Penn State University Home

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 36-----APRIL 22, 2003-----Number 7

 

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 2002-03.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

   I.  Final Agenda for April 22, 2003

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to

April 22, 2003

Senate Calendar for 2003-2004

Results of Senate Elections for 2003-2004

Senators Not Returning For 2003-2004

Attendance

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR APRIL 22, 2003

 

A.  MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

      Minutes of the March 25, 2003 Meeting in The Senate Record 36:6

      [www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]

 

B.     COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of

                                                                        of April 8, 2003                                                      

                                                                        [www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html]

 

C.     REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 8, 2003

 

D.   ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR - 

 

E.   COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS -

 

            Senate Self Study Committee

 

                  A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures

                  of the University Faculty Senate

 

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -                                                                                              

 

            Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

                  Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course)

 

            Intercollegiate Athletics

 

                  Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2,

                  Eligibility of Athletes

 

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

 

            Faculty Affairs

 

                  Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement                                                                              

 

            Undergraduate Education

 

                  Defining Grading Standards                                                                                                       

 

J.       INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

           

            Curricular Affairs

 

Status of General Education Implementation:  Certification/Recertification

of New, Changed, and Existing Courses

 

            Faculty Affairs

 

            Time in Rank of Associate Professors

 

           Research

 

                  Update on Graduate Education

 

           Senate Council

 

                  Report on Spring 2003 College Visits

 

           University Planning

 

                  Status of Construction

 

                  Parking Rate Structure

 

           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 2003-2004

                  Senate Chair-Elect for 2003-2004

 

           Comments by Outgoing Chair Moore                                                                              

 

                  Installation of Officers

 

           Comments by Incoming Chair Bise

 

K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.  COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -                   

 

M.  ADJOURNMENT -

 

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

The Senate held one forensic session, voted on two legislative reports, voted on two advisory/consultative reports, and heard six informational reports.

 

Senate Self Study Committee – “A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate.”  The Senate Self-Study committee presents several preliminary recommendations that will be debated.  Considerations include the size of the Senate, length and number of meetings, organization of committees and new approaches for receiving reports.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 15-25 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course).”  This legislative report recommends the change of the Penn State definition of “full-time” to exclude audit credits.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 25-26 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes.”  In this legislative report this policy change reaffirms an existing practice that does not permit provisional, non-degree regular, and non-degree conditional students to practice or compete.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 26-27 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)

 

Faculty Affairs – “Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement.”  In this advisory/consultative report the proposed policy revision clarifies that means of monitoring activities of employees and students with such technologies as video and sound may abridge privacy expectations and may not be used except when necessary to protect the security of the University and its employees and students.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 27-31 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

 

Undergraduate Education – “Defining Grading Standards.”  In this advisory/consultative report the Senate voted on three recommendations designed to halt the steady increase in GPAs over the past fifteen years.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 31-36 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

 

Curricular Affairs – “Status of General Education Implementation:  Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses.”  This informational report provides an up-date on the status of General Education implementation and course recertification, as legislated by the Senate in 1997.  The use of ANGEL for collaborative reviews will be presented.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)

 

Faculty Affairs – “Time in Rank of Associate Professors.”  This informational report provides information on the time that associate professors are spending in rank, beginning with appointment or promotion to that position.  Analysis by gender, minority status and location is given.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)

 

Research – “Update on Graduate Education.”  This informational report examines trends in graduate enrollment, diversity efforts, technology initiatives, and funding programs.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)

 

Senate Council – “Report on Spring 2003 College Visits.”  The Senate Officers visit University Park colleges and other units each spring.  This informational report summarizes those visits.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “J.”)

 

University Planning – “Status of Construction.”  This annual informational report focuses on construction projects at campus locations.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “K.”)

 

University Planning – “Parking Rate Structure.”  In this informational report, Parking Office representatives will present changes in the rate structure for parking at University Park as well as changes in the location of parking facilities.  (See Senate Record, Page(s) 36 and Agenda Appendix “L.”)

                                   

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and ninety-six Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Moore:  It is time to begin.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the March 25, 2003, meeting has been sent to all University Libraries.  In addition, it has been 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 Moore:  Opposed?  The minutes are accepted.  Thank you.

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for April 8, 2003.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of April 8, 2003, which appears as an attachment to the Agenda for today’s meeting. 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Moore:  At the end of each academic year, a number of Senators complete their term of office, and it is my sad duty to read the list of our valued Senators who will not be returning for next year.

 

ABINGTON COLLEGE
Stephen Stace

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
Leif Jensen
Dennis Scanlon

ALTOONA COLLEGE
Valerie Stratton

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE
Annette McGregor

BERKS-LEHIGH VALLEY COLLEGE
LEHIGH VALLEY CAMPUS
Kathleen Lodwick

SMEAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Hemant Bhargava
Robert Crum
Peter Everett

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Thomas Berner

COLLEGE OF EARTH AND MINERAL SCIENCES
Robert Crane
William Frank

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Roger Geiger
Brandon Hunt

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Kultegin Aydin
Cheng Dong
Norman Harris
Ali Hurson
Elise Miller-Hooks

PENN STATE HARRISBURG
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Richard Ammon
Irwin Richman

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Nancy Williams

COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS
Aida Beaupied
Julia Hewitt
Christopher Johnstone
John Kramer
Sandra Savignon

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Robert Bonneau
Laurence Demers
Fred Fedok

PENN STATE SCHUYLKILL
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Billie Jo Jones

EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
James Anderson
Arkady Tempelman

FAYETTE CAMPUS
Sandra Smith

DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
Katherine Pearson

GREAT VALLEY
Roy Clariana

MILITARY SCIENCES
Paul Neiheisel

IMMEDIATE PAST-CHAIR
John Nichols

EX OFFICIO SENATOR
Daniel Larson

APPOINTED SENATOR
Thomas Poole
Karen Sandler

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Jeremy Adlon
Lauren Applegate
Laura Beck
David Breslin
Meshawn Carter
Jeffrey Corbets
Eric Cowden
Amy Locke
Michael Ritter
Dawn Rupp
Kristen Seabright
Summer Spangler
Macklin Stanley

GRADUATE STUDENTS
Christopher Baker
Gwenn McCollum

We appreciate all that you have contributed to the Senate, and we will miss each one of you.  Let’s show our thanks to these Senators for all their good work.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  Last year, we began the practice of acknowledging by way of a certificate signed by the President of the University and the Chair of the Senate those departing Senators who have held positions of leadership or who have served twelve years or more.  This year we are pleased to present certificates of appreciation today to Laurence Demers and Valerie Stratton.  Will Larry and Valerie please come forward?

 

Laurence M. Demers is a Distinguished Professor of Pathology and Medicine at the College of Medicine.  Professor Demers has served four (4) four-year terms as a Senator from Hershey.  During this time he has served primarily on the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Committee on Intra-University Relations.  Congratulations, Larry, for your years of service and commitment to the Faculty Senate!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  Valerie N. Stratton is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Penn State Altoona College.  She has served on the Senate for eight years.  During that time she has been vice-chair of Faculty Affairs, been elected to Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and served as both vice chair and chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.  At the present time, Valerie is chair of the Task Force to Review the First-Year Seminar Requirement, a position that will surely keep her connected with the Senate.  Congratulations, Valerie, and thank you for your splendid leadership over the past eight years!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  I want to remind you that you are all invited to attend a reception immediately following the Senate meeting in room 102 Kern Building.

 

On April 4, 2003, Laura Pauley, Chair of the Undergraduate Education Committee, and I charged a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education to undertake a long-overdue review of the Bachelor of Arts Requirements.  The committee consists of senators, faculty, and students from Abington, Altoona, Behrend, Berks/Lehigh Valley, Capital, and Commonwealth College in addition to representatives from Arts & Architecture, Communications, and Liberal Arts.  Jack Selzer, Liberal Arts, chairs the committee.

 

The Senate Officers visited the College of Agricultural Sciences on March 31, 2003; this visit concluded visits to 20 Penn State locations during this academic year.  The officers will be meeting with Provost Erickson in early May to discuss the principal topics that emerged during those visits. 

 

The seventh and last issue of the Senate Newsletter for 2002-2003 has been distributed.

 

The Senate Office has a new Administrative Assistant.  Patty Poorman, will you please stand and remain standing.  Patty Poorman recently joined the Senate Office as the Administrative Assistant.  Patty worked for eleven years in the Commonwealth College office.  During that time, she worked for the Associate Dean for Faculty and Research; the Associate Dean for Students and Academic Support; and the Associate Dean for Academic Programs.  As a result, Patty brings many experiences and skills to the Senate Office.  Patty will be working with the Senate Officers, Committee Chairs, and Executive Secretary.  Please welcome Patty to the Senate Office.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  The online Senate Election process, new this year, went very well.  I wish to thank the Commonwealth College Royer Center and Senator Peter Georgopulos for their technological support in the design and implementation of the online ballot.  Typically, 59-62 percent of Senators vote in an election.  This year, 67 percent voted.  Our thanks go to Susan Youtz for initiating this project and for seeing it through to the end.  Thanks also go to the members of the Senate staff who worked hard to make it a success.

 

Let me also mention that usually 60 percent of Senators send back their Committee Preference Forms.  The online system that we used this year yielded an 80 percent response.  Once again congratulations and thanks to our technologically gifted staff.

 

Each year, the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Student Life recognizes outstanding undergraduate students who are graduating with highest distinction and who plan to enroll in graduate study.  This year, there are five recipients of the John W. White Graduate Fellowship.  Each student will receive a $1500 award.  The John White Fellowship is one of the oldest continuing fellowships at Penn State.  The award was established in 1902 by James Gilbert White to honor his father, Reverend John W. White of Milroy, Pennsylvania.  The award recipients will be recognized at an awards banquet on April 28, 2003, at the Nittany Lion Inn.

  

Serving on this year’s review committee were Bill Ellis, chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life and a Hazleton Senator, Jennifer Tingo, Student Life committee member and vice president of the USG’s Academic Assembly, who I believe will be attending medical school in the fall, and Senate Executive Secretary Susan Youtz.

 

The 2003 Fellowship recipients are:

 

Nicole Dirling will graduate this spring from Penn State Erie with a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in International Studies.  Nicole was a member of the Behrend College Honor’s Program and a research assistant with today’s honoree John Gamble.  Nicole will be attending the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.  She is interested in practicing family law.

 

Rebecca Lynn Page will graduate as a Schreyer Scholar with a B.S. in Communication Sciences and Disorders and a minor in Natural Sciences.  She will continue her studies here at Penn State in her department’s masters program; Rebecca eventually plans to earn a doctorate in Communication Sciences and Disorders.  

 

Ninad Pendharkar will graduate from Abington College with a B.S. in Science (Life Science Option) and a minor in Business Administration.  Ninad has been accepted at several medical schools including Penn State, Iowa, and Pittsburgh; he will be making his decision soon and is interested in pediatrics and family medicine.

 

Laura Sander will graduate with a B.S. degree in pre-medicine and a minor in Mandarin Chinese.  Laura will attend medical school at the University of Pennsylvania.  Laura is interested in primary care and working with underserved populations.

 

Wendy Zimmerman will graduate from the Commonwealth College/Penn State Delaware County Campus with a B.A. degree in Speech Communication.  She has been accepted at West Chester University’s Communications masters program.  Wendy is a returning adult student with more than 20 years of experience in owning and operating a cooking school and catering business in southeastern Pennsylvania.

 

Congratulations to all these awardees!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Moore:  I am pleased to announce that President Spanier has approved the Library Fines Policy that the Senate approved at its memorable February meeting.

 

A list of the topics discussed at the last meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President may be found on page two of the minutes of the last meeting of Senate Council.

 

May I now ask John Gamble, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, to join me at the podium?

