 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 35-----APRIL 23, 2002-----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 2001-02.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for April 23, 2002
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to April 23, 2002
Door Handout – Cahir Resolution
Senate Calendar for 2002-03
Standing Committee Assignments for 2002-03
Chairs and Vice-Chairs for 2002-03
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03
Results of Senate Elections for 2002-03
Senators Not Returning for 2002-03
Attendance
FINAL AGENDA FOR APRIL 23, 2002
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –
Minutes of the March 26, 2002 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:6
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of April 9, 2002
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 9, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
Senate Council – Tuition Task Force, Rodney A. Erickson,
Executive
Vice President/Provost of the University
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Time to Graduation Report
Senate Council – Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on
the Penn State Calendar
Senate Self Study Committee – Interim Report
University Planning – Construction Projects – 2001-02
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 2002-03
Senate Chair-Elect for 2002-03
Comments by Outgoing Chair Nichols
Installation of Officers
Comments by Incoming Chair Moore
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate passed one legislative report:
Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees.” This legislation proposed wording changes to the Senate Policies of dual-degree, simultaneous degree, and sequential degree programs, thus, changing and clarifying the language to eliminate distinctions between multiple majors and multiple degrees. The terms concurrent majors program and sequential majors program are proposed. (See Record, page (s) 7-8 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)
The Senate heard five informational reports:
Tuition Task Force Report - Provost Rodney Erickson shared the conclusions and recommendations of the Tuition Task Force, appointed by President Spanier in July 2001. Dr. Erickson’s remarks focused on comparisons with peer institutions, funding needs of the University, five-year budget projections and tuition requirements, possible tuition models and recommendations regarding Penn State’s tuition strategy for the next several years. (See Record, page(s) 8-23 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Time to Graduation Report.” This report investigates the graduation patterns of undergraduate students, using a time to degree study prepared by the Office of the University Registrar for Spring 1999, 2000, and 2001 semesters. (See Record, page(s) 23-24 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
Senate Council – Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on the Penn State Calendar - Provost Erickson responded to questions on the final outcome of deliberations related to changes in the University calendar. (See Record, page(s) 24-28 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Senate Self Study Committee – “Interim Reort.” Committee chair George Franz gave an interim report on its findings and invite feedback on topics under consideration. (See Record, page(s) 28 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
University Planning – “Construction Projects, 2001-02.” This informational report focused on projects at campus college locations. (See Record, page(s) 29-32 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding. One hundred and sixty-eight Senators signed the roster.
Chair Nichols: 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 26, 2002 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for April 9, 2002. 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 9, 2002. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Nichols: There are
several. First of all if you have not
glanced at the Senate Council minutes you might want to do so. There are a number of announcements and
remarks that will be of value to you but in the interest of time I will not
repeat them.
This being the last Senate
meeting of the year a number of Senators will be completing their term of
office today. I would like to take just
a few minutes to acknowledge those departing Senators and to thank them for
their service.
SENATORS NOT RETURNING FOR THE 2002-2003 SENATE YEAR
COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
Hector Flores
Harvey Manbeck
Michael Saunders
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND
ARCHITECTURE
Dan Brinker
PENN STATE ERIE - THE
BEHREND COLLEGE
Barbara Power
Syed Andaleeb
SMEAL COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Terry Harrison
J. Randall Woolridge
COLLEGE OF
COMMUNICATIONS
John Nichols
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Murry Nelson
COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING
Ali Borhan
Sabih Hayek
Jeffrey Mayer
Jose Ventura
PENN STATE HARRISBURG
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Jacob De Rooy
COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Linda Caldwell
Rebecca Corwin
Thomas Frank
Deborah Preston
COLLEGE OF THE
LIBERAL ARTS
Alan Block
Richard Bord
James Brasfield
Alan Derickson
Adrian Wanner
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Steven Dear
Charles Hill
Joan Lakoski
EBERLY COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE
Robin Ciardullo
Renee Diehl
Robert Minard
Mark Strikman
UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
Loanne Snavely
BEAVER CAMPUS
JoAnn Chirico
DELAWARE CAMPUS
Lonnie Golden
NEW KENSINGTON CAMPUS
Theresa Balog
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION
SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
James Thomas
EX OFFICIO SENATOR
John Cahir
Nancy Eaton
UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS
Joshua Walker
Nicholas Pazdziorko
Laura Serfass
Robert Hill
Terry Shirley
Adam Schott
Dawn Noga
Jennifer Tingo
Molly Powell
Sunny Webb
Sean Limric
Anthony Wardle
GRADUATE STUDENTS
Sally Flowers
Gwenn McCollum
Mackenzie DeVos
Joseph Ferenchick
Chair Nichols: Again, thank
you for your service to the Senate and the university.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: At this time
I would like to make some special presentations. This is a newly established means by which the Senate
acknowledges Senators who have participated in the governance of the university
through lengthy service to the Senate and/or holding leadership positions and
as a result deserve special recognition.
The first recognition goes to Jacob De Rooy. Jake are you here? Jake
would you wind your way down here.
Jacob De Rooy joined the
Senate in 1983 as a Penn State Harrisburg, Capital College Senator. During Jake’s 17 years of service, he was
the Senate Secretary in 1992-93 and chaired the Senate Committee on Outreach
Activities for three years. He also was
elected to the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and Faculty Rights
and Responsibilities Committee. In
addition, Jake has served on the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs, Faculty
Benefits and Senate Council. The Senate
would like to present Jake with a special certificate and thanks for his
service.
Senators: Applause.
Louis Geschwindner has
served as a College of Engineering Senator since 1982. In 1995-96, Lou was elected Secretary of the
Faculty Senate and in 1996-97 he was elected Chair-elect. Lou has served as chair of the Senate
Committee on Curricular Affairs for six years; he has also chaired and been a
member of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student
Aid and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. Lou has served the Senate for 19 years. I don’t believe Lou is here but let’s give
him a round of applause anyway.
Senators: Applause.
Sabih Hayek is a College
of Engineering Senator with 23 years of service and has served on the Senate
since 1977. Sabih has chaired and
vice-chaired the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and has served as
chair of the Senate Committee on Libraries.
He has also been vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
and served on External Affairs. Again,
a round for Sabih.
Senators: Applause.
Harvey Manbeck joined the
Senate in 1984 as a College of Agricultural Sciences Senator. During his 16 years of service, he has
served and provided leadership for six Senate Committees including Faculty
Affairs, Undergraduate Education, Research, Intercollegiate Athletics and
Outreach Activities. Harvey is
currently serving on the self-study committee.
Thanks, Harvey.
Senators: Applause.
Murry Nelson joined the
Senate as a College of Education Senator in 1980. In 1998-99, Murry was elected chair-elect of the Senate and
served as chair and immediate past chair.
He has chaired the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate
Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics.
Murry has served on the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education,
Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations, Senate Committee on Committees
and Rules and the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. Murry has served the Senate for 17 years.
Senators: Applause.
