiny. Universities do not do well when external constituencies are the ones who are trying to tell us how to manage our personnel policies, how to do our reviews, what salary increases should be, or any other type of outside form of governance. That's why I think the work of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Faculty Advisory Committee is very important in this regard, and I will be as supportive as I possibly can of the overall Senate's efforts as you move through this discussion. I'll also be very supportive of keeping in mind the notion of flexibility. There are a lot of different ways to skin a cat, and there are a lot of different ways to do post-tenure review, and there's undoubtedly a way of doing it out there that will work well for Penn State and its faculty. Those are my prepared comments, informal as they are, and now I'd like to take a few minutes--will take just a few so Lou can catch his plane--but I'm sure there are a couple of questions out there.

James G. Brasseur, College of Engineering: We've had quite a discussion in our department on this issue of post-tenure reviews, and the first question that came up is, "what was the source?" When did this begin at Penn State, and from where did it originate? Related to that is the question, "why?" Clearly from a political point of view--that is from the state legislature's point of view, as you pointed out--there's a perception that somehow faculty who are tenured are in some sense not being accounted…they're unaccountable for their actions. We have strong opinions, feeling that this was not right, was incorrect, and that the difficulty is less with our making the legislature feel comfortable that we are being reviewed than with showing the people in this legislature that we work every bit as hard post-tenure as pre-tenure, and that we're all working many hours a week, probably more hours than the average senator in the legislature.

President Spanier: Well, in the first question "how and when did it come up," I don't know the answer to that. Maybe Lou or Bob Secor or the chair of the committee?

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: John Brighton asked me to work with a dean from outside of University Park and a dean from inside of University Park and the past chair of the Faculty Senate to put together a proposal to be presented by the committee to the faculty. That's how it started. I should say, by the way, that the Faculty Affairs Committee has for four consecutive months been working on that proposal. So it's not as though it's an administrative interest, and it's on the web because you know we're going to have a forensic session. But the structure for a proposal was first put together by that ad-hoc committee.

President Spanier: The second part of what you raised, I can comment on that. I think as long as Penn State receives public funds--receives tax payer dollars--and as long as we have a public mission as a university, we will continue to be asked questions about our productivity, about work loads, about the nature of our personnel policies. I get asked about them all the time, and because who's in the legislature changes, who the tax payers are changes--it's not the kind of thing that you can just explain once and feel it's been done. I have to do it on a continuing basis. If you go back and look at three years of my testimony before the House and Appropriations committees, six separate hearings, covering maybe 12 to 13 hours of testimony altogether--you'll see that this is a theme that tends to come up. I'd like to think I do a pretty good job of explaining it to them, but it will be a continuing challenge for us, and I happen to believe as president of a public university that it is important for us to be accountable. I would be the first to say, and I tell legislators all the time, "We want to be as accountable as possible." We feel so good about what our faculty are doing and about what Penn State as an institution is doing and how efficiently we are doing it that we want them to see how we're doing. We have good benchmark data to show what we're all about, and so I actually view those appropriation hearings as an opportunity to put our best foot forward, but it's something we'll need to continue to do.

William C. Ellis, Hazleton Campus: Mr. President, I rise as not only a Senator but also as the chair of the Instruction and Advising Committee at the Hazleton Campus. My concern is that today we are going to hear an advisory report on faculty development, which is an issue that we have also been dealing with locally for some six months and more. It strikes me that where we are asked to be held most accountable by legislators and general public is in the realm of classroom teaching. People want to see that people don't get tenure and then become fossils in the classroom and fail to carry out their primary charge, which is to instruct undergraduates and graduates. I'm concerned that this impetus coming before the Senate, at this point, seems to be a less effective way of accomplishing accountability and helping out faculty than our much more fully developed faculty development plan, which I understand has been in the works for something like five years before various committees. Wouldn't it be a more sensible approach to simply publicize what we are doing to hold tenured adjunct faculty accountable for their behavior in the classroom and also at the same time more publicly reward people who have achieved excellence.

President Spanier: Well I must admit I'm at a bit of a loss on this because I'm not familiar with what's going to be presented. Maybe you would like to comment?

Chair Geschwindner: Are you saying that the Faculty Teaching and Development report is not one that has been under development by the Senate? Or are you saying that that's a better route to go then post-tenure review?

William C. Ellis: Excuse me if I was unclear. It seems to me that the faculty development plan that is to be presented today is the one that has been under continuing development for five years. It is something we've been involved in locally for more than six months, and it strikes me that the post-tenure review proposal is something that is coming to us rather late and is attempting to do the same thing in a less effective way.

Chair Geschwindner: From my perspective I think they're two different things, but I don't know if you have anything to add to that? I think we'll be discussing certainly the faculty development report today and probably discussing post-tenure review next time, so maybe we ought to just hold off on that and see how that discussion goes? Any other questions for President Spanier? Okay, thank you very much.

As we begin our discussion of reports, I want to remind you that only Senators will be recognized to speak, and that the chair will make those recognition's with the help of the officers here on the platform. Also, please stand when you're recognized and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate, and for the few of you who are down in front and want to get recognized, stand up and yell.




Chair Geschwindner: We do have one Legislative Report from the Committee on Committees and Rules covering Student Membership on the Senate. You'll find this report is Appendix "C" in your agenda. Sabih Hayek will address your questions. Remember this report was presented last time and had to stay on the agenda for two meetings, so we'll be voting on it today. Are there any questions for Sabih?


Student Membership on Senate

Sabih I. Hayek, Chair

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: I would recognize Peter Rebane who was the primary motivator behind this report, so if there are any questions either I or Peter will answer your questions.

Chair Geschwindner: If we have no questions, are you ready for a vote? All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. Thank you Sabih and Peter. We now move to legislative reports. The first report is from the Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid Committee and Frank Kristine will present the report.



Articulation Agreements

Frank J. Kristine, Chair

Frank J. Kristine, Mont Alto Campus: Currently there is no single university policy concerning articulation agreements, let alone one that is Senate-advised. Based on recent activities within the university, the Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid Committee perceived a need for such a policy. The legislation before you describes a policy that assures that our academic standards are maintained, that entrance and requirements to academic programs are equivalent, no matter where the student begins his or her college studies, and that one unit of the university does not benefit from an articulation agreement at the expense of another. Our committee asks for your support of the legislation, and when we met this morning we decided on a couple of tiny editorial changes, and if you look at page two at the top, in the third line, we would like to add in our introductory statement after the word "equivalent" the words, "if not higher". So that the sentence would read, "Students admitted to one of the university's academic programs through an articulation agreement must be held to equivalent if not higher entrance and admission requirements as are in effect for Penn State matriculated students." The other little change is on page three, item eight, and in the second line after the word "seeking," add the word "undergraduate," which doubly clarifies that it's only undergraduate students who will be reviewed by the Undergraduate Admissions Office. If you have any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to try and address them.

Chair Geschwindner: Any questions for Frank?

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: I was wondering if the committee might entertain a slight amendment to this? From reading this document and looking at the recommendations, it's quite clear that extensive consultation with various administrative and other officials would take place; however, I don't really see any place where the faculty or the appropriate body is involved, at least not in any developing stage. There is a brief mention that this should go to a Senate committee again, and I was wondering if the committee might not entertain an amendment something like this on the recommendation part on page two, number three, which states currently, "proposals are to be developed after consultations with appropriate academic and administrative officers within the University, including other deans," and then I would add, "and the appropriate faculty organizations or bodies of the unit involved." In other words, I think that there should be some kind of academic consultation at this level before articulation agreements are drawn up that involve admission standards and so on, to ensure that the caliber of students that we do get meet the Penn State standards that we're used to.

Frank Kristine: Well I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if anyone else on my committee would want to talk to that? But on initial thought, it's not a bad suggestion.

Chair Geschwindner: Frank do you want to accept that as a friendly editorial change, or do you want it proposed as a motion for an amendment? Does Frank's committee want to help him make a decision?

Frank Kristine: How about the second?