 

At the recent Faculty/Staff Awards Recognition luncheon held on March 24, 2003, John King Gamble, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, received the W. Lamarr Kopp International Achievement Award for Faculty.  The award recognizes the recipient’s display of excellence in international education through research, teaching, and service.  Professor Gamble well deserves this award for he is an internationally recognized expert in the law of the sea, dispute settlement, multilateral treaties, the teaching of international law, and the effects of new information technology on international law and international treaties. He is the author, co-author, or editor of twelve books and more than fifty articles and eighty conference papers on these topics.

 

Law of the Sea deals with the use of ocean space and involves the need for international cooperation and agreement in regard to such topics as fisheries, pollution, the flow of merchant ships, marine insurance, offshore petroleum, and the special rules governing islands, semi-enclosed seas, superports, and artificial islands.  From 1973-1976, he was Executive Director of the Law of the Sea Institute at the University of Rhode Island.  There, he organized international meetings involving diplomats, businessmen, scholars, lawyers, bankers, and government agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey, and similar agencies from many nations.  A proud advocate for the teaching of international law at universities and at law schools, he has served as a Visiting Scholar at Yale Law School and as a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria and in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Brunswick in Canada.  His articles have appeared in such distinguished legal journals as the American Journal of International Law, the Michigan Journal of International Law, and the German Yearbook of International Law.  He has lectured in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, India, Germany, the Netherlands, England, and Portugal. 

 

In his classes at Behrend College, he has opened the minds of his students to the world beyond the United States.  To do this, he has developed a computer simulation game using country clusters so that each student views the world through the lens of one selected country.  This approach makes them see that the worldview of China, for instance, is fundamentally different from that of the United States, and that Canada, however close, is just not the United States.  In his Schreyer Honors Seminar on Treaties, each student dissects and reports on a multilateral treaty.  This task requires understanding the provisions of the treaty as well as the complex matrix of country relations to the treaty.  Some students in this course become involved in the Comprehensive Statistical Database of Multilateral Treaties.  This project permits analysis of basic statistical information for all 6,050 multilateral treaties entering into force from 1648-1995.  One can easily understand why his students move readily into posts in government, law, and international business.     

 

As an expert in so many aspects of international law and comparative politics and as a professor dedicated to opening the eyes of his students to the many cultures that inhabit this globe, Professor Gamble well deserves the honors that he has received.  Today, Professor Gamble, your colleagues in the University Faculty Senate, a body in which you served so ably from 1990-1994, take pleasure in applauding your achievements and your success.  Congratulations!

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

John K. Gamble:  Since I sat where you are sitting, I know exactly what you are thinking.  You are thinking, God I hope he is brief, and I will be.  And you also probably have a suspicion that I am going to advocate for at least nine more internationally oriented credits for every Penn State undergraduate.

 

I spend perhaps three-quarters of my professional life on international things.  It is not realistic to expect that many of you will devote that amount of your time.  But it is important to understand that internationalization is essential and difficult.  It is essential because it affects both how our students are able to do their jobs and how they are able to be good citizens.  But it is difficult because it must compete with myriad other things for space in an overcrowded curriculum and because it ipso facto is multi-disciplinary.

 

Let me conclude with three very brief examples.  The top of official Penn State letterhead does not have the words United States, or university, or Pennsylvania.  I wonder how that looks to a bright high school student from Zambia.

 

I ask that we remember all of our graduates, with due respect to Cheryl Achterberg, I am less concerned about Schreyer Scholars than about, for example, a wood products graduate from Connellsville who is completing her curriculum now, has worked full-time for the last five years, and will graduate with a 2.85 grade point; I am afraid she might leave us without much understanding of the 190 other countries in the world.

 

As this group knows better than any other in Penn State, faculty can be pit bullish in the way we protect the curriculum.  There is a wealth of internationalization in our blue catalog, but it is not just what is there.  It is what students actually take, and we must make space for internationalization but we need to do so effectively and efficiently and understand that some of the best courses probably do not fit neatly in any one discipline.  Thank you for listening.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Moore:  Three hand-held cordless microphones will be used again at today’s meeting.  If you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the Chair and then wait for a microphone to be brought to you before speaking.  Please preface your comments with your name and the name of the unit you represent.  We ask you to supply both those facts so that The Senate Record will be accurate and so that your Senate colleagues will know just who is speaking.  President Spanier is with us today, and I am pleased to invite him to come forward to address the Senate.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Thank you, John, and congratulations on that impressive footwork between the two podiums.  I certainly second the motion on internationalization; that is, indeed, very important.  Another area that I think is of growing importance to us at Penn State is the area of engagement with students.  I just came from a lunch that Vice Provost Jacobs hosted honoring Clem Gilpin, who is a professor at the Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg, with a luncheon in his honor and the other nominees for that award—The President’s Award for Engagement with Students.  A very impressive array of work that so many of our faculty, including many of you here, are doing in the area of engagement with students.  That award has been made possible by a generous endowment that has been provided by an alumnus who has caught on to the importance of that idea.

 

As this academic year begins to draw to a close I want to say how pleased I am with so many things that have happened at Penn State this year.  I think it has been a very, very good year in many ways, which I have described in my remarks to the Senate over the course of the year.  Sometimes things pop up or there are distractions out there which make us think that maybe we are under siege a little bit, but if you take the big picture and I try to do that, I think things are going very well at Penn State.

 

I am often asked to give an update on what is happening in Harrisburg, so to speak, and by that I do not mean Penn State Harrisburg.  I mean the capitol with the governor and the legislature.  We hear quite a bit about the legislature because it is in the news every day and it could lead us to think that things are difficult, and they are to a degree.  But in the face of what looks like appropriation cuts that will be occurring because of the fiscal situation in the state, I think Penn State continues to move ahead.

 

I think it is a fundamental law of physics or something that when there is less money to spend, when there is less money to be appropriated, elected officials expect an even higher level of accountability.  They may actually be taking away money from our base budget, giving us less money than they have in years, and expect more from it.  Now maybe they have not taken economics classes but it is hard to deliver when that is the situation, but we do hear that.  We hear it in Pennsylvania in meetings we attend.  We also hear it in Washington in meetings I am asked to attend.  I think I can understand it to some degree because they know that, as federal or state appropriations for things that are important in our budget are pulled back, they know one of the responses--in addition to our belt tightening and in addition to cuts--one of our responses is to raise tuition.  And when tuition is raised elected officials get criticized for that as well as university administrators, and they do not want to be criticized for raising tuition.  But it is part of what has to happen, of course, to keep the university fulfilling its mission.  So I understand what is happening, and it is difficult, but we are doing a very good job I think.  You and your department heads and deans and vice presidents and others in the university are doing a pretty good job here to keep up with all of the things we have to keep up with, even in the face of cuts in our appropriations, so I continue to be optimistic about it all.

 

We have now launched something called the Penn State Grassroots Network.  I suspect not many of you have heard about it, but it is a very important initiative actually sponsored by the Penn State Alumni Association.  We have well over 400,000 living alumni at Penn State and well over 200,000 of those are in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  This is a very active network of loyal alumni who want to help us get our message across.  So one of the things I have been doing is going around as we have been mobilizing our alumni through this grassroots network to become stronger advocates for Penn State in their communities and with elected officials.  I will be meeting with our Harrisburg area alumni tomorrow night to launch the effort there.  We did one in Pittsburgh, the week before last.

 

We have a great story to tell despite these tuition increases that have been presented to our students.  We also have a great story to tell about our overall admissions and enrollment profile.  I get an electronic report from John Romano and his folks every Monday morning on the admissions activity for the prior week updated with the latest information, and this week’s report shows that we are ahead 5,536, if I am remembering the number, applications over where we were at the same time last year.  That is quite remarkable.  So yesterday we went over, I think, 78,000 applications to Penn State, which is, as I say, more than 5,000 ahead of the same time last year, and we still have a lot of applications that will come in at this point.  Most of the admissions activity, of course, is behind us, and students are now in the process of deciding--even this week is a big week for deciding what offers they are going to accept at which school.  But we will continue to get applications of course through the summer.  And I think it is fair to say that we have a stronger pool this year.  The students who are accepting our offers are probably the strongest entering class of students we will have at Penn State university-wide.  We are continuing to increase the enrollment of minority students, even at the same time that all of these other trends are occurring, we are very proud of that.

 

We are doing all of this at a time when our overall enrollment is going to be relatively stable.  We might be up a few, but our goal is to hold the enrollment relatively stable.  At University Park we are in that zone now where we want to be; we do not expect to grow.  About half of the other campuses are about where they want to be--not too much room for growth--and the other half of the campuses do have some excess capacity and could grow.  The changes are modest and, depending on the campus, the enrollment challenges are greater some places than others, which in part parallels demographic trends that are occurring in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with high school graduates, college bound students and so on.  So we have a very good picture in terms of Penn State’s popularity and how we are competing with other universities.

 

I think all of you in addition to all of our students received an email from Provost Erickson recently about the problem of peer to peer file sharing.  It is not a problem of peer to peer file sharing per say because there are some great things that can happen with peer to peer file sharing, but it is the illegal or inappropriate use of peer to peer file sharing technologies that is a great concern on college and university campuses throughout the country right now.  As some of you know, I co-chair a committee with the president of the Recording Industry Association of America.  I am representing the higher education community in that effort.  Our next meeting is tomorrow in Washington when we will discuss potential solutions for how universities deal with this.  I think Provost Erickson has received maybe 400 or 500 email responses back from our students.  Fortunately, he has not shared all of them with me, but he is answering them, and he gives me a sample of some of the more interesting exchanges.  It is fascinating to see how our students view this topic.  Most all of them acknowledge that they would not go into a store and put a CD in their pocket without paying for it, and some, when the parallels are pointed out, they readily say, “I understand, thank you for bringing it to my attention.  I am bad, and I will never do it again,” and they see the light and that is pretty interesting to see when that happens through an educational effort.  The others have some very interesting views of the corporate world and of right from wrong and of some interpretations of what it means to have something called the Internet and to have a computer on your desk and other things. 

 

We received a wonderful email from an alumnus this morning who is a songwriter and whose livelihood depends on this and writes songs for some very important and popular groups out there and talked about what it is like from his end and how grateful he was for Provost Erickson’s email out there.  Because you know it is not just a few Brittany Spears out there that we are thinking about when we do that it is about a lot of other people who own intellectual property and have rights to it and are concerned about their livelihoods.  So it is an issue that we are working on from a number of different directions and I am pleased to see that it is getting the attention and the visibility that it has.

 

I want to make my annual pitch.  Commencement is coming up two weeks from Friday or Saturday or Sunday depending upon which commencement you are in.  Commencement is really the best time of the year.  I mean if you have ever sat in your office on a bad day and wondered why you are in this business and whether it is worth the grief just go to a commencement and see what you contributed to.  See the excitement there and see the end product and how happy our graduates and their families are.  Everybody ought to go to commencement and be a part of this, and frankly some of you do not go very often.  And there are a few people--I am looking around--who have never been.  Now some of you are the regulars--you are always there and God bless you for doing that--but everybody ought to do it, so I really encourage you to get out and go to your commencement.  If you have a cap and gown wear it; you can be a muckety-muck.  If you do not have a cap and gown or cannot afford it, tell your department head and maybe they will spring for it, or, if you do not like wearing caps and gowns, go anyway and sit in the audience, but it is a great thing to do.  Nobody should be complaining about it because I have to go to 15 of them.  I have to go to about 15; Rodney Erickson goes to 15; we split them up.  That is all we do for three days.  Then we race down to Hershey and do the medical school graduation and race back from that so I mean we are all over the place, so no complaints about going to one commencement.  I really encourage you all to try that out and do it.  The Graduate School Commencement, that is a whole interesting experience in its own right as well.  I know many of you are there when you have doctoral students because you are hooding them, but that is a great thing to see also.  So that is my pitch for today, and now I would be happy to take some questions.