Without objection, I would
like to present to the Senate for its consideration the following resolution
regarding a person who has had a very special relationship with the Senate for
an extended period of time. Let me read
the resolution for your consideration.
RESOLUTION
John J. Cahir
Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education
Professor of Meteorology
WHEREAS, Dr. John J. Cahir
has had a distinguished career at Penn State dating back to 1965, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
demonstrated innovative and exemplary administrative leadership in his many
contributions to the university community, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
served on the University Faculty Senate continuously since 1973, and has been a
member of Senate Council; an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee
to the President and chaired the Faculty Affairs and Planning and Development
committees; and served on Undergraduate Education and Intercollegiate Athletic
committees, and led or served on numerous commissions, panels, and task forces,
and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
helped shape the weather forecasting abilities of thousands of students and is
nationally and internationally recognized for his research and teaching in
climatology and using computer technologies to transform weather stations, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
been a champion for excellence in teaching and learning and improving the
quality of undergraduate education at Penn State and nationally, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
been a mentor, guide, and friend to innumerable Penn State faculty, staff, and
students, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir is a
man of integrity, loyalty, and unflagging devotion to Penn State;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on
this 23rd day of April, 2002, expresses its deepest gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. John J. Cahir for his many accomplishments on behalf of the
university, in support of excellence in undergraduate education. The Senate offers affectionate and heartfelt
best wishes for many more accurate weather forecasts and a full and productive
retirement.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: John, why don’t you come down? I am going to ask the Senate for a vote for affirmation on the resolution. All those in favor of affirming the resolution, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Thank you. Every year the Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life is asked to review applications for John W. White Graduate Fellowship awards, given annually to graduating seniors who plan on enrolling in a graduate degree program. This year Bill Ellis, chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life and committee member Jeff Mayer and Executive Secretary Susan Youtz recommended four graduating seniors for receiving the White Graduate Fellowship. We invited the winners to join us today, three of them could not be here because they are in class, but I would like to read their names and fields of study.
Michelle Cook, Biology, Schreyer Honors College, will attend the University of Pennsylvania in a combined veterinary science and Ph.D. program.
Kimberly Herrmann, Penn State Erie, Physics and Astrophysics, Schreyer Honors College and she will attend Penn State in pursuit of a Ph.D. in the Department of Physics.
Laura Rosenberger majors in Sociology, Psychology and Women’s Studies, with a minor in Information Systems and Statistical Analysis, Schreyer Honors College. Laura will start a master’s degree program at American University in International Peace and Conflict Studies.
Suzanne Bisceglia. Thank you for standing up. Let me tell you a little bit about Suzanne. Suzanne is a Biology major with a concentration in Vertebrate Physiology, and a minor in World Literature. She said during the interviews that general education courses opened her eyes to world cultures and literature. Suzanne, a Schreyer Honors College student with an Honors Thesis in Nutrition has been admitted to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Suzanne has served as a teaching assistant in the biology department and a volunteer in the Women’s Health Clinic at University Health Services and is a Healthworks Peer Educator and a Blue Belt in Karate. If we let her get back to class, she expects to graduate with a 4.0 grade point average. Congratulations.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols:
We
are going to go back in the script a little bit and surprise Sabih Hayek who
just walked in the room. Sabih come on
down. While you were absent we passed
out certificates of those who had lengthy service and leadership positions in
the Faculty Senate and we said all sorts of nice things about you but we won’t
repeat them now, but congratulations.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Nichols: Agenda Item E,
Comments By The President Of The University. President Spanier is not in attendance today, however, we will hear from
Provost Erickson in a few minutes.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Nichols: As we begin our discussion of reports, I
will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you
represent before addressing the Senate.
I also remind our guests that the Senate floor is open only to Senators
or others in the university community that have received previous permission
for access to the floor. Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports, Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Education, Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees. This is Appendix “B” in your Agenda and Laura Pauley the committee
chair is here to present.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision of Senate Policy
60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: Last spring the Faculty Senate voted to award two separate diplomas to students who completed the multiple major program. When we did that, we now give diplomas to both simultaneous degrees and multiple majors and are blurring the distinction between these. The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education looked at this policy and decided to merge those two descriptions of multiple majors and call it a concurrent major and have one policy guideline.
Chair Nichols: Questions or comments for Laura? Seeing none we are ready for a vote. This is a legislative item. Your vote would be to approve the revisions in Senate Policy 60-00. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay?" The aye’s have it. The motion carries and the policy is adopted. Thank you, Laura.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Chair Nichols: Agenda Item J, Informational Reports. Senate Council is sponsoring the Tuition Task Force Report and Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost will present the report and that is Appendix “C.” As Provost Erickson is making his way to the podium I would like to make three quick points. First of all, on behalf of my faculty colleagues I would like to applaud Provost Erickson and his really great team of vice provosts on their extraordinarily strong and effective academic leadership of the university. And to say how much I personally enjoyed working with him and his great leadership team this year and to thank him for his support for the Senate and the principle of shared governance.
Second, regarding the Tuition Task Force Report it is important for you to know that a great deal of the heavy lifting in this important report was done by Richard Althouse, the University Budget Officer and Steve Curley, the Financial Officer in the Provost’s Office. Dick, as most of you know is a Senator, but because he is a shy type, I did not note his presence at the last meeting and therefore failed to acknowledge that he was this year’s winner of the Administrative Excellence Award. Congratulations, Dick.
Third, the full report of the Tuition Task Force is being put up on the web as we speak so you don’t have to feverishly scribble down data in the provost’s presentation this afternoon. The web site is www.budget.psu.edu/tuition and it will also be linked to the Senate home page so you could have quick access to it. Provost Erickson, thank you.
SENATE COUNCIL
Tuition Task Force
Rodney A. Erickson, Provost: Thank you, Chair Nichols. Let me reciprocate by thanking you in your role as chair this year and the outstanding job that you have done. We have enjoyed, very much working with you.
I believe next year we are going to have to find funds in the budget to put a light here at the podium. As I advance in age, this is becoming more and more challenging all the time to work without a light.
As Chair Nichols indicated, I have been chairing a task force that has been looking into budget issues and forecasting future tuition needs at the university. There are a lot of difficult choices that we have to make and these are complex issues. It is critically important that we understand as best as we can the road that is before us. My report this afternoon is going to summarize the findings and recommendations of our study. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to come before the Faculty Senate to share this important report with you. There is much information that needs to be covered and I am going to stick rather closely to my formal remarks in the interest of making this presentation as clear and efficient as possible.
Dr. Spanier appointed the Tuition Task Force because he recognized that the university’s teaching, research, and service missions depend on adequate and consistent funding. To meet Penn State’s strategic goals, the Tuition Task Force was asked to consider realistic projections of a large range of tuition options that may be necessary over the next five years to support the continued competitiveness of the university as a premier institution.
I will not go into great detail about the university’s under-funding (and I emphasize serious under-funding) in relation to peer institutions because this topic is discussed in considerable detail in the report, and I have already presented much of the information to this group in my annual budget reports. However, I will provide you with some background that frames the context in which the university must consider its decisions with respect to tuition.