Chair Geschwindner: All right, Peter, do you want to make that as an official motion?

P. Peter Rebane: Yes, I would, and I don't know, Frank, if you want exact language. I would move that Appendix "D" be amended on the recommendations part three to add the phrase, "including other deans and appropriate faculty." Would that…I find the word "organization" or "body" or something a little bit clumsy and appropriate… "faculty"…

Chair Geschwindner: Is there a second?

Senators: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, any discussion on the amendment?

Robert L. Burgess, Health and Human Development: What does "academic" refer to? It doesn't refer to faculty?

Frank Kristine: As far as the committee goes in that recommendation, I have no memory of any discussion where there would be any indication that that word would refer to faculty.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments or questions on the amendment? Are you ready for a vote on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed same sign? Thank you. Now number three includes at the end, "and appropriate faculty." Now we go back to the original recommendation. Any additional comments?

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: In reading it, I was surprised to not see the word "accreditation" anywhere in it, and I was wondering if you could comment on…that's implicit in the whole process of doing this and you don't even use that word?

Frank Kristine: I think that would be covered in item number 6, where we ask that all academic and administrative policies of the university will be honored in the proposed agreement. We highlighted one such policy, but it would be our opinion that that would include any course work as far as accreditation issues would go.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments or questions?

John Baer, Student Senator, York Campus: I just wondered, I guess it would be on page six…should it be changed from Penn State Allentown to Penn State Lehigh Valley, and on page eight there's no mention of Worthington Scranton in there at all. It just lists Wilkes-Barre and York. Was that just left out?

Frank Kristine: The way the information in that table is gathered was through a letter of request to the academic officers in the colleges and at the campuses, and whatever information was returned from them was then included in the table. As the report's been circulated, we have made some additions as people have read it--just as you are--so that if it's left out it means that there is no information obtained initially and nothing since then.

Chair Geschwindner: Anything else? Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of passing the report as amended signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. We go back then to the Committee on Committees and Rules, Appendix "E" the establishment of a new position, the University Ombudsman. Sabih Hayek is here to present the report. We're going to make sure Sabih knows how to get up on this stage.


Establishment of a new position University Ombudsman

Sabih I. Hayek, Chair

Sabih I. Hayek: This new position of University Ombudsman was started by a committee within the Committee on Committees and Rules, and there has been a history of…as you well know, there are 33 ombudsman throughout the campus system, and we felt that we needed some sort of a focal point where they all could contact in case there is a need for information or so on. So basically the University Ombudsman would function as a coordinator and a facilitator as well as a clearinghouse of information for the other ombudsman, and in fact will conduct the biennial workshop training that we do every two years for all ombudsman. The University Ombudsman would not serve in any appeal capacity. In essence he/she would not act as an ombudsman. While the ombudsman is in tenure, he/she will not serve on the Joint Committee on Tenure, Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, or the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Ombudsman will maintain liaison with the offices of the Provost, Human Resources and the Senate. So, we feel this is primarily a faceted figure rather than being an ombudsman. Mr. Chairman…

Chair Geschwindner: Any questions for Sabih?

Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering: Sabih, why do you not limit it to tenured faculty rather than just to faculty? You would think it should be a tenured faculty to have the right prestige to do the job.

Sabih I. Hayek: I suspect that was our intent, although we didn't put it there. Can I add that?

Chair Geschwindner: That's up to you.

Sabih I. Hayek: All right, I'd like to accept that as a friendly amendment that will be, "current or emeritus tenured faculty member". Of course, emeritus would mean nothing in a sense, so I would maybe make it, "current tenured or emeritus faculty member."

Chair Geschwindner: So the editorial change is to put the word "tenured" after current on the first page of the report "(a) Eligibility: Current tenured or emeritus faculty member". Any other questions?

Kenneth A. Thigpen, College of the Liberal Arts: Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Arts Caucus and the Liberal Arts Council we are proposing an amendment that I think is friendly but I think it might not be taken that way. That the title actually described is one of a University Ombudsman Coordinator, rather than an ombudsman. So for clarity and truth in advertising, I would propose an amendment to change the title to, "University Ombudsman Coordinator".

Sabih I. Hayek: That title actually was proposed, and we didn't want to include it. It sounded like it alluded to the actual role of the person. We'd rather not include it.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, but that's been made as a formal motion.

Senator: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you. Any questions or comments on changing the title to the University Ombudsman Coordinator?

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I would just like to support that motion. Legislation says the University Ombudsman would not serve in any appeal capacity. The individual would function as a coordinator/facilitator, and I think that title just makes it clear that this is not one more individual to whom a member of the university would go to make an appeal, but someone who's function is different than that.

Sabih I. Hayek: I understand that…

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: Sabih, could you just comment on what the committee's thinking was, why you felt that way?

Sabih I. Hayek: I don't remember, it's been so long. Can anybody help me? I remember this came up and we decided not to add another adjective to the title.

Chair Geschwindner: I think as a member of CC&R--and if any of the officers or any of the other CC&R members want to comment--I think it has to do with just the use of the title, the prestige. University Ombudsman sounds like a reasonably prestigious position. This person should be a prestigious individual, someone that an ombudsman in a college could go to and expect to get high-level information, advice, support, help at interacting with other colleges, when those kinds of issues come up, so the "coordinator" seemed to the committee not to be an appropriate designator. I do believe, personally, that this person will act as an ombudsman but not from a faculty member to an administration, but helping an ombudsman deal with issues. So it’s a different kind of level of resolution solving. It's not your typical faculty member going to go to this person and ask for something to be resolved, but it's for another ombudsman to get some help. I think that's basically where CC&R was coming from when they discussed it. Any other comments or questions? Are you ready for a vote on the motion? All those in favor of the motion to change the title to the "University Ombudsman Coordinator," and we will get it corrected throughout, I'm not going to identify exactly every spot, but it would change that title throughout the document. All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: I believe the opposed have it. Any further discussion on the report? Are you ready for a vote on the report? All those in favor of the report as presented with the word "tenured" added after the word "current" in "(a) Eligibility," signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. The next report is also from the Committee on Committees and Rules. Jamie Myers is here. Sabih do you have any comments on this one?


Revision of Article II: Senate Committee Structure

Sabih I. Hayek, Chair

Sabih I. Hayek: I have no comments. This report was nurtured by Jamie for almost a year now, and it has the approval of Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. Do you want to make any comments on it?

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: It was mainly driven by reorganization of the university in order to maintain faculty oversight of the various athletic programs. I'd be happy to answer any questions?

Chair Geschwindner: Any questions for Jamie or Sabih? I see no questions. Are you ready for the vote? All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. We now move to advisory/consultative reports. We have a report on Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation. The report is given in Appendix "G," and Terry Engelder is here to present the report.