 

Eileen M. Kane, Dickinson School of Law:  President Spanier, have there been efforts to involve students more broadly in discussions of the intellectual property issues, not just copyright and patent issues?  All these as you are aware are usually controversial not only with the Internet but just shifting intellectual property norms in general.  Are there efforts to involve the students in acquainting them not only with the law but the underlying policies and involve them in discussion whether the policies are actually furthered by the laws?

 

President Spanier:  Yes, to a degree.  When our students now receive their email accounts and when we sign them up for use of the network they have to read a little bit about it and we try to do it in such a way that we think they really read it as opposed to just clicking the button and going through an educational process there.  We have an overall educational program that involves posters and general awareness.  We try to encourage stories in the Collegian about it, every so often there might be an email from Rodney Erickson.  As I go around and talk to student groups--when I am in the residence halls this is a topic I have been talking about recently--students are actually very interested in talking about it, and they are very forthright in explaining what they are doing.  They know I am not there to get their name and turn them in, but it has been a part of my learning experience to meet with student groups and to talk to them about what they are doing and what is in their head because I am trying to represent their thinking in a national community.

 

About three or four weeks ago I testified before the House Judiciary Committee in Congress.  I do not think it was covered in the papers here, but there I was on behalf of the higher education community with the CEO of the recording industry sitting next to me, and they said it was the largest turnout they have ever had for a hearing of this committee in Congress.  I do not mean in the audience; I mean of the congressional representatives.  It was fascinating to hear what they had to say about it and, you know, talking about our students, and I wish some of our students could have been there to hear what people in Congress were saying.  Some of it was pretty extreme, I must say.  There were a couple of congressmen who said that they are going to lock our students up, and I said we would have to build a lot of prisons actually if you are going to lock up everybody that illegally downloaded a CD, and I reminded them, we are an educational institution, not a law enforcement agency.  We like the educational approach, and, if the students are doing something, give us a chance through our educational program or, if it gets bad, through judicial affairs to work it out from an educational standpoint.

 

Members of Congress are very, very serious about this and have said in no uncertain terms that they will pass legislation if we do not solve the problem within the higher education community; they will pass legislation, and we will not like it.  Since that time they have sent me a letter which says this very explicitly, and they have done something that is somewhat unprecedented.  The chair and the ranking member of the committee wrote me a letter giving me some deadlines on behalf of the higher education community, and I have to have a letter in their hands by May 1, 2003, giving them a progress report and every 45 days thereafter telling them what kind of progress we have made in solving this problem.  I do not mean we, Penn State.  Penn State is doing a lot of things right, and I think we are handling it in an appropriate fashion…but nationally the higher education community is way across the spectrum of responses to this, and that is part of my challenge chairing the committee.  Sorry, long answer to that, but it is an interesting topic.

 

Kathleen L. Lodwick, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  I think my esteemed colleague from Erie has gone, but I wanted to bring up this issue of why we cannot have the official name of the university and the country in which we have the university on the letterhead?  When I first came to Penn State, I looked at the letterhead and laughed because I had been to a session a year or so earlier on fraudulent credentials in the academic world, and the first red flag is a name you cannot find in the directory, and of course you cannot find Penn State in any directory of institutions of higher education in the world because it is not the official name of the place.  You know, if we apply for a grant from the federal government we have to say Pennsylvania State University.  If I write a letter overseas I always have to type on the letterhead USA.  Is there some reason why we cannot put the official name of the university in the letterhead?

 

President Spanier:  Today is the first time in my combined 17 years at Penn State anybody has ever raised this question, and I am the complaint department for the university and I thought I had heard everything.  If a perspective student from Nigeria is applying to Penn State and does not know we are in the USA that could be an issue on their end, but, anyway, I will ask the logo and university relations folks to think about it.  Well, it says University Park, PA so the idea that we do not know it is in Pennsylvania--that might be stretching it a little bit, and if they do not know it is in the USA…I do not know.  I have never had a problem with it, but, if others of you have had problems along these lines, send an email to the complaint department gspanier@psu.edu, and you know we will see about it.  No promises though on that one.

 

Patricia A. Book, Outreach and Cooperative Extension:  President Spanier, I just wanted to ask your perspective on something that I find inconsistent:  that is, I note that governors and legislators around the country are making pretty significant cuts in higher education and seemingly getting away with it without a huge public outcry.  Yet, when universities respond to that downward pressure by increasing tuition, people—parents and alums and others—start hammering the administration and the trustees for that and you mentioned legislators as well.  But it seems inconsistent or a lack of understanding of the relationship between state support and tuition, and I was just curious about your perceptions on that and also your thoughts about how serious are efforts to limit universities’ ability to raise tuition.

 

President Spanier:  There is actually legislation that has been introduced in Congress which would limit tuition and put certain new accountability standards on universities as a part of this concern.  I do not think--and I certainly hope that legislation does not go anywhere because putting price controls on universities would be completely the wrong approach.  They are taking some of their concerns from the K-12 arena for calls for greater accountability and trying to apply them to higher education, and I do not think that works well.  There is only one public school system in any community, and if you have issues with it you had better deal with the issues, but universities are in a very competitive environment.  A prospective college student has many choices, and we have to manage efficiently.  If we set our prices too high, students are not going to apply, and they are not going to come, and that is an economic problem, and it is also a social problem.  I do not think some of the same concerns apply to us in higher education.  I think there is something of a shift occurring in the political world and in the psyche of our country as more and more people do go to college and as it has become actually more and more accessible to more people through financial aid and through expectations that now develop over the high school years and even before.  There are more and more people in our country who see higher education as a private good rather than a public good.  As people see higher education increasingly as something that benefits the individual, as opposed to benefits the society, then their thinking is, well, why not let the person who is benefiting pay for it and the data are there.  The data show that the difference between a high school degree and a college degree is worth about a million dollars in your lifetime earnings.  That is the average difference right now, so people say, well, what the heck, pay for it.  But what people fail to understand when they look at a university like Penn State, is that an investment in Penn State, is an investment in the public good.  It is not just a private good we are providing to our students.  Investment in higher education comes back to benefit us several times over.  Even if it is a purely economic argument, those extra earnings mean that we will all pay more taxes.  We will be paying more taxes than other people, and those taxes are what supports the community, and supports the state, and supports the country.  And, if you are concerned about economic development, you are producing a more productive and highly educated workforce.  That contributes to the public good.  If you are interested in technology transfer, the research that our faculty are doing and the good work that we do through PENNTAP and through the Ben Franklin Partnership and through Eva Pell’s operations and our development of intellectual property, our patents and licenses and so on.

 

This year Penn State moved into the top ten in the number of patents awarded.  These are tremendous benefits for our country, and we have good data to show that, if you give Penn State a dollar, it is going to contribute several dollars back to the state.  We can make that argument, but I think people are not really grasping it, so what is happening is that they are viewing higher education less as a public good, more as a private good and, this is my terminology, in effect what they are doing is putting higher education on a voucher system.  You know, put more money into student aid and then let people take the student aid wherever they want.  But the problem with that is that the student aid is never quite enough, so that we do have students who cannot even afford to go to a modestly priced place like Penn State, and I worry about those folks out on the margin who we might be closing out.  We are just barely able to keep up with it now, but in the next three or four years that gap is going to be great enough if things keep going the way they are that some people might not be able to come here.

 

In fact, as you all know the state’s investment in Penn State is as modest as you would find almost anywhere in the country.  The per capita investment in higher education, in Pennsylvania is 47th in the United States.  Okay, now you take the state that is ranked 47th, and we get far less per student as you know than the University of Pittsburgh, or Temple University, or Lincoln University or schools in the State System of Higher Education, so we hardly register on the charts for what we are getting.  And with last year’s cut of almost five percent and this year’s proposed cut of five percent, that number is actually going down, the per student amount is going down rather than getting higher.  It is completely going in the wrong direction, so I think these are some of the societal forces that are out there, and you know I am trying so hard to combat them through our legislative relations, through public relations and image making efforts at the university, going around talking to groups about it, and mobilizing the grassroots network.  I hope it makes a difference.  The hard part about it is that the state is running a $2.5 billion deficit and, frankly, our analysis at Penn State is that it is bigger than that.  That does not solve the problem even if they do that kind of budget cut, so we feel, yes, we have to do our fair share, and nothing that I am saying should in any way be considered to be critical of the governor and what he is having to contend with right now.  I think he would really like to help us and will, but you know there are all these forces operating right at the same time.

 

Chair Moore:  Any other questions?  Seeing none, thank you very much, President Spanier, for meeting with us today and answering our questions.

 

President Spanier:  Well, on that optimistic note.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

Chair Moore:  Agenda Item F, Forensic Business.  Today we have our first forensic session of the year, and it appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix “B.”  It comes from the Senate Self Study Committee, and it is titled, A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate.  Senate Council has set aside thirty minutes for this forensic discussion.  The purpose of this discussion is to provide all Senators with the opportunity to comment on the committee’s report so that the committee will be able to revise the report during the summer.  If you have opinions but do not get the chance to express them today, send them at a later date to George Franz at gwf1@psu.edu.  The more the committee hears from you, the better will be their final report.

 

Murry Nelson has requested permission to speak today.  We will proceed by discussing first proposal number four, Size of Senate and Length of Office.  George Franz, Chair of the Senate Self Study Committee, will lead the forensic discussion.

 

SENATE SELF STUDY COMMITTEE

 

A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate

 

George W. Franz, Chair, Senate Self Study Committee

 

George W. Franz, Delaware County Campus:  I have very little to say.  The point of this forensic session is to hear from you so that the committee can go back this summer and come in with a report in the fall.  I just want to explain two items that may be confusing in the report.  In Appendix A some dotted boxes appeared that are not supposed to be there, so around the Executive Committee and the Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid and all the subcommittees of Faculty Affairs they are all supposed to be solid blocks.  Something happened in the transmission that changed that.  The only dotted line on that Organizational Chart should be the dotted line that goes from the Faculty Senate to the Graduate Council and that structure simply reflects the Graduate Council side--the current relationship and current structure.  In Appendix B there was some question that some people are confused about the difference between the chart at the bottom and the numbers for Commonwealth College.  What we have done is show two different ways of calculating multiple location organizations and the only one where there is any impact because of changes in representation based on rounding occurs in The Commonwealth College.  It does not occur at Berks-Lehigh Valley or at Capital.  So with that, the floor is open for discussion, and we are discussing item four, the size of the Senate and the length of the term.

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus:  With your permission I will address all of the major topics at once rather than jump up and down five times.  I speak from the perspective of someone who has served as chair of the University Faculty Senate, an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, and chair of three different Senate committees.  I also speak on behalf of five other recent Senate chairs some of whom could not be here today.  We have some serious reservations about a number of the proposals that have come from the Senate Self Study Committee.  Perhaps our most serious concern is the proposal to include the Executive Secretary of the Senate in the new version of the Faculty Advisory Committee called the Executive Committee.  The Executive Secretary of the Senate is a staff position, not an elected representative of the faculty.  That person is selected by the Provost and serves at the pleasure of the Provost, and to make that position a permanent member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President we find highly inappropriate.

 

A second concern is the proposed change in Senate Council.  There may be some merit in considering changes to Senate Council.  In some years it has seemed to be as dysfunctional as it has been useful, but we still have two concerns with the specific proposal.  First, asking chairs of committees to serve on these councils is adding already to heavy loads especially for faculty who are not based at University Park.  Second, having two of these chairs also serve as council chairs and as members of the new version of Faculty Advisory Committee is really adding to heavy service loads.  Third, we worry that the drastic reduction in Senate size where we move from one in twenty to one for every thirty-five faculty will make it nearly impossible for the Senate to do its work in committees, and it will reduce our ability to make sure that important constituencies are represented on important committees.  In this case, we are not concerned about people representing their constituencies in the power sense but in the sense of making sure that all perspectives are heard in committee discussions.  It is a very bad thing if legislation and policy are shaped without careful attention to all aspects at the university that might be affected.  It is even worse if those policies get implemented.  I am afraid that both will happen under the proposed changes.