The commonwealth’s appropriations have made up a progressively smaller share of Penn State’s budget for several decades. Commonwealth appropriations now make up a mere 14 percent of Penn State’s total budget. I have told you in previous reports that our appropriation per full-time equivalent (FTE) student is the lowest among Big Ten public universities and, on the other side of the coin, our tuition is the highest. No other university among our peer group, has such a large gap between the high quality and reputation of its programs, on the one hand, and the low level of resources for faculty and other needs that are available, on the other.
At the same time as revenues have lagged, the university has faced significant cost increases in terms of salaries and benefits, capital improvements and maintenance, information technology, library resources, and regulatory compliance.
Penn State has cut costs through a decade and more of budget recycling, but it has still been necessary to raise tuition in order to maintain academic quality.
Looking ahead, we recognize that the university will continue to face significant cost increases.
Additional funds are needed for full-time, tenure-track faculty to reduce class sizes and to improve the student/faculty ratio. We need more modern classroom and lab facilities and funds for our growing deferred maintenance backlog. We need to fund critical academic and administrative support programs and interdisciplinary initiatives, develop library resources and technology improvements, enhance student life and learning experiences, and improve our outreach and technology transfer services to citizens of the commonwealth.
Several principles guided the Tuition Task Force deliberations. In keeping with Penn State’s land-grant mission, we believe that tuition should be held to the lowest level possible, consistent with enhancing the academic quality of the university and achieving its strategic goals.
We must continue to seek new ways to operate efficiently. We should be sensitive to the economic climate, but also take a principled and long-term approach to tuition strategy.
Tuition policies should be set in the context of market factors, the policies of our peer institutions, and the competitive regional environments of our Penn State campuses.
We must maintain many points of student access through our multi-campus system.
And, we need to preserve affordability by maximizing the amount of student financial aid that is available.
An important element in any discussion of tuition policy is student interest in the university. We are fortunate that student interest in a Penn State education is extremely strong. Applications for admission have been at record levels of 75,000 to 78,000 over the past three years. The yield rate for freshmen baccalaureate offers remains steady, and total enrollment of about 82,000 students is on target with the university’s enrollment management plan.
Here is a thirty-year look at tuition increases on a percentage basis. There have been times that Penn State has had to face significant tuition increases. In fact, in 11 of the 30 years, we have had to increase tuition nine percent or more.
The conditions that led to these increases varied over the years. In the late 1970's and 1980's, inflation was a factor. We are facing similar circumstances now, in that costs are increasing in the categories of salaries, benefits, equipment, maintenance, and technology.
During the 1980's, tuition increases averaged nearly ten percent. Over the past ten years, the increases have been more modest.
This slide represents Penn State’s tuition, and Educational and General Appropriation per full-time-equivalent student in constant dollars. The E&G appropriation is that line item in Penn State’s appropriation that represents the bulk of the commonwealth’s contribution to our basic instructional mission. Dollar values have been adjusted to a constant base year of 1970 using the Higher Education Price Index. In 1970, appropriation represented about two-thirds of the total expenditure per FTE student, while tuition represented about one-third. Today, the pattern is reversed with tuition representing two-thirds and appropriation one-third.
Overall, the funds available to the university per FTE
student from these two sources, when adjusted for inflation, are not much
higher now than in 1970. In other
words, the university’s purchasing power per student is virtually the same as
it was 30 years ago. This is a remarkable
fact, given the increased demands that have occurred over the past 30 years,
such as teaching and learning improvements, environmental and other regulatory
compliance, more student services, major maintenance expenditures, technology
improvements, and higher expectations from students and parents.
Since 1995-96, Penn State’s tuition increases have averaged 5.2 percent per year, but we are seeing an increasing trend over the past three years.
This chart shows Penn State’s actual appropriations from the commonwealth from 1995-96 to the current year. It also shows the $10.1 million budget rescission that occurred this year and the governor’s proposed budget for Penn State for 2002-03.
The proposed budget cuts of $16.7 million for 2002-03 would return Penn State to about the level of funding it received three years ago in 1999-2000.
The line with the red diamonds on this chart shows what the
appropriation amounts would have looked like if Penn State had received
annual increases over the 1995-96 appropriation that were equal to the
inflationary increases in the Higher Education Price Index. The line with the yellow squares shows the
actual appropriation. When inflationary
increases are factored in, the governor’s proposed budget, if enacted for next
year, would set Penn State back $35 million in purchasing power from 1995-96.
To project Penn State’s budget requirements for the next five years, the Tuition Task Force developed multiple budget scenarios based on projections for each of several budget variables such as salaries, benefits, and program needs.
Salaries make up the largest portion of Penn State’s budget, 69 percent when benefits are included. Comparisons with our peer institutions show that Penn State’s average faculty salaries have slipped substantially in ranking since 1995-96. Competitive salaries are important to maintaining a quality faculty. Recovering our lost ground in salaries will require a multi-year initiative.
As you can see from this table, among Big Ten public institutions, Penn State’s rank for average salaries dropped from second to fifth at the professor level, from second to sixth at the associate professor level, and we moved from eighth to seventh at the assistant professor level from 1995-1996 to 2000-2001.
The same comparison is made between Penn State and 22 public
institutions participating in the Association of American Universities Data
Exchange (AAUDE). For the same five
year period, Penn State’s rank for average salaries dropped from second to
eighth at the professor level, from second to tenth for associate professors,
and we continue to be ranked twelfth for assistant professor salaries.
Nationally, faculty salaries at private universities, on average, exceed faculty salaries at public universities, and the gap is growing. Here is some data published in 2001 in Academe for professor-rank faculty. The salary gap for private versus public university faculty was 12 percent in 1989-90 and had increased to 22.4 percent in 2001-2002. I should add that we were just about even in 1980.
With the growing national reputation of Penn State’s faculty, the relationship between our faculty salaries and those at the elite private universities is becoming increasingly important.
We analyzed faculty salary data for the private universities in the Association of American Universities (AAU) and compared them to Penn State faculty salaries. We found that Penn State faculty salaries are considerably below those of AAU private universities, and the gap is growing. At each level--assistant, associate, and professor--the salary gap increased between 1995 and 2001.
We are feeling the effects of this salary gap at Penn State. We have been losing excellent faculty to some of the AAU private universities, such as Cornell, Harvard, Chicago, Tulane, and the list goes on.
We also looked extensively at a number of other major factors in our budget planning assumptions.
Employee benefit costs are projected to increase for the coming years for the university’s educational and general operations. Nationally, health care costs are expected to increase 15 to 20 percent per year over the next several years. Penn State has projected an increase in health care costs from 14 to 16 percent per year over the five-year planning period.
Our budget plans also include providing health care benefits for graduate students that correspond with benefits provided to faculty and staff.
In line with national trends, we are expecting significant increases in property and liability insurances.
We continue to allocate funds to deferred maintenance, and we included funds for new and newly renovated facilities scheduled to come on line during the next five years.