Final Report

Terry Engelder, Chair

Terry Engelder, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Okay, thank you, Lou. As many of you know, and it was indicated earlier to the president of the university, this is an ongoing process, this particular report, that probably has its origins more than 10 years ago. I will mention some of the reports that proceeded this. The Task Force on Faculty Development, this was a John Cahir chaired committee, years and years ago. That was followed by the Task Force on Undergraduate Education. That was a Scott Kretchmar chaired committee. Then Joab Thomas, I believe, appointed a Commission for Undergraduate Education. Madlyn Hanes was the chair of that particular committee. From that came a 1994 report improving the climate for teaching and learning. In the Senate last year, just about a year ago, my committee presented a forensic report from the Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Committee, so I think the first point that I'd like to make in introducing this is that this is an ongoing process that we have arrived at here today, and this just didn't suddenly appear out of the clear blue. I'd certainly like to thank those members of this committee that are in the audience right now. We spent an awful lot of time in heated debate at some times. This was not an easy report to write. I think what I'll do in using the rest of my few minutes here in making an introduction is I'd like to go through with you one recommendation at a time, pointing out some of the comments that have been brought up within the last week, since the Senate Council meeting of about two weeks ago, and this might save some time in bringing this to a resolution. First of all, if you'll turn to recommendation number one, which you'll find on page three, what I want to do is point out some key words here. With recommendation number one, maybe, although not a substantial word it is a key word--the word "available". This was added late in the process, and the reason this word was added is that we're making a series of recommendations that we don't want to be or want to have viewed as prescriptive. This in fact is a series of recommendations for which academic units may volunteer other practices. We weren't even inclusive in this and units may decide some of the practices on this list are not appropriate for their particular unit. Hence the word "available" is very important. We want to make the point that teaching should be a shared activity, and in a sense then this report points to the development of excellent teaching. I think this is sort of the cornerstone of the whole practice, although the report has three components to it: development, evaluation/assessment, and reward. Finally, the question of how do we put these practices in place, is that going to be burdensome? I would answer to that, no. In fact some colleges already have many of these practices in place and are using them very, very effectively. Other colleges or other units might argue, "Well, this is a burden," but in fact you can look at your peers and see that they're not as burdened by this. Recommendation number two: each academic unit or cluster of units shall establish review procedures which ensure a comprehensive, fair, and rigorously applied system for assessing and evaluating teachers. First of all, this list of evaluative or assessment procedures is designed for development. Now I know that a lot of people have looked at that and said, "How is this going to fit into HR-23, for example? How is this going to integrate into the post-tenure review that the president of the university mentioned?" In fact that was not part of our charge, but it would be our hope that people would read this document and draw rather liberally from the way that we envision an assessment of teaching taking place. And I think the important thing here to appreciate is that we acted to try to broaden the scope of the review and we draw information from three sources: the student, the person under review and of course colleagues. And it is true that there will be some interaction between this report when its passed and HR-23. Now if I can read an email message that was sent from Bob Secor last Friday to John Moore, this I think clarifies the process by which this will take place. Bob writes, "The changes related to HR-23, I believe, are to offer some additional guidance for manifesting successful teaching. If the report passes I (Bob, that is) could work on a change in language and pass it by Faculty Affairs and of course in front of the full Senate." So we're not here to debate how this is going to impact directly on HR-23; that will be handled down the line. Now in terms of review--peer review, in particular--many of you, some of you at least, are aware that I'm serving on the university P&T Committee right now and that's an extraordinary reviewing process, and I think it's very important to appreciate that early teacher assessment for the purpose of development feeds very positively into these dossiers in such a way that if there are problems recognized early on they can be remedied, and evidence for that can be presented to the P&T Committee in the dossier. This is a very, very positive practice that has an impact that's very important on these particular dossiers. At the same time, one of the deans sent a message to me, or actually to John and myself, in the past week that I think is relatively important in all this process. In peer review in the past, this dean writes, "Rarely do I find peer reviews helpful in trying to figure out, for example, why a particular faculty member gets lousy SRTEs. Often in these cases the peer reviews are written as if there are no problems," and this is entirely true. When we read through these dossiers, it appears that when peer reviews have been taking place in the past, everyone is out to pat everyone else on the back, and in fact that's not a good developmental practice. We would like to see a situation very early on where the classroom situation, when a teacher is reviewed for the purpose of development, that both the reviewer and the teacher can feel very comfortable that this…it's okay to point out things that can be improved upon rather than saying, "This is all just great".

All right, passing on to the third recommendation, each academic unit or cluster of related units shall clearly articulate its expectation for excellent teaching and institute a system for adequately rewarding demonstrated excellence. Now it's very interesting, we heard the president of the university point out that it's very difficult to demonstrate good public accountability, and one of the things that we learned, or at least I learned, in this whole process in the last year is that it is also very difficult for administrators to account for the good teaching that their faculty do. In fact, I heard over and over and over again my colleagues complain that their good teaching was not rewarded, and in fact most administrators do come from the faculty, and I'm sure that they have a very honest view of good teaching and an attempt to reward it. But I think that the paradox of all of this is that the message is not coming across, and in fact it seems that it's not coming across when administrators speak to the public on the outside, and it's not coming across in the other direction. So this recommendation three was an attempt to give the administrators a bit of a mechanism for demonstrating to their faculty that their good and excellent teaching in the classroom was valued.

Finally, recommendation number four, each academic unit or cluster of related units shall take the steps required to achieve multi-dimensional excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service. I think the one important point to remember here is that we point to the academic units to be held responsible for this multi-dimensional excellence. This does not put the burden on the shoulders of the individual faculty members. Here we recognized that faculty careers evolve with time and should be rewarded accordingly. Now, having done that, we have one suggested change in wording, one word I would like to put forth. The word comes on page four under "opportunities for sharing teacher portfolios." You'll see there's a list of five items that should be included in the portfolio. Look under item number five. It says, "To write a statement about one's personal teaching philosophy." I think that we would like to change that. "To write a statement about one's personal teaching practices," and that's the only change at least until we open the floor up, and I think we ought to do that at this point.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, comments or questions?

Annette K. McGregor, College of Arts and Architecture: I just have a semantic question on page 8, point number one, about nature and amount of awards. The last sentence reads, "Committee recommends awards of up to at least $5000".

Terry Engelder: Yes, that was another change that we wanted to make. I believe that if we said, "up to $5000," we would be just fine, and let's make that change and…Do we accept that as a friendly amendment or just a change?

Chair Geschwindner: Just go right ahead and change that.

Terry Engelder: Yes, that's a change. That, absolutely, in fact, there it is in yellow. I just forgot it.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions?

David Kayal, Student Senator, Division of Undergraduate Studies: I just wanted to comment that I think that these recommendations are excellent and I'm going to be very happy to read this. I feel that the university and faculty do care about teaching their undergraduate students and care about developing excellence in teachers. I just was very happy with this.

Terry Engelder: I appreciate that, thanks.

William C. Ellis: Just very briefly, why does President Spanier not know about this report?

Chair Geschwindner: I think President Spanier does know about the report; in fact, we talked about it at FAC. I think the problem he was having is the same one I was having, is trying to link the two different reports that you were asking a question about and not quite understanding how they were linked. At least I have that problem, and I assume that was his problem. But he does know about the report, he has seen the report, and we specifically talked about the issues associated with the report at the last FAC meeting.

P. Peter Rebane: On the surface, of course, you are likely to see teaching and assessment are the same, and certainly it's very hard to argue anytime against anything that reports to make us better teachers. On the other hand I think that the committee's answer that this is not going to really cost anything in time and so on--and, after all, there are units who do this and everything is very fine with them--it's kind of anecdotal, and I haven't really seen any proof that there are really things that work better. I have a couple of questions--my good friend and colleague Carey Eckhardt also has been a linguist here for a number of years--and if I look at Appendix "G," page 7, under information from students, do we really need this category of information "shall" include things, required evidence "shall" include the data, that our other methods for assessing teaching "shall" include one more of the following, and--I must admit my ignorance--but I really don't know what it means in addition to the proceeding two categories, "units may choose to add evidence from other evaluation instruments with known psychometric properties." It does seem to me that this is not simply a, "let’s accept some guiding master principle of Buddha that somehow enlightenment will come to us." This contains quite a bit of "shalls"--you "shall" do this, you "shall" do it, we "shall" be responsible, there "shall" be communication and discussion between faculty members about each others teaching portfolios etc., etc. It seems to me that, while well-intentioned, to brush off the idea that this is some miniscule adjustment in what people do, I'm not quite so sure of that, and I'm also a little bit bothered by the fact--perhaps it's because of the way it was set up on the web--that this information was available to most Senators, at least non-University Park Senators, a very short time before this came up for the vote. At least at the Abington Center my constituents expressed a discomfort over having to get this a few days before it was voted upon, and I feel, myself, as their representative, I've had very little time to disseminate this information to my constituency at large. I think that it's not an off-the-cuff small adjustment type of proposal. I think it will require many units, faculty members, and a revamping of methods of instruments of measuring teaching, and if you add to this the upcoming proposal about three-member peer reviews for extended tenure proposals, we're talking (at least for the units that contain relatively few faculty) quite a bit of extra work: sitting on teaching committees, being in classrooms, doing our portfolios. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this particular report--and I don't know how you want to do it--be tabled, so that I, at least, and I think some of my colleagues, have a little bit more time to pass this on to our constituents and let them look at it and let them give me some feedback on whether they think that this is really merely a fine tuning or, what we're doing right now, whether it will really involve a large scale reworking of the whole system under which we operate currently. I'd like to move that this report be tabled, which means that it will be taken up at the next meeting. I would really like to have some more input from my faculty on this.