 

Finally, we have some concern about the legislative limit to the length of the Senate meeting to one and a half hours.  Perhaps that is a good goal, but to make it legislation as is proposed by the Senate Self Study Committee would limit and in fact eliminate the flexibility of the chair to extend a meeting if we find the discussion merits continuation of the meeting.  Much of our time is already taken up with non-Senate business.  I timed today, which was not atypical; we began the Senate business after 50 minutes, so that would leave us 40 minutes for the entire business of the Senate if we were to accept the proposals here.

 

George W. Franz:  Can I ask a follow-up question?  If you think this cut in size from one to twenty to one to thirty-five is extreme, what would you suggest as the size for the representation.

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz:  A small change might be reasonable.  I think the Senate Self Study Committee identified the idea correctly:  we need to make sure that representation on committees is done properly.  As a start perhaps the cut to one for every twenty-five might be a nice, prudent, conservative way to reduce the size of the Senate, which has grown because the size of the faculty has grown, without jeopardizing things too much.

 

Murry R. Nelson, Non-Senator, College of Education:  Thank you, I speak as a guest and former chair of the Senate, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak from Chairman Moore.  I want to echo what Leonard just said; we have talked and I wanted to make sure that it was seen that his representation of five past chairs was indeed accurate.  We know that Leonard has a tendency to stretch the truth, but in this case it is not the case.

 

I wanted to just speak then to two things that he said because I do not have anything to add on the others.  The last one that George had just asked about, I think one to twenty-five is a more realistic attempt by this body to make something that would be workable and not run the risk of having committees that are very small.  We already have some committees that are small and, having worked with trying to staff committees at the beginning of the year when we anticipate these people will actually show up for meetings, it is very difficult to fill some of the committees.

 

The second is the issue regarding the reformation of the Senate Council.  I think this would be, as Leonard said, onerous for a small number of people rather than a great number of people.  I think that, particularly for people, as Leonard said, from distance locations that come here, having to come more than once or having to represent a larger and different constituency at different meetings, I think, is very difficult, and I think one of the things that I have heard when we would go to different campuses is the lack of support at times for people who serve on the Senate.  We have often said that it is important that Senate duty be recognized as more than just another committee.  I think that I could support to some degree this change if there were an agreement by CEOs at each of the campuses that there would be a commensurate reduction in the load of a Senator who was in this kind of position.  I think it is asking too much and at the same time it asks a Senator to essentially cut off his or her opportunities for the kind of teaching and research that they would like to do because of the tremendous amount of service that they would be required to do.  I think it is always good to be doing this kind of self study, I think the Senate always gains but I hope that the changes that are anticipated and the changes that come about differ a bit from what we see in this report as discussed by both Leonard and me today and I thank you.

 

George W. Franz:  Could we focus on the size of the Senate from now on?  We will come back to Senate Council; we have demands on time, but I really would like to get a sense of what people think about the size of the Senate and in particular the length of term.

 

Timothy N. Gray, Student Senator, Penn State Abington:  My concern is that the student representation which hovers around ten percent, if you drop it to even one to twenty-five, the students will lose at least four representatives, and how will that be decided on which colleges lose their student representation?

 

George W. Franz:  You want me to answer?  I am trying to avoid monopolizing the discussion.  I will be happy to respond to people individually if you want in email.  The philosophy through most of the history of the Senate has been that the student representation and the administrative representation on the Senate is ten percent of the elected faculty Senators.  Currently, that is still the case for administrators; it is not quite the same for students.  Four or five years ago student representation was assigned by college, in fact students currently have less than ten percent representation.  So, if we were to cut the size of the Senate, the number of students would have to be cut.  How that would be apportioned I cannot answer you that.  The only comments that we have gotten from students in the way of representation to the Senate Self Study Committee was that we got a letter from the officers of Academic Assembly indicating that they thought that the President of Undergraduate Student Government and the president and vice president of Academic Assembly should be ex officio members.  We have not addressed the question, though, of how you would allocate the other seats.  I think that becomes a question once we know the sense of the Senate in terms of the size; then we can come back with some suggestions on how we would do that.  But, if you cut the size of the Senate, you are not going to get student representation of one student from every college unless the Senate is prepared to give students more representation.

 

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington:  I wanted to echo my concern about the size and how it is tied in with student representation.  While we recognize that faculty also exist at non-University Park locations, we tend to forget that students at non-University Park locations--now four-year colleges--also need the same proportional input, and, therefore, I would agree with my colleagues Leonard Berkowitz and Murry Nelson that perhaps the cut to one for thirty-five is drastic, especially as it also impacts on student representation.  Because, if we go to the current proposal, there would be 14 student Senators there are already 11 colleges up here, and I would assume the remaining three would have to be somehow proportioned out in the state, and I would strongly urge you to reconsider that.

 

I also think that from a different point of view I see the Senate’s effectiveness being undermined also by the fact that we have moved from, when I started, believe it or not, in 1970, when we had twelve meetings a year, to ten, to seven and we are down to six meetings a year.  If we also put an hour and a half time limit on the Senate deliberations, it seems to me that the Senate has less and less time to deal with the issues that are important.  I applaud the change of the length of service to three years.  I think for many people four years is a long time.  On the other hand, if I was thinking about running for the Senate and there was an hour and a half time limit on the Senate meeting out of which perhaps half consisted of announcements I would find it difficult perhaps to motivate myself to driving in the winter from Abington or Berks up here for an hour or an hour and a half meeting, especially as Murry pointed out, since there seems to be still a question about how much rewards there are for it.  So I would appreciate you looking at the size, the student representation and certainly not legislate the length of the Senate meeting.  It has always been our hallmark that the one freedom we have is to talk as long as we want, and, as you know, I am a man of few words, but I think that putting a legislative limit on the time of the Senate meetings would be contrary to our best interest.  Thank you.

 

George W. Franz:  I would love to comment on that, but I think I will let it go.  Peter and I have been in the Senate together since 1971.

 

Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine:  I would like to bring up for discussion  something that was mentioned very quickly and then seemed to disappear, and that is the concept of term limits.  I submit that term limits could in fact allow what it says here, frequent opportunities for faculty to become involved in faculty governance without sacrificing experience.  If it is done in the way for example of allowing two consecutive terms and then a mandatory sit out for a full term, this accomplishes a number of things, and I think you pretty much know what they are.  Number one, it avoids a Faculty Senate that is top heavy, dominated by full professors.  Number two, it avoids an institution that has the same old people making the same old decisions year after year.  Number three, it allows a Senate that would be more representative of the faculty as a whole; it would look more like the faculty as a whole.  An added bonus is that we return to the colleges and campuses valuable faculty members who have to spend great periods of time doing the work of the Faculty Senate, so that every two terms they could return and work for their chairs, and finally, it is the right thing to do.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  I support one in thirty-five representation.  I think that things like cost in benefit, in terms of teaching, and in terms of research need to be also figured into what you are talking about not to mention the dollar cost in benefit of a very large Senate.  The committees are not small, most committees are very large and are attended about 50 percent.  So you figure it out.  I support three-year terms.  I also support only being able to serve for a couple of terms, then a mandatory sit out.  I think all of these are wonderful ideas.

 

David W. Russell, York Campus:  I rise in support of my colleague Leonard Berkowitz and the others who have spoken to a one to twenty-five ratio.  I am opposed to term limits.  Term limits to me are inherently undemocratic.  People at the individual units or campuses or wherever should be allowed to vote for whomever they wish.  Term limits also seem to me to be solving the problem that is created by reducing the population in the first place.  For example, in our case I serve with two very distinguished members of the Senate--Leonard Berkowitz and Mark Casteel, who is a committee chair.  If we are reduced from three to two, it makes perfect sense to me that my colleagues on campus are going to say we want our most experienced people in the Senate because after all we need their voice and their experience.  So what we are doing in effect is cutting out the possibility of nurturing young Senators, bringing them along, allowing them to understand the way that the Senate works.  My first two years in the Senate--I am finishing my second year now--have been an apprenticeship.  I have had a chance to understand the way that things work and, of course, sometimes do not work.  So I strongly support the idea of a one to twenty-five ratio at the maximum, one to thirty-five seems to me to be too onerous, three year terms are just fine, term limits to my way of thinking are undemocratic, and I would not support such a thing.

 

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture:  I am not really sure what I want to say.  There are many good things inherent in doing a self-study--kind of a self-analysis to figure out what might need to be changed to make things work better.  You first have to determine whether things are broken, and I am not sure things are broken.  Having been a member of Senate Council for a couple of years now, there are times when I will agree it does seem dysfunctional, but it does actually do its job on occasion, and I think it does a valuable job.  The one thing I like about Senate Council is the fact that there is equal representation across the board and, by limiting the size of the Senate, by limiting the size of representation, I do not know that some of the smaller units will feel like they have an equal voice.  We have some units that have 31 Senators, we have some units that have one, so we will go to a unit that may now have only 25 Senators but the one unit will still only have one.  One of the things about a Senate that is really nice is we get to have these long discourses, and I do not know that I am in favor of making it smaller even by what standard it is now.  The issue that seems to loom in my head is how do we make the Senate service more valuable.  I know in Arts and Architecture we have attacked the issue as something that needs to go to the Dean and the unit heads to recognize service in the Senate.  I do not know how all the other units do it.  I do not know how Engineering, or Agriculture, or Abington deal with Senate service.  It seems to me that, at least in my own unit, the larger issue is not the size but the recognition for what it is you are doing.

 

Chair Moore:  George do you want to respond?

 

George W. Franz:  No, if you are going to hold to a time limit, we have got ten minutes left for the rest of the report.

 

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington:  Given that much has already been said, I would simply return to the original discussion that said there was a concern about a greater sense of ownership.  What was just said by Travis about representation and proportionality I think could be put in that context.  I have heard as background discussion for this section that other CIC institutions have significantly smaller Senates.  I would suggest that Penn State has led the way in some other things and that a long standing history of effective Senate as this has been could be a good reason for there to be a difference.  The second reason for a significant difference with other CIC institutions is the various locations for this university.

 

Robert Gray, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College:  I forget who had said earlier that, for all the distant campuses who come to University Park, CEOs, or Deans, or Presidents need to unify on course release time.  This is my first year on the Faculty Senate.  It has been wonderful; I mean I have really, really enjoyed it, but I have added up how many hours that it takes to drive from Erie to here, and I will just tell you this:  with the commute, because I come the day before and I stay overnight, and if I just go to my meetings during the day, like this meeting and also the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, I spend 100 hours of just going to the meetings and driving.  Now, if I take home work or I have to read this and I have to really study it and do some extra work, it is 100 hours plus the extra work outside.  So if you are going to have these committee people doing more than we have to have some type of course release time, I would think, to do a good job.

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  Are we still on item four or are you open to everything?

 

George W. Franz:  I am trying to move on but we are still on four.

 

Dennis S. Gouran:  Yes, but we are running out of time and that is only one item in a rather substantial document.  I would not win a popularity prize in the Senate Council either as a former chair of a committee or as a current member of that body for trying to keep its activities focused on what I understand in its meetings to be a kind of assessment body for the readiness of reports.  On the other hand, I am concerned that this proposal is to create a Council that will serve the function of determining readiness of reports for the Senate that will be comprised of the chairs of the standing committees of the Senate and the executive body who appoints the chairs of the committees.  It seems to me that this is good old boyism at its worst, and it would be preferable for your committee, in my judgment, to consider the creation of an agenda committee consisting of people who have neutrality insofar as any interest in what gets to the floor as opposed to what does not.