In terms of program needs, we included funds to complete the funding commitments over the next three years for our academic initiatives in the Life Sciences, Materials Science, Environmental Studies, and Children, Youth and Families.
Program investment funds of $6 million per year have been included for such things as new faculty positions, start-up packages for replacement positions, competitive graduate assistant stipends, and selected expansion of baccalaureate programs at some campus locations.
The budget scenarios include $1 million per year to complete the funding for the School of Information Sciences and Technology, although we certainly hope that the commonwealth will provide additional funds for this important venture, which they have previously supported through a $5.3 million base budget allocation.
The Information Resources and Technology fee will provide $2 million per year for library information resources and student computing and telecommunications needs.
One and half million dollars per year has been included for other priority needs, such as the President’s Opportunity Fund, instructional workload funding, and the parking and transportation improvement programs.
The equivalent of one percent per year in departmental operating funds will be reallocated within each unit as part of the next cycle of strategic planning. Over the last ten years, we recycled over $87 million, which represents approximately twelve percent of our departmental operating budgets.
We are also planning to increase funding for student aid by an average of $1.2 million each year to mitigate the effects of tuition increases on our neediest students.
To project Penn State’s expenditures over the next five years, we made multiple projections with different levels of state appropriation and personnel costs. We projected state appropriation changes of minus five, minus three, zero, plus two, and plus four percent. We also projected personnel cost increases at three different levels--an increase below the peer group average which we know would cause further slippage in Penn State’s salary rankings, a level which would match the peer group average increase, and an increase of one percent over the peer group average which would start to improve our salary rankings. To place this in context, we believe that an increase of three percent in the basic merit pool plus one percent each in the President’s Excellence Fund and the Faculty/Staff Excellence Fund will be necessary just to stay at the peer group average next year.
In each scenario presented, we used a mid-range figure of $6 million per year for program investment funds.
Here are the results. Varying appropriation changes at five levels and personnel cost increases at three levels results in 15 different scenarios for tuition and fees increases ranging from 7.8 percent to 14.7 percent. You can see the devastating effect that a five percent budget cut will have on the tuition rate that we would need just to maintain our current relative standing.
We analyzed the pros and cons of four possible tuition models that could generate enough income to meet the university’s projected five-year financial needs. The models are:
1.
Incremental increases,
adjusted each year to meet economic conditions and university needs.
2.
One-time, significant
increases for all students, followed by more modest increases, in order to
provide significant catch-up funding.
3.
Significant increases
for incoming freshmen, with more modest annual increases for continuing
students.
4.
Expanded differential
tuition by student level and by campus location.
Incremental increases would allow tuition levels to be adjusted each year to meet economic conditions and university needs. No students would receive significantly larger increases than other students. This does not constitute a significant departure from our current practice.
However, the incremental increases will need to be higher than inflation, and this option still may not provide the necessary income to meet the university’s needs. Over time, we would also predict problems for campus college locations that are competing with local and regional institutions.
The second model, implementing one-time, significant increases for all students, followed by more modest annual increases, would provide an immediate inflow of income to meet the university’s needs, and it would accomplish the change in the tuition structure quickly.
However, this option impacts current students much more than the other options, and it has the greatest potential impact on access. Student aid would become an even more critical issue.
This option would also have a serious impact on our campus locations, and may price them out of some markets in comparison to their local competitors.
We believe that a better solution to meeting the university’s fiscal needs is through gradual increments over a period of time.
The next model is significant tuition increases for freshmen, with more modest increases for continuing students, similar to those they have experienced in the past. The income would be spread out over a four-year period, providing more effective use of the funds. Freshmen students would be advised of the increases before making their decision to come to Penn State.
On the downside, this model would have an impact on accessibility for new freshmen and student aid would continue to be a critical issue. It could again cause a problem for the fiscal competitiveness of our campus locations.
The last model involves expanding differential tuition by student level and by campus location. Expanding the tuition differentials between University Park and other campuses, for example, would be the best solution to the price competitiveness issues facing the campus locations. Further differentials by student level would better reflect the costs of upper-division and graduate education. Differentiation by student level and location could be implemented in conjunction with any of the other three models.
Some cautions to consider--tuition differentials might inhibit movement within the Penn State system. For example, a sophomore at a campus location moving to the junior level at University Park would face a substantial tuition increase.
Another disadvantage is that the differences in cost among Penn State locations might be misunderstood as representing differences in educational quality.
The next part of my report sets forth the Tuition Task Force’s observations and recommendations after evaluation of the four tuition models.
The Tuition Task Force made two primary observations.
First, the strong student interest in Penn State and the significant tuition rate increases planned by peer institutions suggest that enrollments can be maintained in the face of higher tuition, particularly at University Park.
Second, the flexibility to increase tuition is more limited at some other campuses due to local economic conditions, student demand, and the pricing policies of competing regional institutions.
Accordingly, we have endorsed the following two recommendations--first, that the most promising alternative to meet the university’s budget requirements is a combination of increased tuition differentials by campus location and by student level, and incremental increases as needed.
Second, we have concluded that higher tuition should be
phased in beginning with incoming freshmen, rather than for all students. Freshmen would be advised of the increases
before making their decision to come to Penn State.
For the next academic year, 2002-2003, we are proposing that all students receive the same percentage tuition increase.
Beginning in 2003-2004, we are proposing to increase tuition differentials by location and by student level. Incoming freshmen would receive a higher tuition increase in 2003-2004 and again as sophomores in 2004-05. Two consecutive years of the freshmen bump would become the new higher tuition base that works its way progressively through the student body year-by-year. The existing tuition differential for upper-division and graduate students would be increased over two years, and University Park students would receive higher tuition increases than students at other campus locations.
Here is some more detail about the planned increase for incoming freshmen in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. At University Park, freshmen would receive a basic tuition increase plus an extra increase in the range of $400 to $600 per year.
At other locations, freshmen would receive a basic tuition increase for their location plus an extra increase in the range of $50 to $100 per year.
As I indicated, the increases for freshmen would be announced well in advance so that students could consider the cost of tuition in their enrollment decision.
Larger differentials for upper-division students would also be implemented in 2003-04 and 2004-05. For upper-division students at University Park, we project a basic tuition increase plus an extra increase of $180 per year.
For other locations, upper-division students would receive a basic tuition increase for their location plus the upper-division increase of $180 in 2003-04 and again in 2004-05.
In any discussion of tuition increases, we must consider need-based student aid and its importance to financially needy students.
During the 2000-01 academic year, Penn State students received a total of $482 million in student aid from federal and state grants, loans, and institutional and private sources.
These bar charts show the percentage of full-time degree-seeking undergraduate and graduate students who received grant and/or scholarship assistance that covered at least some of their tuition in the fall semester 2001. These data do not include loans.
Fifty-three percent of full-time undergraduate students receive some tuition reduction from grants or scholarships, 27 percent of full-time undergraduate students receive the equivalent of 60 percent or more of full tuition, and 12 percent receive amounts equal to their full tuition charges or more.