Chair Geschwindner: Is there a second to that motion?

Senator: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Report's tabled. Thank you, Terry. Tabled to the next meeting, yes. That was the motion, tabled to the next meeting. Our next report is an informational report. Notice that I changed the order as mentioned earlier in the meeting.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: We didn't discuss the motion…

Chair Geschwindner: No, we didn't. I called for a vote and no one challenged it, so the vote passed. I treated it as a motion to table, which is non-debatable, although since it was not really tabled it was postponed to another date. It should have been discussible, but since I called for the vote and no one raised an objection, and we voted and it passed, I think that should stand. Now do you folks want to overrule it? We can have a motion to overrule it; that's fine with me. I don't happen to think it was a smart move, but that's beside the point. Is there a motion to overrule the chair? Hearing none we'll move on to the informational report, Libraries and Research, the Economic Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications: Implications for Scholars, Libraries, and University Presses. Felix Lukezic will present the speakers, and Felix is probably the only one who can just take a normal step and arrive on stage.



Economic Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications: Implications for Scholars, Libraries, and University Presses

Felix L. Lukezic, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries

Ernest W. Johnson, Senate Committee on Research

Felix Lukezic, College of Agricultural Sciences: Thank you, Lou. Over the past several years there have been many changes taking place in scholarly publishing and scholarly communications. At the February 3 Senate meeting we heard President Spanier speak about the problems resulting from the book and journal publishers selling back to universities information generated in the universities, at a high cost. We also heard from Bonnie MacEwan the effect of the high cost that these same publications were having on restricted acquisitions. These changes have had a serious impact on the scholars, university libraries, and university presses. In this report we'll focus on three areas. Nancy L. Eaton, who is our new dean of the university libraries, will present the challenges to Penn State as recently brought on by the economic trends in publishing, mergers in the publishing industry, copyright laws, licensing of electronic information, and changing roles of librarians in the libraries. Sanford G. Thatcher, Director of the Penn State University Press, will present information on changes in the support that have compelled university presses to operate more like a commercial enterprise then ever before. In fact, these factors are forcing university presses to not accept scholarly work unless it has a high market potential. Gloriana St. Clair, who is associate dean and head of information access services at university libraries today--tomorrow she has a new assignment--will summarize the different scenes for the revising of scholarly communications that were presented at a recent conference in the future of scholarly communication. Finally, Mark Munn, Assistant Professor of History, will provide comments on these and related issues from his perspective as a junior faculty member. Each of the speakers will summarize the information which is given to you and then they'll respond to questions from the floor. So, first will be Dean Eaton.

Nancy L. Eaton, University Libraries: Good afternoon. Since you have the report before you, I just want to highlight the major points in my section. What I tried to do was to broaden this discussion from the February meeting, where you heard from the president and from Bonnie MacEwan, primarily around pricing issues to the three really large scale economic trends effecting scholarly communication. The first, of course, being inflation which continues to be double-digit and shows no sign of abating even after about 15 years. The second has to do with the mergers of publishers and the purchase by conglomerates so that it's becoming much more of a for-profit industry. For instance, I just looked at the Ellsiver list and there are some 31 publishers that are actually under the Ellsiver umbrella. You would find the same thing with Thompson International or Kluwer, which is a European conglomerate, and very few of the American publishers are owned by Americans anymore. We have in fact allowed our publishing industry to migrate overseas, which is a national issue that has not been recognized. I talked to a consultant in the information industry recently and from a recent report he indicates that the profit margins for these publishers in science, technology and medicine--now ranges from 40 to 55 percent. By comparison a not-for-profit publisher would be in the four to six percent range. The second major trend is the impact of technology--information technology is not an option, we have no choice but to integrate it into libraries. Much of the information we get is now only in electronic form and its increasingly a part of our new delivery and instruction systems, as we integrate it within distance learning modes. Those costs are on top of the costs we're already dealing with in the more traditional publishing. Finally, we have new efforts to change the copyright and licensing laws. There are both national and international efforts. There have been bills before Congress in the last two years and there are new bills in the current Congress. Most of those are being motivated by interests of the entertainment industry and software companies who are dealing with the issues of billions of dollars of loss by piracy. Higher education is not going to fare well in this, given that we do not have the deep pockets for lawyers that those industries have. Clearly the current economic model is not going to survive for scholarly publishing and we need to be looking at ways of changing it so that it benefits our own purposes and we need to be working collectively--faculty, librarians and administrators--in seeking new economic models, and you'll hear more details from the other speakers.

Felix Lukezic: Are there any questions for Nancy?

Sanford G. Thatcher, Penn State University Press: The particular plight of university presses was brought home to me in pretty strong fashion last week when it was announced that the University of Arkansas press was closed down. It's new chancellor, who'd been on the job for six months, decided that this was one place they could save money, so he decided to close the press down and use its subsidy to help the library buy more books. This is an example of the kinds of interdependencies I think need to be examined more in the whole world of academia. As I tried to point out in my written presentation, if you understand the whole history of scholarly publishing based in universities, you understand that it grew up in the first place because the market itself did not support the kinds of publications that people in universities were churning out from their research. As it happened, in the wake of World War II, what now probably appears to be an exception to the rule for academic publishing arose when some commercial entrepreneurs found it actually profitable to engage in publishing in the scientific, technical and medical fields. Now we're at a point in time, with the challenges from new technologies entering into the whole mix, where the future of that sort of publishing in the commercial world is really up for grabs and commercial publishers themselves don't know where it's all going to come out for them. So it may well be that that particular type of publishing itself will revert to universities to do themselves in one way or another as best they can. What I hoped to impress upon you from my written presentation is that you really need to see how different parts of the system interact. It's very clear what the effect of the price increases of STM journals have been on the abilities of the university presses to publish in the liberal arts and to publish in books in particular, because the decisions made by libraries forced upon them with their own budget decisions have had a clear impact on our ability to publish books in liberal arts. That's one interdependency, but there are many more that are working all the time. Another one I pointed out in my presentation was that it's people who use course packs in their teaching--that's become a very prevalent practice--are actually, to the extent that they're not paying permission fees, eroding the paperback market now, which is the other pillar for university press publishing. So if you can't sell books to libraries and you can't sell paperbacks to teachers, then you don't have a business, essentially. So there are those interdependencies. Another interdependency which is looming soon--and the university has just set up a committee to deal with it--is the question of electronic dissertations. If dissertations are put on-line, that may indeed have effects on the ability of junior scholars to publish their first books based on dissertations, so those questions have to be examined very carefully. There are also questions about the way in which distance learning technologies and learning packages will be developed, because that's another example where, if the universities themselves act in certain ways, they may repeat the problem that occurred in the STM field, where commercial publishers stepped in, found a profitable enterprise, and took the business away from universities and then charged the universities back at high cost for using things that they originated themselves. So there are a lot of these questions that need to be looked at very carefully and different parts of the university really need to come together to examine them in a systematic way. I just wanted to close with a quote from the forward to a major report that was put out in 1979 from the National Inquiry into Scholarly Communication, which was a five year study funded by the Mellon Foundation, Ford Foundation, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies and a lot of other groups, and it really put its finger on the whole problem. "During the period of the inquiry we came to realize more clearly than any of us had earlier realized the truth of one axiom: the various constituencies involved in scholarly communication, the scholars themselves, the publishers of books and learned journals, research librarians, the learned societies are all components of a single system and are thus fundamentally dependent on each other. Moreover, we found that the single system and all its parts is highly sensitive to influence from two outside factors: the actions of the funding agencies and the developments of the new technologies. Given this interdependence among the various components and influences within the system for scholarly communication, it follows that the numerous problems which the system faces can be effectively solved only if individuals working within one part of the system are fully mindful of the other parts before decisions are taken. What is called for, therefore, is markedly increased consultation among the leaders in the various components and influences. Let us hope that ways can be found to make such give and take a regular practice in the process of decision making." And I take what we're doing here today as at least a first step in that direction.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any questions?