 

George W. Franz:  Can I assume we are on item one now?

 

Kathleen L. Lodwick:  The term good old boy certainly applies to this body probably more than any other group I have seen at Penn State.  That is not true of the subcommittee I am on, but it is true of the body as a whole.  I would be very much in favor of term limits, two, three-year terms then a year off and come back.  I would be in favor if we want to limit the size.  I would go to one to twenty-five--no lower than that because I think you miss too many people.  I think the idea to limit the meetings to an hour and a half is absurd.  We are academics; we all like to talk, and we see all shades of opinions on things.  As long as we do not have a filibuster we should have meetings as long as we need to, to discuss the matters of concern to the university.  Another very big issue is the placement of the committee that I have been on this year, but, if I may, I will pass the microphone over to the chair of that committee and let her discuss it.

 

Deidre E. Jago, Hazleton Campus:  I am chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, and we discussed this in our committee this morning.  Faculty need a significant avenue of input regarding benefits.  I know this is not according to number one, George. I apologize for that.  A subcommittee model for benefits will dilute faculty input on benefits.  The Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits discussed this this morning, and the issues that we deal with are extremely sensitive and affect all faculty members.  There is a need to continue dialogue concerning health care benefits, retirement options, and all of the other benefit issues in a committee forum which should be at the highest possible level.

 

We also questioned why the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits was going to be placed as a subcommittee under Academic and Resource Planning?  It is better to continue the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits as a separate committee.  If it must be a subcommittee, it would be better to place it under Faculty Affairs.  As a subcommittee, the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits would function differently.  It is likely that important reports will be lost and never reach the floor of the Senate if it were still in a subcommittee form.  Informational reports which are only electronically communicated would become marginalized; for example, the salary report that our committee presented last month would not have received the attention that it deserved.

 

On the point of the one and a half hours, I personally feel that, rather than limit the length of time to one and a half hours, the officers should continue the practice what we have been experiencing this year and that was instituted this year of limiting the time for presenting and discussing the reports.

 

I personally think one in twenty-five would probably work out for the ratio.  As past chair of Committee on Committees and Rules, it is very difficult to staff these committees, and one in twenty-five would allow the committees to have full representation.

 

Joseph J. Cecere, Penn State Harrisburg:  I concur with my colleagues in regards to limiting the time to one and a half hours.  I mean, there are activities that take place that we need to address, and it may take longer than that.  More importantly, I see Senate Council as a way of equal representation in regards to discussing items other than those being prepared for Senate, so I would propose or recommend to stay with Senate Council, versus the committees.  If we do have to go to that Executive Committee though, I would highly recommend that maybe we consider not having all two or three of the chairs of those committees, but actually have more representation of the Senate, maybe three or four Senators along with one or two of those Senate Council members to be on that committee so we do have a voice as far as Senate on that committee.

 

Mila C. Su, Penn State Altoona:  Regarding the reorganization of Senate Council and all these other committees that some of my colleagues have mentioned…what has happened with this proposed reorganization is that we have lost our voice, those of us who are at non-University Park locations, because the positions that are currently allocated on the current standing Senate Council representation--that is, Altoona, Abington, the Commonwealth College, Behrend--all those locations are not represented in this reallocation of these various committees, so please keep that in mind when you are looking at that because we now no longer have a voice on top of all the other concerns that are there.  One of the things that we have always felt good about is that in Senate Council we know that we have Senators, our colleagues, who have been able to express concerns, whether it is reports or other issues that are discussed in Senate Council, and we have the Senate Council report that represents that our voices have been heard, that our concerns have been heard, and with this proposed reorganization those voices are gone.

           

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg:  George, I want to address item seven of five.  In other words, page five of your report.  It seems to me from my three years of experience on Senate Council that the meetings tend to get long and sometimes tedious because the presenters present the same information that we have in front of us in written form.  I would suggest that your committee flesh out what you have got on page five about Senate communication.  It seems to me that a lot of the Senate reports can be presented electronically prior to the meeting, and then we get into discussion without having to read the same material, going line-by-line and with the tedium of PowerPoint presentations.

 

George W. Franz:  That, I think, is a major part of the point of that whole section.

 

Al Mueller, Mont Alto Campus:  One problem that I would like to address sort of dovetailing on Deidre’s comments before is in regard to Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations.  Unless that committee has been renamed, it has been dropped from the reorganization.  There are issues that the committee deals with that transcend units; there are certainly relational issues between and among the non-University Park campuses, the Commonwealth College, and University Park that we deal with.  By eliminating that committee it sends a very clear signal to those of us on the committee and it should send a clear signal to the rest of the Senate that these issues apparently do not seem important any more, and so I would recommend that at least reconsidering that committee be re-instituted in this new format.

 

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington:  I want to go back to where much of this discussion began, to my colleague Leonard Berkowitz, because on the way into the meeting today even though we had not talked before I have to add at least a sixth past chair of the Senate’s voice in supporting to a tee everything Len said earlier.  My term as Senate chair coincided with Penn State’s induction into the Big Ten and the CIC, and we had as officers through that period of time--some of my colleagues who are sitting here now--we had the opportunity to interact with colleagues from other institutions, Senate colleagues as well as faculty colleagues.  One of the proudest moments of my Penn State career was the realization during that time that, where Penn State historically has tended to be at the middle of the pack or even further back than the middle in terms of being innovative and taking on a leadership role, there was never a question in my mind during that beginning interaction with the CIC that we had a remarkable Faculty Senate.  A Faculty Senate that had a representation that was reflective of the diversity of locations and missions of this institution.  A Faculty Senate that was truly run by the faculty and not by a convener such as the President of an institution, which is not uncommon at other universities, and that was frankly supported by the administration financially and physically in terms of an office and an office staff to an extent that other institutions marveled.  And what I fear in this reorganization proposal that we have before us today, is a dilution of virtually all of those things that made me as a Senate chair most proud of the reflection of the diversity of locations and missions within the institution and frankly, the fact that this was an elected faculty representative body that steered its own course.  And I see principally those two things very threatened by the proposals that we have before us.

 

Chair Moore:  The last comment will be by Jim May, and then we will stop it at that point.

 

James E. May, DuBois Campus:  It seems to me if you reduce the number of Senators almost in half and you shorten the meeting, the general thrust is to reduce the power of the faculty within the university.  Just in terms as a governance issue, it would seem to be to our disadvantage to favor that aspect of the proposal.  When we talked about the library fines, it seems to me that there was a certain amount of rage on the part of some people who felt that faculty status or faculty rights and privileges were being eroded slowly and slowly, and my sense is that there is a feeling in the university that the University Faculty Senate counts for less than it did a dozen years ago.  This particular proposal of reducing our time to talk and reducing the number of people who come and become energized and then would be advocates for faculty positions would further erode the power of the faculty in the university.

 

Chair Moore:  Thank you very much.  Thank you, Chair Franz and you want to comment.

 

George W. Franz:  There are a number of things that have not been discussed yet in this report.  If you have any comments, ideas that have not been expressed, I would appreciate you emailing me gwf1@psu.edu.  I think we know where you are coming from on a lot of these issues, but particularly on the ones that have not been discussed, and I am particularly concerned that we get some expression of opinion from faculty about what they think the relationship should be with Graduate Council.  I know the Senate Self Study Committee has a view that we ought to be working toward a closer working relationship with Graduate Council.  We have a proposal from Graduate Council that is not reflected in this report that we will be looking at to see if we can do that.  Now, given the fact that 71 percent of the current Senators are graduate faculty members, I would like to hear from some of you as to what you think about this issue.  And finally, I just want a quick show of hands, how many think one to thirty-five is too extreme?  How many think we should go further?  How many think we should keep it at one to twenty?  Okay, thank you very much.

 

Chair Moore:  And that email address gwf1@psu.edu.

 

George W. Franz:  Apparently, I am the new complaint department.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

None

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

Chair Moore:  Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports.  Again, I remind you that if you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the Chair and then wait for a microphone before speaking.  For the sake of the Senate Record, please preface your comments with your name and the name of the unit you represent.  Today we have two Legislative Reports.  The first is from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid.  It appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix “C” and is titled Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course).  Mark Casteel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, will present this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course)

 

Mark A. Casteel, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus:  Thank you, John.  I am going to assume you have all read this, it is fairly straight forward.  We are simply proposing to bring Penn State policy into line with policy of other agencies and institutions in the United States in terms of not allowing audit credits to count in determining a student’s full-time status.

 

Chair Moore:  Are there any questions or comments for Chair Casteel?  Seeing none, since this report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded.  All those in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it.  The motion passes.  The Senate has approved the proposal, and the report will now be sent to the Senate Office and the approved changes will be made this summer.  Thank you, Chair Casteel and thanks, too, to all members of your committee.

 

The second Legislative Report comes from the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics.  It appears in today’s Agenda as Appendix “D” and is titled Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes.  Scott Kretchmar will present this report.  Scott is a member of the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes

 

Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair, Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

 

R. Scott Kretchmar, Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA:  Again, this material is detailed in your report.  It came up as a result of an issue last year with a student athlete.  It provides an important clarification to the Senate 67-00 rule.

 

P. Peter Rebane:  Scott, on that last page the italics say that at University Park provisional non-degree are not eligible to practice or to compete.  Just for clarification for my department at Abington, at the campus locations only full-time students are eligible to participate.  You do not have the word practice there.  Is there a difference in that or should that read practice as well?  Just so I can bring home a clear message if we pass this.

 

R. Scott Kretchmar:  My understanding is that the “participate” in that last paragraph does mean practice.  I might need some help from my committee members here as to clarification on the non-University Park locations.

 

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering:  I have a question following Peter’s on the same paragraph there.  It says exceptions to full-time status may also be made for associate degree students during the final semester if they need less than 12 credits to meet their graduation requirement.  I am wondering why that does not include baccalaureate students?

 

R. Scott Kretchmar:  It should include baccalaureate students, too, and it is included in the paragraph above, but that is an NCAA rule and all baccalaureate students are included in that provision.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  You mean that is sort of automatic, and we have to add associate degree for this particular case?

 

R. Scott Kretchmar:  I think it is just to make sure it is clear, because the NCAA rules are not written for those circumstances, so I believe that is why it was specified in that paragraph.

 

Martin T. Pietrucha, College of Engineering:  That was pre-existing language that was there, and the change was proposed because we had no specificity regarding this at University Park.  So the implication was always there that it was practice or compete at the campus colleges, but we had gone through to clean up the language and give some specificity relative to what goes on at University Park, so the way that it has always been interpreted in the past was as practice or compete.

 

Chair Moore:  Are there any questions?  Seeing none, since this report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded.  All those in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics titled Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it.  The motion passes.  The Senate has approved the report from the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics.  The report will now be sent to the Senate Office, and the approved changes will be made this summer.  Thank you, Scott, and thanks, too Marty Pietrucha, Chair of the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, and to all members of that committee.

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

Chair Moore:  Agenda Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports.  Today we have two Advisory/Consultative Reports.  The first comes from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.  It appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix “E” and is titled, Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement.  Kim Steiner, Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, and Jamie Myers, Chair of the Subcommittee on Faculty Rights and Privacy Issues, will present this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement

 

Kim C. Steiner, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

 

Kim C. Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I draw your attention to Appendix “E,” where we propose a revision to the language of AD53 which deals with privacy.  The revision would extend that language to explicitly cover the subject of video surveillance within academic work spaces.  I have been on the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs for four years.  I think we talked about this three years ago.  I know we talked about it two years ago.  Last year our committee took this up with great vigor, but ultimately fruitlessly, and this year under the able leadership of Jamie Myers on that subcommittee we have been able to bring this document to you.  It is not, in my opinion, a perfect document, as are no such documents in my opinion that are the result of a collaborative effort, but we think it is one that will work.  The language is in front of you.  I assume you have had a chance to read it so we will entertain any questions.