Seventy-one percent of full-time graduate students receive some tuition reduction from grants, scholarships, or fellowships, and 96 percent of these students receive full tuition awards.
We have carefully studied the amount of student aid received and the unmet financial need for full-time undergraduate students. In this analysis, unmet need is defined as the balance of direct costs of tuition, room, and board after considering grants, scholarships, federal loans, and the expected family contribution.
As we might expect, the unmet need was greatest for families with incomes under $65,000, but there were other significant differences, as shown here. The unmet need for commuting students averaged $170 per year. Thus, campuses other than University Park will continue to be important points of access, especially for commuting students.
The unmet need for Pennsylvania resident students living on campus averaged $1,200 per year, and the unmet need for nonresident students living on campus averaged $6,450 per year.
In 1999-2000, the median debt for Penn State students who have debt upon completion of their baccalaureate degree was $17,125. National survey data indicated that the median undergraduate debt at public institutions was $15,375 and at private institutions was $17,250.
Of the $1.3 billion dollar overall goal of the Grand Destiny Campaign, $545 million is targeted for support of ongoing programs and $755 million is targeted for support of four featured objectives--Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Faculty, and Programs. Undergraduate and graduate support make up $393 million, or 52 percent, of the $755 million for featured objectives.
Penn State’s Campaign goal for Undergraduate Support is $320 million and the goal for Graduate Support is $73 million.
As of February 2002, we have raised $270 million or 84 percent of the Undergraduate Support goal. A majority of the funds in this category support undergraduate scholarships.
As of February, we have raised $53 million or 72 percent of the Graduate Support goal. Graduate support helps fund graduate fellowships which are a critical need in recruiting students for all of Penn State’s academic colleges.
Private fund raising is increasingly important as a source of student aid funds. In 1996, endowed scholarships and annual giving funds provided 3,268 awards totaling $6.1 million. By 2000, these figures had increased to 4,632 awards totaling $12.1 million, thanks to substantial gifts from the Grand Destiny Campaign.
We are projecting that awards totaling $16.2 million will be available in 2006, as additional gifts from the Grand Destiny Campaign are received and activated.
Philanthropic support is critically important in helping Penn State compete for the most talented students. Through the efforts of the Grand Destiny Campaign, we are providing assistance to needy students with tremendous potential.
With the help of federal and state based student aid, loans, institutional funds and private philanthropy by Penn State alumni and friends, our goal is to ensure that all prospective students in the commonwealth who want to attend this university can continue to do so.
The next few slides will summarize the main points of the Tuition Task Force’s report.
Comparative rankings show that Penn State is seriously (and I underline seriously) under-funded in relation to our peers, both nationally and within the commonwealth. This under-funding shows in virtually all comparisons of university activities.
We are a very efficient university and we rank highly in productivity and administrative efficiency.
Years of budget reallocations and recycling have contributed to this productivity, but have left us with limited flexibility to generate internal funds.
The Grand Destiny Campaign has been very successful, but it is not designed to provide funds for basic operating costs. No one has ever given us a gift to pay the electric bill. It does help to provide funds for a margin of excellence in academic programs and critical financial support for students.
Because of state budget constraints, commonwealth appropriations now account for less than one-third of Penn State’s general funds budget and only 14 percent of our total budget. It is highly unlikely that the state appropriation will increase enough to meet the university’s needs.
The demand for a Penn State education should continue to be robust, and it should be possible to sustain enrollments with the tuition increases in most of the ranges considered in our report.
The planned tuition strategy will enhance Penn State’s academic quality and reputation. Peer public institutions are planning significant increases in their tuition rates over the next few years. Limiting tuition increases below the mid-range scenarios in this report would almost certainly result in erosion of academic quality and reputation of the university.
We are recommending larger increases for entering students over a two-year period and relatively lower increases than might otherwise be the case for our current students.
Our analysis supports greater differentials among campuses, programs, and student levels, based on the actual costs of educational programming. Differential tuition would permit Penn State to compete effectively in regional markets while permitting University Park to secure the financial resources necessary to support its mission. The campus colleges would take on an even greater role in providing access to higher education in the Penn State system.
Penn State will continue its strategy of cost containment and continuous quality improvement. As President Spanier indicated at the last Senate meeting, a small task force has been created to look at the overall university budget and find new places to reduce costs. Gary Shultz and I are co-chairing the task force and we want to make sure that every stone is turned over to see if we can find additional cost savings that will not adversely affect our academic mission.
The university will need to place even greater emphasis on private fund raising for student financial aid.
Even with significantly higher tuition rates, a Penn State education remains an excellent investment for students. While no one likes to raise tuition, there appears to be no reasonable alternative to provide the financial resources that will be required to support the university’s continued competitiveness and its development as a premier academic institution. Penn State’s potential and goals are high, and we owe our students the highest quality education.
I would encourage all of you to take time to review the full Tuition Task Force report at the web site address noted here.
Again I want to thank the Senate for the opportunity to come and present the results and recommendations of our report that we will share with the Board of Trustees on May 10, 2002 and this will in turn provide information and context for them as they consider tuition increases for next year and concepts for the following year when they meet in July at the Dickinson School of Law.
Finally, I would like to extend special thanks to Dick Althouse, University Budget Officer and Steve Curley, Financial Officer in the president’s office and Assistant to the Executive Vice President and Provost. They and the staff of the budget office have spent a lot of long, long days into the night working on different kinds of budget scenarios, tuition scenarios and concepts and they have been invaluable in putting together this kind of analysis. We believe that this is a set of realistic projections. It is a roadmap for the future of where we have to go. It will be in many ways a bitter pill to swallow in terms of tuition, but as I said before there really is no alternative to maintain and indeed, enhance the academic quality of this university. If the chair permits, I will stand for questions.
W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: The bad news on state appropriations has been a subject that the Senate Chair brought up in February and last week in the Executive Council of the College of Arts and Architecture. So my question to the dean was, “okay we can’t lobby by ourselves.” What can we do as individuals in the College of Arts and Architecture? His suggestion was that we write our Congressman and ask why. So my question to you is, in terms of state appropriations, what can the Faculty Senate do in terms of asking the very same question to the appropriations committee--why is Penn State not getting the funding it needs to continue? If the only answer is because we are at the size we are now and that is the reason that we are not getting the state funding?
Rodney A. Erickson: First of all, the kinds of things that the faculty as individuals can do and what students can do is continue to communicate the message to their local elected representatives. I still believe that is the best strategy. Lawmakers tend to respond to their local constituents more than they do to various other kinds of bodies. I want to assure you that we are doing everything that we possibly can to increase the appropriation that we get from the commonwealth. We have not given up, nor will we give up at any time in the future. But I also want this body to be very cognizant of the financial situation that the state finds itself in. If you have been reading the newspapers, you know that minimally we are expecting a billion dollar deficit this year. It could go to a billion and a quarter. That deficit is going to wipe out most, if not all of the Rainy Day Fund in the commonwealth and whomever takes control of the legislature and the governor’s office in January is going to face a situation that we have not faced for many years, with really rock bottom depleted revenues, and still no end in sight in terms of the recession turning around.