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: Just a couple follow-ups to a question on this the last time this was discussed. Do you think that it’s a realistic possibility that some of us in professional associations, like the one I'm in, that if we move the journals to an annual and that annual is published by university press, does that kind of a move really hold any potential for addressing some of these concerns, or do you see that as too small a scale?

Sanford G. Thatcher: What it does is shift the burden from one part of the system to another, and that's part of the things we need to explore. Because if one cost is absorbed by one part of the university, then you decided to shift to somewhere else, you have to see what the interactive effects of that are for the university as a whole. And effectively what's been going on is, the libraries have been carrying a huge burden for themselves and for the university as a whole, and if we make changes about that then other things are going to be effected and so on. The role of learned societies in publishing is another aspect of it, and it's one of things that Mark Munn had addressed about what the role in certifying things should be. I think that's another…we really need to look at all these things together, and I should tell you that I'm on a planning committee to have a follow-up conference to the conference we had in Washington last September, which was about the future of the scholarly monograph, and this again would be jointly sponsored by the University Press Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the American Council of Learned Societies. What we're going to try and do is focus in on some of the issues that were raised in the Caltech conference that Gloriana St. Clair summarizes.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Anything else?

Gloriana St. Clair, University Libraries: It does seem like quite a hopeless scenario, but last spring I gathered together with a lot of people at the California Institute of Technology to talk about this problem and to seek a solution. I've attended many gatherings like this before, but I've never been at one where we really came up with a plan, as we did last spring. The people who were there were provosts, computer people, faculty like yourselves, scholarly society leaders, librarians, all of us from the American Association of Universities' institutions. The plan we came up with consists of really three parts. The first is that the certification of scholarly work should be decoupled from print publication. The other two--I'm going to talk a lot more about that or a very short bit more about that--but the other two ideas may necessitate the scholarly societies re-conceptualizing their income stream. And in order to do that they may have to look at some different alternatives, because they derive a lot of revenues from print publication. The third idea was that someone needs to be responsible for archiving in this environment. And the general consensus was that librarians--university librarians--are the people that everyone trusts the most. No one really trusts those commercial publishers to do this kind of thing. The point of the plan is to free us from what I have called the tyranny of foreign publishers, which Nancy very clearly defined for you when she told you that they make 40 to 55 percent profits. That's pretty tyrannical, in my opinion. All of you as members of the scholarly community place an extraordinary value on the refereeing process. Through refereeing, articles receive the critical attention of peers in their field. Shortcomings are identified and can be remedied, and the quality of the scholarly discourse in the discipline is assured. All the participants at this conference believed that refereeing was the core process of scholarly and scientific communications. They did, however, believe that it could be separated from print publication. They thought that articles could receive the discipline imprimatur and then they could be mounted on the World Wide Web and made available to the whole scholarly community through that mechanism. All the members of the scholarly community, including all those involved in the promotion and tenure processes, which we've discussed regularly here today, would have to accept that discipline certification in lieu of the print publication. I, as many of you do, find myself caught here between two worlds and between two sets of competing goods. Many of us see that it would be good to move to an electronic system that maintains peer reviewing and the quality assurances of the paper system. Many of us desire the added convenience, and in fact the greatly increased speed of an electronic system. At the same time, scholars, many of you at least, do not see this as being a difficult situation. You don't pay the bills that go up in double digits every year. The library takes care of that for you. Learned societies, as we've discussed, often use those profits to support all their other programs. Many of you, as scholars--all of you, as scholars, I would say--understand print publication. You know the relative prestige of the journals in your field, and you're content with your positions as contributors, as referees, as gatekeepers. Nevertheless, many of us believe that libraries in this current paradigm cannot and will not survive. They tell us that knowledge is doubling every two to three years and that with knowledge doubling and prices increasing at 10 percent, or three times the consumer price index, libraries will be buying only a fraction of what we have been buying in the past. Library copies of journals will simply cease to exist. Many of you as faculty have your own copies of key journals in your field; students do not have those copies. Teaching and research as we know it and practice it today will essentially disappear. We need a major reform. Faculty must begin this process of reform. Faculty must design refereeing processes that meet their needs for ensuring quality. Faculty participating in promotion and tenure committees and as editors and referees must actively endorse electronic alternatives. Only faculty can decouple certification from print publication, and only faculty can save the system of scientific and scholarly communications. Thank you.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any questions for Gloriana?

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg: This is probably not a question. Maybe I'm missing something else. It seems to me that there are two problems here. One is that the cost of the journals have gone up because foreign publishers have raised prices and are making lots of money, which means the libraries don't have enough money to buy books and the university presses aren't selling any books. Why don't the university presses just publish journals and make all this money?

Gloriana St. Clair: Well, that's really a question for Sandy. Many university presses do publish journals, but most do not. It's a fairly--in the print environment--has been a fairly sophisticated business, and by the time, I think--and Sandy will correct me if I'm wrong--that when many presses were beginning to think of getting into the business, the costs were quite high. Now in the electronic environment we have an opportunity to go in without the high set up costs that we had a few years ago.

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: What about if you go to the electronic environment as was recommended. How did you deal with intellectual property issues like copyright? I think its doable but was that addressed at all?

Gloriana St. Clair: Yes, we did talk about that at the conference because we had seen the possibility of changing the copyright laws as being an alternative. In the end, we decided that the copyright laws really didn't need to be changed. All of us, as scholars, our intention really is to share the work that we do. We do this because we want to support teaching and research, not only in our own universities but around the world. So we want to share and we get our rewards, not from payment, because we give the information to the foreign publishers, but we get our rewards from the gaining recognition--the added recognition--that we get as scholars.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Other questions?

Richard B. Englund, Penn State Erie - The Behrend College: Curiosity: is there anyone who is already doing this, or did you say and maybe I missed it? Is there a prototype for this electronic journal out there somewhere in some field?

Gloriana St. Clair: Yes there are several prototypes. There are prototypes in almost every field. At the conference there was a journal in the computer science field that has always been electronic, and it is very successful and follows these. We also have a journal-like publication in librarianship that is published in this way, and I know other people in the room could speak up and talk of others. The American Physical Society was very well represented there. They have an electronic publication. The Mathematical Society is very forward-looking in this regard, and they're really moving quickly into the electronic environment. There are a lot of promising projects.

Sanford G. Thatcher: I wanted to respond to all three questions. On whether university presses engaged in science journal publishing--yes, they have. Right from the beginning they collectively put out 800 journals, about 20 percent of which are in the sciences, but they tend to be theoretical, as applied science journals. The reason university presses have not become more involved is simply because we don't have the capital to invest that the commercial and entrepreneurial have. And they launched in the 1980's alone 30,000 new STM journals. But you can see that the magnitude of what is out there to challenge university presses, which are generally under funded and don't have endowments and don't have capital to go out and invest in these things. This is what we're up against. The question about copyright is a complicated one, because there again the interdependencies come into play. If you change copyright laws to favor more fair use, then if it's not in a certain way you can also undercut the publishing university presses do. So you have to take that into consideration when you're doing it. You have to look at the whole picture, the way the various parts of it interact. And so, if you really look at that--also along the costs of electronic publishing, at the conclusion of the conference on scholarly monograph in Washington from the various experts assembled there--we said we're really ultimately not going to save a lot of money in electronic publishing. You may have added costs, in fact, and what you need to do again there is analyze where the costs are shifting. If the costs are done by a faculty member using various university resources and his or her own time, that's a cost to the system as a whole, because that faculty member is not spending time doing something else. So you need to look at those costs and put a figure on them, because they are generally not looked at in that way now as actual cost. They're just hidden in the system.