 

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  I have a question on the point C, Accountability, the last sentence.  I wonder about who the custodian of that information is?  And it says it will be kept for how long?

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  Both of those are good questions.  I suspect there will be multiple custodians.  The policy puts in place a consultative process by which administrative units can work with Police Services following the guidelines to install these surveillance cameras, so there is not going to be one place on campus in which this material might be kept.  I guess all are charged with keeping the materials secure, and I am sorry:  we did not address the length of time, though I think the university counsel would be receptive to a suggestion.  I do not want to put an amendment on here regarding a length of time because of the infinitesimal number of negotiations we went through to arrive at this particular language.

 

Peter Deines:  I guess I am concerned that there be some review of the time when the information really is not relevant any more.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  Peter, I think you have raised a good question and obviously this is a question that was exactly addressed by the State College Borough Council action last night, and I think it is one that our committee would probably want to take up in the future but not as an amendment to this.

 

Peter Deines:  No, I am not prepared to suggest any amendment to this because I think I understand so well the tricky question to formulate something that would address the concern that I suppose some of my colleagues would have that no information is kept indefinitely.  I must say I speak a little bit from experience having been on a committee that had to review files from a faculty member and all of a sudden information appeared about that faculty member that was rather old, and the faculty member really had no knowledge about that but it was pulled out.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I think that I should point out that this proposed policy does not create something that does not now exist.  What it does is put limits on what is currently happening, and I think real restrictions--not just punitive restrictions, but real restrictions.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  One of the things that struck me when I read this proposal was something that really is not directly related to the intent of this, but it is the change in the terminology.  And I wondered what brought this about:  rather than being referred to as faculty or staff, we are referred to now as employees?

 

Kim C. Steiner:  Well, it was not a change that was proposed by a member of our committee or subcommittee, but when it was proposed it actually made things a little bit cleaner because it encompasses faculty and staff and perhaps other people who we may have left out in putting together a list.  So it seemed easier and I understand.

 

Jacqueline R. Esposito, University Libraries:  The university already has an existing policy that identifies retention periods for materials.  It falls under AD35, and the retention period for audio and visual materials is based on federal and state legal requirements for those materials.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  Thanks, Jackie.

 

John P. Cancro, New Kensington Campus:  What does this policy do to security cameras that might be running in computer labs and facilities like that that are taped?  Does that affect this in any way?

 

Kim C. Steiner:  It does.  I guess your question is what does it do to existing cameras.  It would be prohibited without permission under this policy, and I think it means that the use of those has to be reviewed.

 

John P. Cancro:  What about when the labs and the campus are closed, and you have one security guard and the computer facilities may be remote from the guard’s location?  Can those tapes be made or what will happen there?

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I suspect because there are dual purpose labs that, in a sense, are open university spaces, that are used by faculty for academic courses and become kind of academic spaces because perhaps of recent security problems in that lab like a theft, that cameras may be installed in those spaces.  But the policy says clearly that any faculty who would be using that space for a class should be notified ahead of time that a surveillance camera exists there.  I do not know if that answers your question, but I suspect you will continue to see surveillance cameras in computer facilities that are open lab facilities.  But if you are a faculty member you should know ahead of time if you are going to use it.

 

Jeffrey B. Corbets, Student Senator, College of Engineering:  I have a couple of questions.  In classrooms where video cameras are already installed to ensure the security of class equipment, but also tape what is going on in the classroom, will it be required that students be notified that the video surveillance is occurring and will this notification be just a sign outside the door?  Will they have to be told specifically by their instructor?  Will they have to sign anything?

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I can answer that the same way.  The policy states that people who are going to use that space for academic reasons should be notified ahead of time, so that should extend to the students as well as the employees.  And, no, there is no signing of anything.

 

Jeffrey B. Corbets:  Okay, then my second question is, in computer labs where cameras exist, where students might be doing something, say, file sharing, could the tapes be used against the student in a legal case?

 

Kim C. Steiner:  That is one of the reasons that surveillance is done.

 

Jeffrey B. Corbets:  Okay, I can just say the students will be most unhappy about this.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  One of the difficulties in writing this policy was to arrive at a wording that would permit freedom of thought and expression within the university and academic spaces but also provide for legitimate security and safety functions and that was really the tight-wire that we had to walk.

 

John S. Nichols, Immediate Past-Chair:  I think the previous Senator misunderstands the legislation.  This does not constrict the range of privacy, it expands the range of privacy so that I cannot imagine why students would be upset by expanding the area of privacy at this university in an area where it does not currently exist.

 

Kathleen L. Lodwick:  I do not want to be funny, but restrooms are not listed here.  Are they considered to be public spaces?

           

Jamie M. Myers:  I think a restroom is a private space.

 

Kim C. Steiner:  I think that is a good question, and, man, I have something on the tip of my tongue and I think I will refrain from saying it.  I think so, and Bob has his hand up.  I think we have talked about this.

 

Robert Secor, Vice Provost:  They are protected by state law, Kathleen, you do not need to worry.

 

Chair Moore:  Are there any questions or comments?  Seeing none, since this report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded.  All those in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs titled Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  Any opposed, "nay"?  The aye’s have it.  The motion passes.  The Senate has approved the proposal, and it will now be sent to the President for his approval and subsequent implementation.  Thank you, Chair Steiner and Chair Myers, and thanks to all members of Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

 

The second Advisory/Consultative Report comes from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, and it appears in the Agenda as Appendix “F” and is titled Defining Grading Standards.  Laura Pauley, Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education will present this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Defining Grading Standards

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

 

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering:  Thank you.  Last month we presented an information report on the Annual Grade Distribution.  In that report the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education had several recommendations.  Those recommendations are now being brought forward this month for a vote and support by the full Senate.

 

Leonard J. Berkowitz:  I note that we are now 16 minutes past the time we would have had to adjourn, which may have been a good thing.  I am concerned that these three recommendations seem to be in conflict with each other.  The first recommendation simply repeats current policy on grades, which says essentially that faculty determine grades.  They are the sole person who determines grades, and they are to be based on the faculty determination of student achievement.  On the other hand, the second recommendation says that the administration from the President and Provost through the Deans, through the Division Heads and Department Heads, shall encourage faculty to shape their grades in a particular way.  That may not be quite a logical contradiction, but it is pretty darn close to a conflict in principle.  And when you add it to number three, which says that units should, when they find these things do not fit one of the preordained models, should do something about it, I assume it is not the faculty that are to do something because they are already doing what they thought was right.  Now I think we have a full-fledged contradiction, and I urge my colleagues to reject this.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  We have discussed this many times in the committee, including this morning.  What we intended to write in the recommendations and what we still feel the recommendations say is yes, the instructor does assign grades in the course, and they make the final decision.  However, those instructors cannot make a decision in a vacuum; they have to know the university that they are working with.  They need to understand the student body, and the best way to do that is to understand what other instructors have assigned for grades and discuss it within the department or in the college level of what the expectations are for different grades.  So there needs to be a communication.  The faculty member should not just be assigning grades without having those discussions.  We feel those discussions are really all that is needed to monitor grade inflation and to have a more uniform standard across the university.  These types of things are not happening right now.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  I am ambivalent about this particular Advisory and Consultative Report.  Although I agree with Senator Berkowitz that you have some severe problems with it, I doubt that anything will come of charging the Deans to charge their faculty to change the way they grade, so overall I am not sure that the particular vision that this report hopes to enact will happen anyway.  What I would like to ask:  did you discuss the difference between criteria in grading and norm reference grading?  I am not sure that you have spent a sufficient amount of time exploring the various factors that might underlie grading in particular units, such as class size or the nature of the courses and experiences that the students undertake that the grades are associated with.  I say this as the College of Education is always maligned for being at the top of the grade inflation ladder, but all of you know that they have a 15-credit student-teaching practicum in which they receive one grade for 15 credits, and there is a lot of recognition of diversity.  We do not expect every university faculty to teach the same.  Likewise we do not expect every high school teacher or elementary teacher to teach the same, and so it is highly possible that many of them receive very high grades for that 15-credit practicum.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  Right, and we are not just saying that there needs to be a fixed distribution or that we all need to grade on a curve or grade on some standard for all students.  What we are concerned with is that faculty and instructors are aware of how they are grading.  Why they are giving different grades, and how it compares with other instructors within that department or within that college.  We have looked at grades on a university level but we recognize that grades and the expectations and what those grades mean may vary from college to college, and so we have not specified any grade distribution or any curve that everybody must fit.  Instead, we want people to be aware--the instructors to be aware, the Department Heads, the college--to be aware of what grades are being distributed, and we are encouraging that communication.

 

Howard G. Sachs:  I want to second what Senator Berkowitz said, but I go a little bit further.  I found recommendation one to be problematic.  It is an inappropriate paraphrasing of 47-20 and, having recently spent an afternoon in court having been subpoenaed to testify in regard to 47-20 in the absence of published and approved standards at any level, I think this tinkers with the notion of 47-20 and faculty rights and prerogatives in assigning grades.  Either leave recommendation one out or clarify what you really meant.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  It is a restatement of the current procedure that instructors do assign grades.

 

Winston A. Richards, Penn State Harrisburg:  In light of what we heard from the President of the increasing quality of students that we are getting, would not that suggest the greater coincident grade improvement also?  What I am saying is we are getting better students so we should be getting better grades so is there a problem?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  We are not saying we need to drop the grade point average.  We are saying that instructors and Department Heads and college level should be aware of the grades and decide if these are appropriate grades for the student population.

 

Richard A. Carlson, College of the Liberal Arts:  In number two it is not clear to me whether, in the phrase “the standards they deem most appropriate,” whether “they” refers to the President and the Provost or to the faculty and undergraduate heads, and to me that makes a tremendous difference in the nature of the recommendation.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  I think it is clear that the faculty and undergraduate program heads will define, implement, and maintain the standard, so it seems that they would be that second group.

 

P. Peter Rebane:  I would like to approach this from a different end.  We all talk about grade inflation.  On the other hand, there are occasions when many of our classes do not measure up to the standards, and there are a great number of perhaps failures and “Ds.”  Does this also fall into adjustment on the part of the departments and units?  And it concerns me that if younger faculty members perhaps apply rigorous standards as opposed to perhaps some older ones who take life a little easier, that the Dean or the Department Head may say you are failing too many students.  You have too many “Ds.”  Why don’t you be more lenient?  We would then compromise our standards in the other direction, but we usually do not talk about that because that is embarrassing.  And if you look at number three…number two talks about President and Provost, Dean and Division Heads; number three says units shall actively monitor grades.  What is the unit here?  Is it a faculty council, or the local Faculty Senate?  Then it says very clearly, and I wish Carey Eckhardt could correct me on this, but it says and remedy the situation.  I wonder what remedy my Dean would bring to me if I did not fall into that particular standard.  I urge the body here to reject this.  I think it has pitfalls in it that we have not thought about and that the committee might look at 47-20 and the rest of the material in it.  Thank you.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  Units was used as a generic term because looking at the grade distributions can be done at many different levels, so it was intentionally left vague.  I think the comment that you made about starting faculty giving too low grades is really one of the important issues that we do want to address.  It is difficult for starting faculty who are coming out of graduate courses and study to understand what might be expected at the undergraduate level, and just to be aware of what typical distribution is or what the expectations are within the department or colleges I think is important.