In addition to that, the various tax relief measures that have been passed will make it even more difficult to generate higher levels of revenue in the state. We have seen over the past decade the state choosing to invest larger relative amounts of money in PHEEA in the form of state aid, rather than providing the increases to base operating funds for Penn State and other public institutions that would put us into the realm of our peer institutions outside of Pennsylvania with whom we compete.
So I think the message is, to continue to do everything that you are doing and more in terms of contacting local representatives to make the case. Not only about the general level of under-funding of the university, but also the basic inequities on a per student basis that exist. I think that most of you are aware that Penn State’s appropriation for full time equivalent students is $3,460 per year. For the state system of higher education schools it is $4,960. For the University of Pittsburgh it is $5,030. For Temple University it is $6,230 and for Lincoln University it is $6,900. So we are very much at the bottom of the heap. Far below any of the other state supported institutions in the amount of per student appropriation that we receive. I think the more that case can be made, the better. We will continue to work hard in Harrisburg. I urge you and members of the student body to continue to work hard, but the financial situation of the commonwealth is such that I don’t believe that we can wait in the sidelines and expect to have the public provide the resources that we need to keep this university a premier institution.
Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware County Campus: What case can we make for the differential tuition for the University Park versus Non-University Park sites when the perception out there will be lesser quality at the Non-University Park sites?
Rodney A. Erickson: It is really quite simple, Peter. It is the cost of education. The cost of education is significantly higher for upper-division and particularly for graduate education than it is for lower-division, which still represents the largest share of our students at most of the campuses with the exception of Harrisburg and Great Valley. So that is a theme that we are going to have to make sure is understood by the public. This is based on cost considerations of delivering the educational program and not an indication of differences in quality.
Michael J. Cardamone, Penn State Schuylkill: Provost Erickson do you have for purposes of comparison, figures for the cost per student or the support per student at places such as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin?
Rodney A. Erickson: Yes, definitely. We have done a lot of comparison about the amount of resources that are available to spend in the course of educating a student. Let me give you the two extremes. We are the extreme at $3,460 per FTE student. Let me take a little different tack there and back up a bit. In terms of the total amount that we spend, let us start with that. We spend, in rough terms about $12,500 per student in terms of the cost of educating the average Penn State student. The University of Michigan spends over $27,000. It is almost two and a half times more on a per student basis than we do and the rest of the Big Ten schools are at a rate in between. If you compare the amount of FTE appropriation per student and you just take the main campus comparison here, because the other Big Ten schools only provide data on that basis, the University of Wisconsin receives over $11,000 a year from the legislature per student. You compare that to ours--Madison versus the University Park Campus—it is about two and a half times the amount of state appropriation per FTE student. Irrespective of whatever measure you look at in terms of the amount that we spend per student or the amount of our appropriation per student we are at the bottom of the Big Ten.
Laura L. Pauley: If you look at the last ten years or so the main reason for the difference in appropriation per student at Penn State, Temple and Pitt is because we have decided to grow our student enrollment while those other schools have decided to decrease their student enrollment. I am wondering if there is a message from the legislature that we should not be trying to expand or if Penn State might be looking at that as an alternative?
Rodney A. Erickson: Well our enrollment plan, Laura is not to expand. As I think everyone is well aware, we want to stay within a very small annual increase. University Park Campus for example, hasn’t increased for a number of years now nor do we really want it to move out of that 40,000 to 42,000 range. Hopefully, staying around 41,000 in that area. The modest growth that has taken place in our enrollment in the last several years has virtually all been at the campus college locations, and even that has been relatively modest. We continue to take a smaller and smaller share of the new freshmen from the commonwealth that are coming in every year. Much of the growth really occurred in the earlier days of the 30-year period or so, in which this greater inequity has been evolving.
What you suggest is certainly true. The commonwealth, in a kind of a lock step fashion has given all the institutions very close to the same percentage increase for the last 30 years. While Temple now still has fewer students than they had years ago, Pitt has climbed back up to about where they were some years ago, we have experienced about a 30 percent increase. So there really has been no recognition of the increase in the number of students that we are educating at Penn State. Certainly, in hindsight looking back over 30 years there is little that can be done about it now in terms of rolling back what took place over that 30-year period. But it certainly makes it more difficult for us in terms of the amount of aid that we get, no question about it and no, we don’t intend to grow in terms of enrollments in any significant way.
Ravinder Koul, Penn State Great Valley: In our market we are much more competitive in management and engineering programs compared with education programs. Will this differential tuition vary with each program as it will with the location?
Rodney A. Erickson: As you are well aware, Great Valley has always had a slightly different tuition schedule than the rest of the graduate programming in the university and we will continue to have that kind of flexibility for Great Valley. Obviously, the Dickinson School of Law and the College of Medicine are not directly part of our report here in the sense that we include and we focus mainly on undergraduate and graduate education. But obviously, for the College of Medicine, for the Dickinson School of Law and for Great Valley the same kinds of concepts certainly apply in that our costs are going to increase. We know that well, and we are going to have to have higher tuition in those schools and colleges as well, in order to maintain the quality and stay competitive as an institution.
Rajen Mookerjee, Beaver Campus: Under your plan will it be possible for a location to contemplate lowering tuition?
Rodney A. Erickson: I think that it would be unlikely that the faculty would want to have lower salaries and the other costs certainly aren’t going to go down. The prospect of lowering tuition is just totally unrealistic, while costs are going up. Certainly there would come a point where, on the cost center basis there is only so much you could subsidize. So no, tuition reductions are not something that we would contemplate. There are a few smaller private universities that have tried such tuition reduction schemes with not a very good result. They have dug deeper and deeper holes for themselves than they might not ordinarily have had, so no, that is not part of our strategy unfortunately.
Chair Nichols: Other comments or questions? Thank you Provost Erickson. Continuing on Agenda Item J, Informational Reports, the next informational report is the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, Time to Graduation Report and that is Appendix “D” in your Agenda. JoAnn Chirico, the chair will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Time To Graduation Report
JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus: Good afternoon. Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid was asked to prepare this report for Faculty Senate and before we open it for questions I would just like to call your attention to the methodology section, so that you understand how these cohorts were determined. In figuring time to graduation what the Registrar’s Office did was look at three cohorts determined by spring graduations. And we looked at spring graduations for three years. What you have is a summary of those results. So in determining for instance, a four-year graduation we looked at spring semester 2000 and counted back eight semesters to determine a four-year graduation rate. So that if someone had started in the summer they would actually, for all intensive purposes get included as a five-year graduation. There was no consideration given for stoppages, for instance, when a student studied abroad or for the co-op experiences. For the most part, those students would also end up in the five-year because of that. So understanding how the spring cohorts were determined is important to understanding the report. With that said, are there any questions?
Chair Nichols: Any
questions or comments. Thank you,
JoAnn. The third informational report
is from Senate Council, the Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier On
The Penn State Calendar. Appendix “E”
in your Agenda is
the president’s statement on the calendar.