Gloriana St. Clair: My recollection from the monographs conference is that many of the publishers told us they would save 20 to 30 percent. If we could save 20 to 30 percent and save ourselves the 10 percent increase every year, we would certainly be a lot better off.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Other questions or comments? Bob Price?

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: I think there is a touch of distortion here that comes from perhaps the interest in STM's. There are many fields in which one would almost gladly lose the last five years journals, except for the fact of evaluation purposes. If we had really secure access to the last 55 years--because it's really back volumes that are of interest to many people working in cultural areas--the very current work gets passed on through the back door by the people who are doing it to the people who are interested in it. If there were ways to begin to accumulate electronic back lists rather than recent lists--if there were ways of putting money into maintaining the research from five years ago to 105 years ago--that would be worth a great deal.

Gloriana St. Clair: That was exactly the proposal that project J-Store, which we subscribe to, and which you can get from your office, set out to address, and I think they did a very good job of addressing it. Project Mews, which focuses a little more on the humanities project--J-Store focused on economics--also did work in those fact files where the economic value of information is perceived to be less and there are fewer barriers to putting it up electronically.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Shall we move to our last speaker?

Mark H. Munn, College of the Liberal Arts: Well, I was asked to respond to this array of alarming pronouncements and rejections from the perspective of a faculty member. It's on that subject that I want to begin and make a few, actually three, observations that emerge out of the written report that you have in front of you. They all center around the issue that we as faculty members are in, I think, a unique and a uniquely significant position in this whole constellation. As both producers of the intellectual property of the scholarship and as consumers of it, in all respects, we must realize that and be active in pursuing the interests that we have on both ends of that scale. And we must also keep in mind something that President Spanier said in another context a little earlier this afternoon, and that is that it never does a university any good if aspects that affect university governance, scholarship, and the like are vested in external agencies. With that in mind, I want to touch upon three points that are laid out in somewhat more detail in my written report. The first is that I believe that the issue is, especially as it effects peer review in the changing nature of information with electronic publications, increasingly common. The nature of peer review, which has been addressed here by the preceding speakers, is not fundamentally different now then it was before electronic media were an issue. I think we really have to recognize that, and it's an important feature of doing something to remedy some of the economic hardships that certain commercial monopolies have worked upon us. To not have a resistance to new media, to be ready to work actively to make new media count intellectually, scholastically, as appropriate outlets for scholarship--that's my first point. The medium really is a secondary issue, and when transportation took to the air it did not put the wheel out of business. These things are additive, and many of the same considerations come into play.

The second is basically building on what I've said, and that is that we as faculty to make this process work to our benefit must take an active interest in it, and in particular, as far as creating new outlets for publication--which is really the only way that we can begin to work to bring about, I think only gradually, an effect that is beneficial to libraries and to ourselves as consumers of intellectual material, and that is reducing the cost, especially the cost in some of those fields which have a monopolistic hold on the outlets of scholarship--is to promote plurality of outlets, promote the creation of new outlets. Which means not that we begin having a resistive attitude towards sanctioning or turning to publications only on an approved list, which merely perpetuates the hold on the organs of prestige that at least in some fields, some commercial interests have become very adept at controlling to their advantage. It's in our advantage to promote plurality, but that means working very hard for us to identify and to sanction, in promotion and tenure decisions and otherwise, the validity of good scholarship regardless of what means it appears in.

My third point is a specific proposal which brings these together in some respects, and this is an outgrowth of recognition, that different fields have different ways of encouraging or helping especially junior faculty getting off the ground in their respective fields. In my area of Liberal Arts this typically comes in the form--what people in Liberal Arts need most of all and that is time--of time release from teaching or other obligations in order to develop your research. Other fields have different criteria that are viewed as helpful. Other means of scholarly publications have different traditions of requirements that are made. There are some journals that have page fees, or there are some sort of fees that must be paid up front. What I'd like to suggest is thinking along ways of making these incentives--at the beginnings, especially, of scholarly careers--effective and responsive to some of these issues that are facing libraries and presses. And to act in a way that helps to mitigate the rising costs in some of these areas is also to recognize that economic forces have distorted at present some of the forms of publication and the ways in which certain kinds of scholarship can find an outlet and other kinds of scholarship which are meritorious but simply are not economically viable, and in this respect I can cite--or Sandy Thatcher could probably better cite--examples of award-winning books that have received the imprimatur of their disciplines in a variety of ways but are absolutely economic disasters for publication. And presses increasingly--academic presses as well--are moving away from these. If we can offset that disadvantage to some degree and make it part of academic culture more commonly to make a grant, devoted to publication, especially to the first major publication or a set of journal articles, whatever it is in a respective field--available as often perhaps as part of a hiring policy--that this would be a way. If there is a possibility of infusing funds from whatever source into the system, I would propose that we should think seriously about this. There are other ways that one would think about mitigating the system through injecting funds. You could obviously increase library budgets or you could increase the spending to university presses. I'd like to propose, though, putting the money behind the scholarship--especially scholarship upon which we as faculty have already made decisions. We've evaluated the colleagues that we value and whose work we look forward to seeing develop. Let us then put our money, as it were, where our decisions have already been made and use some sort of incentive system like this as a way of--if you want to call it an incentive or grant system--as a way of offsetting the commercial distortions that work on the field. This would not be a way of buying prestige. It would not be a way of getting an avenue towards vanity publication because we, again, as faculty have to apply the same critical standards to the work that gets produced. We have to make sure that it passes peer review by the same standards that any other work does or has in the past, and different disciplines, different fields will certainly approach this--want to approach this--differently. It might be most appropriate that departments make the decisions as to allocate such resources if they were to be made available. As one idea, it might well be that decisions about where such funds would be put in support of which work could be done in collaboration both with the faculty member who is producing the scholarship and an appropriate committee of their department who take a step towards assuring that this money is going towards some outlet which does meet certain standards of peer review. This would make us at many different levels more accountable to our colleagues, to ourselves, to the evaluation procedures that go into promotion and tenure, and force us to not rely upon established traditions of journals that have been there ever since World War II or the rise of STM funding or whatever it may be. But to look at who is on the editorial board, who is actually involved in the review processes, and what is the actual living dynamic of whatever organ of publication is available out there, irrespective of its long and prestigious history, we have to be ready to divide prestige and reassign it elsewhere as organs merit and as scholarship merits and not rest on our laurels or anyone else's.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Professor Munn? Thank you all for staying through all of that very important report, but it is getting late and warm, and for those of you who just looked up here for the first time in 20 minutes, Lou did not shrink. We now come to our nominating committee reports. We have two such reports. Both will be presented by Senate Secretary Veronica Burns Lucas, and while she makes her way to the front, I have recently heard a rumor that in light of the Penn State professor who is going on the space shuttle and the Penn State course that's being taught through that, Jim Ryan has recently issued a major report entitled "Beyond the World Campus".


Report of Nominating Committee 1998-99

Veronica Burns Lucas, Secretary, University Faculty Senate

Veronica Burns Lucas, College of Arts & Architecture: Quickly I will try to get through this. Appendices "H" and "K" in your Senate Agenda contain the reports of the nominating committees for 1998-99. 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 also met as a nominating committee 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 Len Berkowitz will call for nominations from the floor for each of those positions.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Before you volunteer any additions to the slates, may I remind you that you will need to have the permission of the person whom you'd like to add to that slate so we know they're willing to run.