 

W. Travis DeCastro:  I find this, kind of, more of a separation of church and state issue.  There is little comparison to me in how you would grade calculus as to how you would grade figure drawing.  And I believe that is the prerogative of the faculty member, not the President, not the Provost, and in many cases not even the unit head, who might not have any experience in figure drawing whatsoever.  I think it is okay to make people aware that, “Oh gee, everyone in your class got ‘As’ for six years in a row, what’s up with that?”  I think it is okay to make people aware of it.  I think it is okay to publish statistics about it.  I think to make it any sort of action by the Provost or the unit head or the Dean or however you may want to do it, it is inappropriate to the faculty who is teaching that class who may have a very narrow specialization that other people might not understand.  So I think we should reject the proposal.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  I have stated basically the same thing before that we made the unit vague because it may be a department that would look at what appropriate grading or expectations are and maybe even a subgroup of that department, but there should hopefully not be just one person who can judge the performance in a course.

 

Terry Engelder, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  As you know, I stood before you last month and showed some data that indicated that the trend in grades here at Penn State was headed upward, and has been for a long time.  The question really was what to do about it, and so the three recommendations are just that.  The first recommendation is the way that we originally wrote it--just a statement of an Advisory/Consultative Report that this body passed in 1987.  It may well be that Senate Council tinkered with some of the words, but, if you go back to the Senate Record, the Senate has passed that so that, in fact, all we are doing is reaffirming that.  The question about what you do with this long-term upward trend…I think that this really is a matter of belief as much as anything.  Let me draw your attention to the fourth sentence down in the introduction.  Really what we are all about here is examining this issue of whether or not the present trends are gradually muting use of grades to designate gradations of achievement in student performance.  The question really is whether or not we want these standards gradually muted.  If we think not, then we have to do something about it, and the question is how we bring about that change.  Now there are several recommendations on the back page, four graphs that indicate how various units can behave in trying to bring about some rectification of this particular upward trend.  That does not mean that all of Penn State has to follow one particular model; they are a set of models, though, that should at some point correct this muting.

 

Roger A. Egolf, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  A couple of points, if we are going to go with this the recommendation in figure one actually is four separate recommendations and which one are we voting for?  Secondly, in recommendation three about units monitoring grade changes over time, what unit if we are at a non-University Park location but we are within a disciplinary unit that we are tenured in at University Park and our tenure home has one expectation of grading and our location has another, who are we to follow?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  Your pointing out of figure one really emphasizes the point that our committee was making also, that we are not telling any group, any unit, any department whatever unit it might be what the vision is, what grade point average is the norm, what would be expected for that group of courses or instructors.  These are different options, up, down, level, are basically your different options of what the grade point average could do from this point on.  This legislation is not specifying any of those.  What we are trying to communicate to the university is that this needs to be discussed, and we as individual instructors need to understand why we gave a particular grade.  How it matches up with your campus, with a typical course at other campuses as well, those would be different interesting intersections to look at of those different groups.  And, as to that, individual faculty who still are people who are assigning these courses solely responsible for assigning grades do it within a known environment.  They know how their grades compare and they know what appropriate grades are and what appropriate performance is, so it is communication; it is not mandating any distribution or any particular curve that is on the second page.

 

Roger A. Egolf:  But compared to who?  If we are in both University Park units and location units?

 

Laura L. Pauley:  As I said, the intersection looking at those campuses, looking at English 15 across the university gives you as an instructor more information so that you understand how your grades compare, and you understand better how the performance of your students compares.

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  I think the underlying philosophy here about a review in context is good, but I am wondering if this particular report is not actually extraneous in the sense.  We have a mandated grade report at regular intervals; I cannot remember if it is annual or semi-annual…

 

Laura L. Pauley:  Every year…

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Could we perhaps as part of that report when it comes out, have some recommendation as part of that report that units, however they define themselves for whatever is relevant review their philosophies and approaches to grading in light of the report.  Just incorporate that as an annual way of checking up on ourselves.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  These recommendations were in our Informational Report, and from the discussion at last month’s Senate meeting it was felt that these should be brought forward so that the Senate as a whole can voice this more strongly than a committee can.

 

Tramble T. Turner:  Actually, what I hoped to do was call the question after noting that the phrase “remedy the situation” had not been clarified; nevertheless, I would like to call the question.

 

Laura L. Pauley:  We had discussed the word remedy this morning, and one committee member pointed out there might be informal remedy setting and defining standards and that is really what we had envisioned, and by remedy it is not inflicting any commands or enforcing any mandated distribution.

 

Chair Moore:  Okay, we have a motion on the floor to call the question.  Is there a second to that motion?

 

Senators:  Second.

 

Chair Moore:  All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  That means we are now going to vote on the proposal from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education as found in Appendix “F”; all those in favor, please signify by saying, “aye.”

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Moore:  Any opposed, "nay"?

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

Chair Moore:  The nay’s have it.  The motion does not pass.

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

Status of General Education Implementation:  Certification/ Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses.  This report was presented by Committee Chair, Shelley Stoffels.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Time in Rank of Associate Professors.  This report was introduced by Committee Chair Kim Steiner and presented by Mila Su, Chair of the Subcommittee on Faculty Development.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

 

Update on Graduate Education.  Eva Pell, Vice-President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, presented this report.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

 

Report on Spring 2003 College Visits.  Senate Secretary, Melvin Blumberg presented this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Status of Construction at Locations Away from University Park.  Mark Bodenschatz, Director of Commonwealth Services for the Office of Physical Plant presented this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Parking Rate Structure.  Teresa Davis, Director of Transportation and Doug Holmes, Assistant Director of Parking presented this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Report of Senate Elections

 

Melvin Blumberg, Chair, Elections Commission

 

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg:  Thank you, John.  I have a number of election results to report, but, before I do, I would like to thank very much the members of the Senate Staff and the members of the election committee who helped with the recent elections.

 

The first is the election for Senate Council 2003-2004.  Connie Baggett, College of Agricultural Sciences; Kristin Sommese, College of Arts and Architecture; John Spychalski, Smeal College of Business Administration; Alan Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; Dorothy Evensen, College of Education; Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering; Robert Burgess, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts; Peter Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Jacqueline Esposito, University Libraries, Combined Departments of Military Science, College of Communications, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Great Valley; James Smith, Abington College; Mila Su, Altoona College; Ronald McCarty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College; Thomas Glumac, Commonwealth College; Howard Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College; Alphonse E. Leure-duPree, College of Medicine.

 

Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules:  Joseph Cecere, Travis DeCastro, Joanna Floros, George Franz, and Robert Pangborn are the five members elected to serve a two-year term.

 

The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee:  Eliza Pennypacker, Arts and Architecture, UP; Michael Cardamone, Science and Engineering Technology, Capital College, Penn State Schuylkill; Richard Barshinger, College of Science, Penn State Worthington Scranton; and Lourdes Dias Soto, College of Education, UP.  These faculty have been elected for two-year terms.

 

The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure elected for three-year terms:  Jill Findeis, College of Agricultural Sciences, UP, Member; Richard Kopley, College of the Liberal Arts, Penn State DuBois, Alternate.

 

For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we have three categories.  All positions are for three-year terms.  Faculty from University Park:  Joan Thomson, College of Agricultural Sciences, Member; Paul Cohen, College of Engineering, Member; and Gita Talmage, College of Engineering, Alternate.

 

Faculty Other than University Park:  Patricia Hinchey, Commonwealth College, Penn State Worthington Scranton, Alternate.

 

Deans:  David Wormley, College of Engineering, University Park, Member; and  Raymond Coward, College of Health and Human Development, University Park, Alternate.

 

Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President for a three-year term is:  Renata Engel, College of Engineering, University Park.

 

For the office of Secretary of the Senate:  Jamie Myers, College of Education, University Park.

 

For Chair-Elect of the Senate:  Kim Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park.

 

Thank you.  Congratulations to all of them.

 

COMMENTS BY OUTGOING CHAIR MOORE

 

Outgoing Chair Moore, I think is tired as you all are, so I understand that the only thing that stands between you and the reception across the way are my words so I am going to cut 80 percent of what I intended to say, and I just want to make just a couple of comments.

 

I hope that all of you who become officers and committee chairs will have as good a relationship with the Senate staff as I have, and you will benefit from the Senate’s extraordinary staff.  I was thinking over the weekend, how am I going to get by without the cheerful and expert help of Betsy Hockenberry, Janie Jones, Patty Poorman, Sherry Walk, Kadi Winner, Diane Mills, and Eloise Fisher?  To whom will I turn for the kind of assistance they have so generously provided during the past year?  Let me tell you one story that exemplifies the dedication of this staff.  I had to make a General Education recertification report to the President and Provost at 9:00 a.m. on the next day.  Sherry Walk was doing the numbers for me.  My request for help was a little late, and her other obligations prevented her from getting the report done by 5:00 p.m.  Okay, I said, it cannot be done, so I figured out another way of making the report.  That night at 10:00 p.m. the doorbell rang.  It was Sherry Walk with the report; she had finished it.  She had stayed until all the numbers were complete and tallied perfectly so I could make a good report to the President.  I was astonished.  I was grateful.  I was even embarrassed that I had brought this about, but similar stories of staff dedication filled the year, and I just really wanted to say you folks are wonderful and I really appreciate it.

 

Every morning during the past year, Susan Youtz and I have talked sometimes for five minutes, sometimes for an hour trying to figure out how to do something.  Shall we do this?  How about that?  How about doing it another way?  Ultimately I got it straight, and I could stop hyperventilating and put away the Maalox.  It was a real partnership.  Now, no more morning chats and no more strategy sessions.  What will fill that void?  I have no idea so thanks, Susan.  It has been wonderful working with you during this year.

 

And thanks also, to each one of you for so often saying “yes” when I needed help or needed someone to serve on a committee.  And thanks especially for working so hard on your committees and for being so smart and clever and high-minded about this enterprise which we are in of how to educate better our students and how to make this the best university it can be.  Your willingness to serve and your dedication to duty are what makes this one of the best Faculty Senates in the nation.  Thanks one and all.

 

And now we turn to the installation of our new officers.  Will the new officers please take their places.  Kim and Jamie come on up, and Chris come on up here.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Outgoing Chair Moore:  Now Chris, you are now the Chair of the University Faculty Senate, and as such you deserve to be treated with appropriate regard and things should go just as you want them to go, but, before we begin to treat you with respect, I want to give you two gifts that commemorate two important moments from our fall travels.

 

Mel and I learned a lot this past year from you and Susan about the delights of Rhode Island cooking.  We learned about Jonnie cakes and clam bellies, and coffee milk.  We even learned which brand of coffee syrup tasted the best, but Rhode Island was a little too far out of the way for a campus visit.  It is a long way from Scranton to Point Judith, so we are grateful to you, Chris, for introducing us to something closer to home.  Our first visit to a Krispy Kream.  To commemorate that event, we have a genuine, authentic Krispy Kream cap with the original bow tie logo on it, and just for you a six-pack of the world’s best soft drink Schwepps, one worth traveling miles to find as we did.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY INCOMING CHAIR BISE

 

Thank you, John.  It just goes to show you what happens to you when you have one split second of weakness, and you are going to pay for it for the rest of your life.  Everybody thinks I am a donut freak.

 

I would like to say the same things this past year with the Senate staff and Susan.  It has been a pleasure working with you this year, and I am looking forward to working with you next year.

 

Mel, it has been a pleasure working with you, your sense of humor, your insight and anybody who has spent more time in a coal mine working on his Ph.D. thesis than me deserves my high regards, since he did his Ph.D. on management in a coal mine.

 

Kim and Jamie, looking forward to working with you next year, and I am sure we are going to have a good time.

 

John, paybacks are tough.  A little over twenty-two years ago a mutual friend of ours said that, “I hope one of these days you get to meet a guy by the name of John Moore.  My husband was very instrumental in bringing him to Penn State University.  I think you will really like him.”  I did not realize a couple of years later we were going to serve together as University Marshals.  We have known each other for over fifteen years or so, and we got to know each other really well this past year, so she was definitely right and I really value your friendship, and with all the pleasantries aside now comes paybacks.