His decision will be implemented in fall 2003. Provost Erickson will make comments and has agreed to stand for
any questions you might have on the calendar.
SENATE COUNCIL
Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier On The Penn State Calendar
Rodney A. Erickson: Thank you, Chair Nichols. I won’t make a very long statement here and would rather use the time to respond to any questions or concerns you might have. I would like to extend my thanks to the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar, and for the recommendations that the Senate put together. In fact, most of those recommendations, with the exception of the Fall Break being a week long at Thanksgiving and some issue with respect to asymmetry, most of the other recommendations, in fact, all of the other recommendations were accepted.
This has been a very tough issue. I guess if it were not tough we would have solved it a long time ago. But there is one thing that I found as I have been out on the campuses over the last year and around this campus as well. There is one thing that has been absolutely unanimous on the part of everyone. Everyone wants to start after Labor Day, wants to have a four-day Fall Break, a full week at Thanksgiving, Commencement by December 15, with five full days of finals and the 15-weeks of instruction. Everyone has agreed on that. It is the details that have been difficult. I think you have all had a chance, hopefully, to read that information that the president provided to the Senate and I believe came out as part of your Senate package and I would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have.
Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: Just a quick clarification. Is the spring semester going to be the same length of time as the fall? Or is it going…
Rodney A. Erickson: No, we have done nothing with the spring semester. That will continue to be as it is now.
Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: This is not a question. I guess it is more in the way of a comment. It is increasingly difficult to get members of the faculty to run for Senate and to some extent, I think that reluctance is a reflection of a level of cynicism about how seriously this body is taken. Now, I can understand why key conditions of the advisory/consultative report that this body approved might have been turned down if we had seized the initiative and put together our own report. And I can also see why that would have been overlooked under circumstances in which there were substantive deficiencies in the said recommendations that went forward. But I don’t see that this report and the document we received really gets at any significant substantive deficiencies in what was presented. And I think that casts a bad light on the perceptions of shared governance at this institution and I hope it will not go unnoticed.
Rodney A. Erickson: Well, a couple of responses to that. As I indicated just a few minutes ago, really the only things that we didn’t accept were the full week at Thanksgiving as well as some language about the relative asymmetry of the spring and the fall. We did hear, I can assure you from many, many students. I certainly have heard from far more students than I am sure the Senate has, and so has the president, about wanting to have some time in the middle of the semester.
The other thing that concerned us was that we really need to change the faculty and student culture at the university about the days before and after various kinds of breaks. We need to make sure that classes that are scheduled are offered as scheduled, and that students come to expect that there will be serious substantive work that is done on those days. Frankly, the long week of Thanksgiving Break--we heard from virtually every student that this was simply coming too late in the semester to really be of value to them. They much preferred to have something more in the middle. As I said, we listened to a lot of different voices on this. There is no unanimity except for what I provided previously to you and certainly it was a compromise, as we knew that it would be, between the faculty and student perspective. But I certainly would not in any way want to see anyone suggest that this was not shared governance at work.
Shared governance does not mean that the president who is charged with implementing the calendar has to accept one particular perspective in all instances. He considered several different perspectives, took most of what was offered by the Senate, accommodated student interests and that is what we ended up with.
In many ways I think it was shared governance at its best. We had a joint committee that worked on this problem from the get go. That to me is shared governance and the whole trail that followed, I think, is an excellent example of how the faculty and the administration can work together to compromise a solution that is not perfect, but we believe it is a positive step forward.
Lonnie M. Golden, Delaware County Campus: Since the spring semester is not addressed directly, I was wondering, and the Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations was wondering, if it could be considered part of the modest departures if a different location wanted to delay the start of the spring semester? Or maybe delay the week of Spring Break? The former in light of the later fall end dates and the later trying to improve the chance of overlapping with some of the spring holidays?
Rodney A. Erickson: As I think the president used the term “modest departures from the schedule with the approval of the provost.” Personally, I do not find moving a week to be a modest departure. We are an institution at not just 24 campuses, but literally about 100 different locations around the commonwealth and we need to have a public that understands when we are going to be open and what is going to be happening with some semblance of regularity and parallel from one location to the next. Now that said, there may be other instances where campuses will want to have some particular latitude. Great Valley is an example, where for many years they have run two seven-week sessions with graduate education and they run on a slightly different schedule than the rest of the university. Obviously, the College of Medicine runs on a slightly different schedule as well. But for those units that are involved primarily in undergraduate or mixed undergraduate and graduate education, I think we would be ill-advised to have too many different variations of the calendar out there.
Peter D. Georgopulos: What kind of examples on the undergraduate level, can you give us?
Rodney A. Erickson: Well, I haven’t had too many inquires yet. So I don’t know what can be dreamed up, but to give you an example, classes that are offered in the evening. We have said that the first Tuesday will be treated as a Friday in order to have some symmetry in the days. We have already had a request as to whether classes that are on a Monday/Wednesday rather than a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule would meet. They can certainly meet as a Tuesday on that first meeting. I can see a good bit of that happening in the evening classes, for example, that typically are not scheduled on a Friday. So that is the sort of thing that I am talking about “modest departures.” We are not going to try to put everybody in a straight jacket that causes them to do things that do not make sense for their setting. But as I say, we want conformity over the long haul as to breaks and start dates and things like that.
Peter D. Georgopulos: Would you consider for instance, as last semester, considering the Wednesday class before Thanksgiving where it does not affect campuses like University Park? Where we can have instruction on that day. I am not saying that this would be passed by our local campus but…
Rodney A. Erickson: We certainly look at things on a case-by-case basis.
Andrew K. Masters, Student Senator, College of Health and Human Development: I actually have two questions. The first is this schedule with spring and fall, I do not see as asymmetrical--we are 42 and 45 as it is now. I see it more as lopsided. We actually have a full week difference between the two semesters making the fall semester more difficult for students and for faculty to try to fit 15 weeks of class into 14 weeks. Trying to compress that material down, putting pressure on the faculty to teach it and get it through the students in less time, and the students to understand it all and take it all in, in a weeks less time. Also, totally unrelated is there going to be some sort of central implementation committee for this, because it is going to affect athletics, residence life, parking, transportation and almost every facet. Who will be on this committee? Could there possibly be student opinion so that we can have our voices heard on how this should be put into effect?
Rodney A. Erickson: As to the first part of your question, obviously if we had 15 weeks in the fall it would be nice to have 15 weeks of instruction. But the alternative is to go back to where we are now, which would be a start date well into August and that was one of the other things that was virtually uniform in terms of the comments that we got. The August start date was just simply too early. Students told us in many cases they were losing $1,000 and sometimes significant bonuses by not being able to stay into late August at least, or in some cases through Labor Day, because of the hospitality industry and so on. With tuition going up, I think it is even more critical that students have an opportunity to earn that extra week or ten days or even two weeks of income that they might not ordinarily be able to do. So again, we are faced with compromises, however, we look at the calendar in the fall and we have made the compromises that we thought would best meet the needs of the faculty and students across all of the Penn State campuses.