Veronica Burns Lucas: The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with three (3) to be elected with two-year terms. The seven nominees are: John Beard, Health and Human Development, UP; Eric Bond, Liberal Arts, UP; Thomas Daubert, Engineering, UP; James Johnson, Education, UP; David Jonassen, Education, UP; Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Medicine, Hershey; and Adam Sorkin, Liberal Arts, Commonwealth College, Delaware Campus.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, a three-year term. Two (2) will be elected; one member and one alternate. There are four nominees for these positions: Lynn Carpenter, Engineering, UP; Peter Deines, Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP; Deborah Medeiros, Engineering, UP; and John Stevens, Business Administration, UP.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, these nominees are split into three categories: faculty positions from University Park, faculty positions from locations other than University Park, and deans. Of the faculty from University Park nominees, two (2) are to be elected; one member and one alternate with terms to expire in the year 2001. The four nominees for these positions are: Stephen Beckerman from Liberal Arts; Gary Fosmire from Health and Human Development; Aaron Gresson from Education; and Edward Keynes from Liberal Arts.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: Faculty other than University Park locations. One (1) to be elected with a term to expire in the year 2001. There are two nominees: Priscilla Clement from the Delaware Campus and Linda Itzoe from the York Campus.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: For this same committee, deans. Two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with terms to expire in the year 2001. The four nominees are: Terri Brooks, Communications; Nancy Eaton, University Libraries; Robert Steele, Agricultural Sciences; and Joseph Strasser, Commonwealth College.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: Nominations coming from the Senate Council then include the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. One person will be elected for a three-year term to expire in the year 2001. The three nominees are: Eunice Askov, Education, UP; Peter Deines, Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP; and Gordon De Jong, Liberal Arts, UP.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? Yes…

Nancy J. Wyatt, Delaware Campus: I nominate Veronica Burns Lucas.

Veronica Burns Lucas: Thank you. I accept your nomination.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: For the Office of Secretary of the Senate, we have three nominees from the Nominating Committee. First is: Donald Fahnline, Science, Altoona College; Felix Lukezic, Agricultural Sciences, UP; and Kenneth Thigpen, Liberal Arts, UP.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additions from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Veronica Burns Lucas: For Chair-Elect of the Senate, the three nominees are: Jacob De Rooy, Business Administration, Penn State Harrisburg; Dennis Gouran, Liberal Arts, UP; and Murry Nelson, Education, UP.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Are there any additional nominations from the floor? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: Thank you very much. We do need a vote to accept the slate as its been proposed and added to.

Senators: So moved.

Senators: Second.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: All in favor say "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: All opposed? Thank you, we've accomplished that.


Roster of Senators for 1998-99

Chair-Elect Berkowitz: This report is for your information. If you find discrepancies within your voting unit, please contact the Senate Office.






May I have a motion to adjourn? The March 31, 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:20 PM.


Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 20, 1998

Committees and Rules - Student Membership on Senate (Legislative)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Articulation Agreements (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Establishment of a new position University Ombudsman (Legislative)

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

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - Final Report (Advisory/Consultative)

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 1998-99 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities; Standing Joint Committee on Tenure; and University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Elections Commission - Roster of Senators for 1998-99 (Informational)

Libraries/Research - Economic Crisis and Paradigm Changes in Scholarly Publications: Implications for Scholars, Libraries, and University Presses (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 1998-99 - Senate Officers -Chair-Elect; Senate Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)




Articulation Agreements


[Implementation Date: Upon Passage by the Senate]


Over the years, Penn State has entered into numerous articulation agreements, principally involving 3-2 programs in the College of Engineering. A summary of the current articulation agreements that are in effect is provided in Table A of Appendix A. With the reorganization of the Commonwealth Educational System, new college units were formed and they were encouraged to explore establishing articulation agreements.

Table A also lists those articulation agreements that are reported by colleges/campuses as being currently under consideration. There has not been, however, any Senate-advised

policy to guide the development, implementation and maintenance of these articulation agreements. Due to this recent interest in exploring new articulation agreements throughout the University, the Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid (ARSSA) believes that there is a need for a uniform University-wide policy concerning articulation agreements.


Articulation agreements bypass normal admission procedures and are generally understood to involve agreements between some Penn State program and some non-Penn State educational program or location. Such agreements might be to admit students from the non-Penn State location if some pre-specified stipulations are met, to agree to transfer courses in a block, or otherwise to encourage movement from the other program to Penn State.

Articulation agreements should be viewed as a component of Penn State's academic advising system. There is a multitude of reasons for why a student might begin his/her college studies at some non-Penn State location and then complete them by earning a Penn State degree. The articulation agreement provides a procedure for these students, including an outline of the most appropriate courses to schedule, to pursue a plan to matriculate at Penn State and complete a Penn State degree program. It is one of the University's programs that provide access to a Penn State education at any stage of a student's post-secondary education.

At the same time, articulation agreements must also serve the best interests of all members of the University community. Most importantly, the agreements must acknowledge those students who chose to start their college studies at Penn State.

Students admitted to one of the University's academic programs through an articulation agreement must be held to equivalent, if not higher, entrance and admission requirements as are in effect for Penn State matriculated students.

The following is proposed to guide the development of articulation agreements between Penn State and other colleges and universities that are consistent throughout the University and equitable to all the constituents, both within and outside the University.


The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid recommends that the following becomes the articulation agreement policy for The Pennsylvania State University.

1. The Executive Vice President and Provost is the University

officer responsible for administratively authorizing,

extending, or terminating articulation agreements with other

academic institutions relating to the admission, curricular

offerings, enrollments, or awarding of degrees for academic

programs and students at all college and campus locations.

2. Academic deans may propose to enter into, extend, or

terminate articulation agreements with external institutions

and agencies or with graduate and professional units within

the University.

3. Proposals are to be developed after consultations with

appropriate academic and administrative officers within the

University, including other deans and appropriate faculty.

4. When an agreement is proposed with an institution that is

located within the geographic service area of a Penn State

campus, the dean/CEO of that campus must be consulted before

an agreement is finalized. An articulation agreement should

not have a negative impact on any Penn State program or

campus in terms of enrollment.

5. Whenever appropriate, articulation agreements shall include

the provision for multiple campuses and colleges of the

University to participate in the agreement.

6. All academic and administrative policies of the University will

be honored in the proposed articulation agreement. This

includes, but is not limited to, Policy 42-82, Credit by

Transfer from Other Institutions-Accredited U.S. Institutions,

which stipulates that course work completed at an accredited

college or university may be evaluated for transfer credit if

passed with a grade equivalent to A, B, or C at this University

and useful to the candidate's program of study at this

University. As such, if an articulation agreement is using a

block grant approach, only courses with a C or better will

become a part of the student's Penn State academic record.

An articulation agreement should not have a negative impact

on any Penn State program or campus in terms of academic


7. When a student is admitted to the University through an

articulation agreement, the entrance and admission

requirements for enrollment in a college and entrance to a

major will be no less than those in effect at the time for

Penn State matriculated students.

8. The Undergraduate Admissions Office will evaluate the

application and scholastic credentials for students seeking

undergraduate entry to the University through an articulation


9. Articulation agreements involving undergraduate students

shall be subject to a review by ARSSA before being authorized

by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Articulation

agreements involving graduate students shall be subject to a

review by the Graduate Council before being authorized by the

Executive Vice President and Provost.

10. Once established, articulation agreements should be reviewed

periodically for viability by the sponsoring unit, approximately

every five years.

11. A register of authorized articulation agreements will be

maintained by the Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment

Management and Administration.

12. Articulation agreements authorized prior to the approval and

implementation of these recommendations shall be reviewed

and, if necessary, modified to ensure that they are in accord

with this policy.


1. All requests for establishing, renewing, or terminating

articulation agreements are forwarded to the Vice Provost and

Dean for Enrollment Management and Administration. The

Dean sponsoring the articulation agreement includes the proposal

and supporting documentation, as well as recommendations

resulting from consultations with other units of Penn State.

2. Proposals are reviewed in terms of:

a) Rationale for the proposed articulation agreement.

b) Description of how the agreement may be renewed or


c) Estimate of the number of students transferring to Penn

State annually.

d) Admission requirements and transfer of academic credits.

e) Advising and special services at both the non-Penn State

location and at Penn State, if appropriate.

f) Impact of the agreement, if any, on other programs,

colleges and campuses of the University, including evidence

of consultation within Penn State.

3. The Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and

Administration forwards the proposal to ARSSA or the Graduate

Council for a review and recommendation.

4. The Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and

Administration forwards a recommendation to the Executive Vice

President and Provost for final authorization.