 

When I was thinking of what to give John as a gift I just drew a list of characteristics of John, things I knew about John.  One thing I know is he has a great sense of humor, so that is good.  He is a Shakespearean scholar and a lover of all things British.  I have been over to his house a few times for dinner; he has art work from England and whatnot so I know he likes that.  His dinners are very nice and has nice bottles of wine--I thought I would like to get him something to reflect that, but I am a coal miner and any wine that does not come in a cardboard box is a fine wine.  So I figured rather than getting you something like that I saw this.  This is a wine bottle holder stylized after a British nobleman who seems to like his wine a little bit too much.

 

Outgoing Chair Moore:  I am speechless.

 

Incoming Chair Bise:  One more thing.  You people all think he is a Shakespearean scholar.  Let me tell you he is a budding engineer because two years ago he did not mention but we like to go to baseball games together, and we drove down to a Phillies game in a driving rain storm, and I had the roof off of my car and I told him if I keep the pedal on the Pennsylvania Turnpike to 55 mph we will not get wet, and was I right?

 

Outgoing Chair Moore:  You were right.

 

Incoming Chair Bise:  Aerodynamics, he learned that so I am always trying to introduce him to engineering things.  So I thought, well, why not get him an engineering book, and I have a book that is coming out at the end of this month and I thought I would give him a copy of my book.  But then I realized he goes around to all these Commonwealth Campuses and locations here at University Park and in his spiel he says, “I do not read books that were written after 1670,” so that made that tough.  But as a Stanford graduate, I have the right thing for him.  I have a copy of the first mining book ever written in 1556, translated out of the original Latin by a Stanford graduate and his wife, a mining engineer, Herbert Hoover.  So if you read up on this that will at least get you within 500 years, and we will gradually get you up there.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Incoming Chair Bise:  When I was handed my script for today, I was kind of shocked because it was blank so I guess they are trying to tell me do not say anything, so carrying on with the Agenda.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The April 22, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:43 PM.

 

The next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be on September 16, 2003.

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO APRIL 22, 2003

 

Senate Self Study – A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate (Forensic)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a

Course) (Legislative)

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes (Legislative)

 

Faculty Affairs Revision to Policy AD53, Privacy Statement (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Undergraduate Education – Defining Grading Standards (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Curricular Affairs – Status of General Education Implementation:  Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses (Informational)

 

Faculty Affairs – Time in Rank of Associate Professors (Informational)

 

Research – Update on Graduate Education (Informational)

 

Senate Council – Spring 2003 College Visits (Informational)

 

University Planning – Status of Construction (Informational)

 

University Planning – Parking Rate Structure (Informational)

 

 

University Faculty Senate

 

Senate Calendar

 

2003-2004

 

 

            REPORTS DUE                    SENATE COUNCIL             SENATE

 

            August 19, 2003                       September 2, 2003                   September 16, 2003

 

September 30, 2003                 October 14, 2003                    October 28, 2003

 

November 11, 2003                 November 25, 2003                 December 9, 2003

 

January 6, 2004                        January 20, 2004                      February 3, 2004

 

February 17, 2004                   March 2, 2004                         March 16, 2004

 

            March 30, 2004                       April 13, 2004                        April 27, 2004

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Report of Senate Elections

 

Melvin Blumberg, Chair, Elections Commission

 

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg:  Thank you, John.  I have a number of election results to report, but, before I do, I would like to thank very much the members of the Senate Staff and the members of the election committee who helped with the recent elections.

 

The first is the election for Senate Council 2003-2004.  Connie Baggett, College of Agricultural Sciences; Kristin Sommese, College of Arts and Architecture; John Spychalski, Smeal College of Business Administration; Alan Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; Dorothy Evensen, College of Education; Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering; Robert Burgess, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts; Peter Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Jacqueline Esposito, University Libraries, Combined Departments of Military Science, College of Communications, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Great Valley; James Smith, Abington College; Mila Su, Altoona College; Ronald McCarty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College; Thomas Glumac, Commonwealth College; Howard Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College; Alphonse E. Leure-duPree, College of Medicine.

 

Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules:  Joseph Cecere, Travis DeCastro, Joanna Floros, George Franz, and Robert Pangborn are the five members elected to serve a two-year term.

 

The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee:  Eliza Pennypacker, Arts and Architecture, UP; Michael Cardamone, Science and Engineering Technology, Capital College, Penn State Schuylkill; Richard Barshinger, College of Science, Penn State Worthington Scranton; and Lourdes Dias Soto, College of Education, UP.  These faculty have been elected for two-year terms.

 

The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure elected for three-year terms:  Jill Findeis, College of Agricultural Sciences, UP, Member; Richard Kopley, College of the Liberal Arts, Penn State DuBois, Alternate.

 

For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we have three categories.  All positions are for three-year terms.  Faculty from University Park:  Joan Thomson, College of Agricultural Sciences, Member; Paul Cohen, College of Engineering, Member; and Gita Talmage, College of Engineering, Alternate.

 

Faculty Other than University Park:  Patricia Hinchey, Commonwealth College, Penn State Worthington Scranton, Alternate.

 

Deans:  David Wormley, College of Engineering, University Park, Member; and  Raymond Coward, College of Health and Human Development, University Park, Alternate.

 

Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President for a three-year term is:  Renata Engel, College of Engineering, University Park.

 

For the office of Secretary of the Senate:  Jamie Myers, College of Education, University Park.

 

For Chair-Elect of the Senate:  Kim Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park.

 

Thank you.  Congratulations to all of them.

 

 

SENATORS NOT RETURNING FOR THE 2003-2004 SENATE YEAR

ABINGTON COLLEGE
Stephen Stace

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
Leif Jensen
Dennis Scanlon

ALTOONA COLLEGE
Valerie Stratton

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND
ARCHITECTURE
Annette McGregor

BERKS-LEHIGH VALLEY COLLEGE
LEHIGH VALLEY CAMPUS
Kathleen Lodwick

SMEAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Hemant Bhargava
Robert Crum
Peter Everett

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Thomas Berner

COLLEGE OF EARTH AND MINERAL
SCIENCES

Robert Crane
William Frank

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Roger Geiger
Brandon Hunt

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Kultegin Aydin
Cheng Dong
Norman Harris
Ali Hurson
Elise Miller-Hooks

PENN STATE HARRISBURG
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Richard Ammon
Irwin Richman

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Nancy Williams

COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS
Aida Beaupied
Julia Hewitt
Christopher Johnstone
John Kramer
Sandra Savignon

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Robert Bonneau
Laurence Demers
Fred Fedok

PENN STATE SCHUYLKILL
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Billie Jo Jones

EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
James Anderson
Arkady Tempelman

FAYETTE CAMPUS
Sandra Smith

DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW
Katherine Pearson

GREAT VALLEY
Roy Clariana

MILITARY SCIENCES
Paul Neiheisel

IMMEDIATE PAST-CHAIR
John Nichols

EX OFFICIO SENATOR
Daniel Larson

APPOINTED SENATOR
Thomas Poole
Karen Sandler

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Jeremy Adlon
Lauren Applegate
Laura Beck
David Breslin
Meshawn Carter
Jeffrey Corbets
Eric Cowden
Amy Locke
Michael Ritter
Dawn Rupp
Kristen Seabright
Summer Spangler
Macklin Stanley

GRADUATE STUDENTS
Christopher Baker
Gwenn McCollum

 

 

 

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

APRIL 22, 2003, SENATE MEETING

 

Achterberg, Cheryl
Adlon, Jeremy
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard
Ansari, Mohamad
Atchley, Anthony
Atwater, Deborah
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie
Baratta, Anthony
Barbato, Guy
Barnes, David
Barshinger, Richard
Bazirjian, Rosann
Beck, Laura
Becker, Paul
Benson, Thomas
Berkowitz, Leonard
Berner, Thomas
Bise, Christopher
Bittner, Edward
Blasko, Dawn
Blumberg, Melvin
Bonneau, Robert
Book, Patricia
Breakey, Laurie
Breslin, David
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan
Browning, Barton
Brunsden, Victor
Burgess, Robert
Burkhart, Keith
Calvert, Clay
Cancro, John
Cardamone, Michael
Carlson, Richard
Carpenter, Lynn
Carter, Arthur
Casteel, Mark
Catchen, Gary
Cecere, Joseph
Challis, John
Cheney, Debora
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Clariana, Roy
Clark, Paul
Cohen, Jeremy
Coraor, Lee
Corbets, Jeff
Corwin, Elizabeth
Cranage, David
Curran, Brian
Curtis, Wayne
Davis, Dwight
De Jong, Gordon
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
Demers. Laurence
Disney, Diane
Donovan, James
Eckhardt, Caroline
Egolf, Roger
Elder, James
Ellis, Bill
Engelder, Terry
Erickson, Rodney
Esposito, Jackie
Evans, Christine
Falzone, Christopher
Floros, Joanna
Fortese, Ryan
Fosmire, Gary
Franz, George
Frecker, Mary
Gapinski, Andrzej
Geiger, Roger
Georgopulos, Peter
Gilmour, David
Glumac, Thomas
Goldman, Margaret
Gouran, Dennis
Gray, Robert
Gray, Timothy
Green, David
Greene, Wallace
Hagen, Daniel
Hanes, Madlyn
Hanley, Elizabeth
Harwood, John
Heinsohn, Robert
High, Kane
Hilton, James
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale
Horwitz, Alan
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hupcey, Judith
Irwin, Zachary
Jacobs, Janis
Jago, Deidre
Jensen, Leif
Johnson, Ernest
Johnstone, Christopher
Jones, Terrell
Jurs, Peter
Kane, Eileen
Kennedy, Richard
Kephart, Kenneth
Khalilollahi, Amir
Koul, Ravinder
Kramer, John
Kunze, Donald
Levin, Mark
Lodwick, Kathleen
Love, Nancy
Lynch, Christopher
MacCarthy, Stephen
Mara, Cynthia
Marshall, Wayne
Marsico, Salvatore
Mason, John
Mattila, Anna
May, James
McCarty, Ronald
McCollum, Gwenn
McCorkle, Sallie
Mengisteab, Kidane
Miller-Hooks, Elise
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John
Moses, Wilson
Mueller, Alfred
Myers, Jamie
Nichols, John
Oliver, Mary Beth
Pangborn, Robert
Pauley, Laura
Payne, Judy
Pearson, Katherine
Pell, Eva
Perrine, Joy
Petersen, Gary
Petriello, Gene
Pietrucha, Martin
Poole, Thomas
Pytel, Jean
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David
Richards, Winston
Richman, Irwin
Romano, John
Romberger, Andrew
Rupp, Dawn
Russell, David
Sachs, Howard
Sandmeyer, Louise
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scaroni, Alan
Schaeffer, Stephen
Seabright, Kristen
Secor, Robert
Semali, Ladislaus
Seybert, Thomas
Shea, Dennis
Simmonds, Patience
Simon, Julia
Simpson, Timothy
Smith, Carol
Smith, James
Sommese, Kristin
Spanier, Graham
Spychalski, John
Stace, Stephen
Steiner, Kim
Stoffels, Shelley
Stratton, Valerie
Strauss, James
Su, Mila
Szczygiel, Bonj
Tempelman, Arkady
Thomchick, Evelyn
Thomson, Joan
Tormey, Brian
Troester, Rodney
Turner, Tramble
Vgontzas, Alex
Wager, James
Wagner, Kristy
Walters, Robert
Welch, Susan
White, Eric
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara
Willits, Billie
Zervanos, Stamatis
Ziegler, Gregory

176 Total Elected
    6 Total Ex Officio
  14 Total Appointed
196 TOTAL ATTENDING