It seems prudent to develop a uniform articulation agreement policy for the multiple campuses and colleges of the University that seek to establish such agreements. The proposed policy assures, through an adequate consultation procedure, that the articulation agreement will serve the best interests of all campuses and colleges. An articulation agreement should not have a negative impact on any Penn State program or campus in terms of enrollment or academic quality but should be made from the perspective that it will enhance the University. A single articulation agreement policy will serve to ensure that such agreements are developed and administered in a consistent manner across the many academic units of the University.


Ingrid Blood
Dennis D. Calvin
Lynn E. Drafall
Peter D. Georgopulos
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
David Kayal
Frank Kristine, Chair
Rajen Mookerjee
James W. Robinson, Vice-Chair
John J. Romano
David E. Roth
Daniel J. Royse
J. James Wager
Christine A. White



Establishment of a new position

University Ombudsman


[Implementation Date: Upon Passage by the Senate]


Since 1973 each college and campus within Penn State has had an ombudsman whose role is set forth in HR-76, Selection and Responsibilities of Ombudsmen. For the most part, these 33 ombudsmen have functioned effectively over the years to assist in the informal resolution of differences and to serve as conciliators and advisors. In most instances the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will not address a case until a local ombudsman has first addressed it. The Vice-Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has served as the unofficial coordinator of the Ombudsmen, and the Faculty Affairs Committee has sponsored a biennial workshop for them. In some instances the Executive Secretary of the Senate has served as a conduit of information for the Ombudsmen and as an unofficial contact person.

The Committee on Committees and Rules reviewed the current ad hoc approach to this coordination and training of the ombudsmen. Realizing the potentially crucial role that these individuals play in attempting to resolve conflicts at an early stage, the committee has concluded that more consistent and institutionalized coordination of the ombudsmen is warranted. Consequently, the Committee proposes the creation of a new position, University Ombudsman. This individual would function as a coordinator/facilitator and clearinghouse of information for the other ombudsmen. The University Ombudsman would be responsible for the biennial workshops and would be the university-level contact person for the other ombudsmen. As such, he/she would maintain liaison with the Provost’s Office, the Office of Human Resources, the Senate Office, and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. The University Ombudsman would report to the Senate through the Senate Council. The University Ombudsman would not serve in any appeal capacity.


Recommendation 1:

Amend the Standing Rules, Article III, Other Functions of the Senate, by the addition of a new Section 9:

University Ombudsman:

(a) Eligibility: Current tenured or emeritus faculty member.

  1. Election: By the Senate Council for a term of four (4) years (renewable). While University Ombudsman, the incumbent may not serve on the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, or the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.

(c) Duties: The University Ombudsman shall coordinate the training of all college and campus ombudsmen; shall provide for the appropriate dissemination of information among the various college and campus ombudsmen; and shall be the university-level contact for the various college and campus ombudsmen. The University Ombudsman shall report periodically to the Senate Council and shall maintain liaison with the Office of the University Provost, the Office of Human Resources and the Senate Office. The University Ombudsman shall have no appeal function.

[the current Section 9 shall be renumbered Section 10]

Recommendation 2:

In consultation with the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, the Office of Human Resources shall revise HR-76 to reflect this change in the Standing Rules.


Leonard J. Berkowitz
Barton W. Browning
Mark A. Casteel
George W. Franz
Louis F. Geschwindner
Sabih I. Hayek, Chair
R. Scott Kretchmar
Veronica Burns Lucas
Jamie M. Myers
Laura L. Pauley
P. Peter Rebane
Nancy J. Wyatt, Vice-Chair



The University Faculty Senate


The Nominating Committee consisting of the elected representatives of Senate Council was convened on January 20, 1998. The following list of nominees will be transmitted to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate prior to the February 17, 1998, Senate Council meeting for subsequent distribution with the Agenda for the March 17, 1998, meeting of the University Faculty Senate. Additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate on March 31, 1998.



De Rooy, Jacob -- School of Business Administration - Penn State Harrisburg - The Capital College

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

Murry R. Nelson - College of Education - University Park


Donald E. Fahnline - (SCI) - Altoona College

Felix L. Lukezic - College of Agricultural Sciences - University Park

Kenneth A. Thigpen - College of the Liberal Arts - University Park


(1 to be elected - term to expire in 2001)

Eunice N. Askov - College of Education - University Park

Peter Deines - College of Earth and Mineral Sciences - University Park

Gordon F. De Jong - College of the Liberal Arts - University Park

Veronica Burns Lucas - College of Arts and Architecture - University Park

Nickie Askov
John Bagby
Michael Broyles
Lynn Carpenter
Katie Clark
Steven de Hart
Dennis Gouran, Chair
Deidre Jago
Peter Jurs
Deborah Kerstetter
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Irwin Richman
Andrew Romberger
James F. Smith
Charles H. Strauss
Peter A. Thrower
Brian B. Tormey



Alexander, Shelton S.
Anderson, Albert A.
Arnold, Steven F.
Arteca, Richard N.
Askov, Eunice N.
Baer, John W.
Bagby, John W.
Bakis, Charles E.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blumberg, Melvin
Brannon, S. Diane
Brasseur, James G.
Bridges, K. Robert
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Brunk, Quincealea
Burgess, Robert L.
Cahir, John J.
Cain, Julie
Cardella, John F.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Comiskey, C. Michael
Coraor, Lee D.
Crane, Robert G.
Creyts, Timothy T.
Crist, George
Curtis, Wayne R.
Das, Jayatri
Daubert, Thomas E.
D’Ausilio, Michael
de Hart, Steven A.
Dempsey, Brian A.
De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn E.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, William C.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Floros, Joanna
Friend, Linda C.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Ghilani, Charles D.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gregory, Monica E.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine
Hayek, Sabih I.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Kallas, Nabil
Kayal, David
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Kretchmar, R. Scott
Kristine, Frank J.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lasher, William C.
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M.
Lippert, John R.
Lucas, Veronica Burns
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marshall, Louisa J.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
McGregor, Annette K.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Linda P.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Morganti, Deena J.
Munn, Mark H.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Nicholson, Mary E.
Ozment, Judy
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pees, Richard C.
Phillips, Allen T.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Robinson, James W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor
Sandler, Karen W.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schmalstieg, William R.
Secor, Robert
Smith, James F.
Snavely, Loanne
Spampinato, Carie
Spanier, Graham B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Swisher, John
Testa, Donna M.
Thigpen, Kenneth A.
Thomas, James B.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda K.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Ware, Roger P.
White, Eric R.
Wilson, Richard A.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Youtz, Susan C.
Yucelt, Ugur
Zavodni, John J.
Zelis, Robert
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
134 Total Elected
4 Total Ex Officio
4 Total Appointed
142 Total Attending


Faculty Affairs - Proposed Revision of HR-40: Extended Reviews of Tenure Faculty (Forensic)

Libraries – Collection of Faculty and Staff Libraries Fees (Forensic)

Faculty Affairs - Procedures for Terminating Tenure Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - College of Medicine Addendum: 1996 Report on Faculty Salary Equity by Gender (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Faculty Salary Comparisons within Penn State and Other Universities (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - Final Report (Advisory/Consultative)

Outreach Activities/University Planning - Faculty Involvement in the World Campus (Advisory/Consultative)

Student Life - Recommendations for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol Abuse (Advisory/Consultative)

Student Life - Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State Locations (Advisory/Consultative)

Curricular Affairs - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of

April 17, 1998

General Education Implementation Committee - Guidelines for General Education Reform 1998 Knowledge Domains (Informational)

General Education Implementation Committee - Implementation of the Freshman Seminar (Informational)

Senate Council - Report on the Action of the Graduate Council and the Status of Graduate Education (Informational)

University Planning - Status of Construction Projects (Informational)

University Planning - Status Report on Calendar Changes (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 1998-99; Senate Chair-Elect for 1998-99 (Informational)

Comments by Outgoing Chair Geschwindner

Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Berkowitz