As far as implementation is concerned, yes we will have a group that works on that. You are certainly right that there are many aspects—residence halls, move in times, how that will intersect with athletics. We will certainly have more opportunities now to do more things in the area of orientation that we have not been able to do before. So we will be looking at that and how we will arrange that schedule. There will certainly be a group of individuals that is pulled together to do that. How we will have input from the various constituencies we have not yet worked through, whether it will be through Academic Assembly or some other body. Certainly, we will be very happy to entertain student input as we have been on the whole calendar issue.
Andrew K. Masters: Is there any way you could maybe chop a week off the end of the spring semester? That would again, make the calendar symmetrical. Students would be able to work for two more weeks.
Rodney A. Erickson: I think the faculty will be able to provide you with plenty of things to do. I have yet to run into a faculty member who didn’t want more time in a semester to cover, to enrich or whatever the case might be. We still start back at a reasonable time in January. Of course, this year our classes are soon to end in early May, so it still gives students a good jump out there on getting out to the summer job market, taking six week or intersession summer courses or whatever the case might be. You will enjoy that extra week.
Amy E. Locke, Student Senator, College of Education: Relating to Andy’s question. Why wouldn’t it be beneficial to have that extra week chopped off therefore, giving student’s a break between summer session and their last final? I foresee problems with people trying to schedule their harder classes in the spring semester because they will have that extra week to learn the material instead of having it jammed into 14 weeks. I can see people wanting to schedule the easy classes in the fall semester and the harder classes with more work in the spring and that is kind of already done with professors, so I see that being more of a problem for scheduling classes.
Rodney A. Erickson: Actually, the problem if anything served to balance it out because our enrollments are always lower in the spring semester. So if it did shift some of the enrollment to spring that would be a good thing as far as class loads and rooms and so forth. What was the other question?
Amy E. Locke: Just referring to a break between the final week and the summer session. So that they would not have to take, even if you had a conflict, take that conflict on Friday and then Monday start with intersession and stuff like that.
Rodney A. Erickson: Are you talking about intersession? I know at some of the campuses, Altoona for example, the first six-week summer session starts the Monday after spring or something like that. I am not familiar with all of the various start dates of summer and that is a case where we have had some differences in the summer programs in terms of the scheduling, but perhaps there should be a week that is created before they move into the summer session, then chopping a week off of the spring semester.
Wilson J. Moses, College of the Liberal Arts: Among those institutions with which we like to compare ourselves, are there still any that have final examinations for the first semester during the month of January?
Rodney A. Erickson: Not that I am aware of. Is there anybody else that was on the committee that looked at that extensively? Not that I am aware of. We still have a couple of universities that are on the quarter system—Minnesota and I believe Ohio State. Minnesota starts very late in September, runs until mid-December and picks up immediately after the first of the year, and then finishes off sometime in late May early June timeframe. I am not aware of any that have the semester that spills over into the January time frame.
Chair Nichols: Thank you very much, Provost Erickson. Just to quickly point out that President Spanier did in fact, present his preliminary plan to the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and as a result of the committees comments he did make significant meaningful changes in his final proposal. So he was indeed, responsive to faculty input.
SENATE SELF STUDY COMMITTEE
Interim Report
George W. Franz, Chair, Senate Self Study Committee
Chair Nichols: The next informational report is from the Senate Self Study Committee and Appendix “F” is the Interim Report. George Franz is prepared to stand for questions if you have any questions on his interim report that is in the Agenda. Seeing none, the next informational report is sponsored by the Senate Committee on University Planning, Construction Projects--2001-02. This is Appendix “G” in your Agenda and William Anderson is here to present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Report of Senate
Elections
Deidre E. Jago, Chair, Elections Commission
Deidre E. Jago,
Hazleton Campus: 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. Connie Baggett, College of Agricultural
Sciences; Travis De Castro, 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; 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 Graduate Center; Brian Tormey, Altoona College; Stephen
Stace, Abington College; Ronald McCarty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College;
Winston Richards, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College; Salvatore
Marsico, The Commonwealth College; and Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley
College. The College of Engineering and
the College of Medicine have not yet elected Senate Council representatives for
next year. That will be the Senate
Council for the 2002-03 Senate year.
Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules:
Deborah Atwater, Lynn Carpenter, Pamela Hufnagel, Daniel Marshall and
Andrew Romberger are the five members elected to serve a two-year term. Peter Deines and Stephen Smith were elected
to serve a one-year term.
The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee: Phyllis Cole, Liberal Arts, Penn State
Delaware; Renee Diehl, Eberly College of Science, UP; and Mary Katherine
Howett, College of Medicine, will be the new members of this committee.
The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure:
Judith Ozment Payne, Abington College, Member; Gabriella Varga, College
of Agricultural Sciences, UP, Alternate; and Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of
Medicine, Alternate.
For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we
have three categories: Faculty from University Park: Dianne Brannon, College of Health and Human
Development, Member; Robert Melton, College of Engineering, Alternate; and
Loanne Snavely, University Libraries, Alternate.
Faculty Other than University Park: Sandra Smith,
Penn State Fayette, Member; and Annette Caruso, Abington College, Alternate.
Deans: Daniel Larson, Eberly College of Science,
University Park, Member; and Madlyn Hanes, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital
College, Alternate.
Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President:
Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering, University Park.
For the office of Secretary of the Senate:
Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College.
For Chair-Elect of the Senate: Christopher J. Bise, College of Earth and
Mineral Sciences, University Park.
Thank you. Congratulations to all of them.
COMMENTS BY OUTGOING CHAIR NICHOLS
COMMENTS BY INCOMING CHAIR MOORE
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
None
ADJOURNMENT
May I have a motion to adjourn? The April 23, 2002 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:34 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO APRIL 23, 2002
Undergraduate Education –
Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees (Legislative)
Senate Council – Tuition
Task Force (Informational)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid – Time to Graduation Report (Informational)
Senate Council – Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on the Penn State Calendar (Informational)
Senate Self Study Committee – Interim Report (Informational)
University Planning – Construction Projects – 2001-02 (Informational)
RESOLUTION
JOHN J. CAHIR
Vice Provost and
Dean for Undergraduate Education
Professor of
Meteorology
WHEREAS, Dr. John J. Cahir has had a distinguished career at Penn State dating back to 1965, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has demonstrated innovative and exemplary administrative leadership in his many contributions to the University community, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has served on the University Faculty Senate continuously since 1973, and has been a member of Senate Council; an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and chaired the Faculty Affairs and Planning and Development committees; and served on Undergraduate Education and Intercollegiate Athletic committees, and led or served on numerous commissions, panels, and task forces, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has helped shape the weather forecasting abilities of thousands of students and is nationally and internationally recognized for his research and teaching in climatology and using computer technologies to transform weather stations, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has been a champion for excellence in teaching and learning and improving the quality of undergraduate education at Penn State and nationally, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has been a mentor, guide, and friend to innumerable Penn State faculty, staff, and students, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir is a man of integrity, loyalty, and unflagging devotion to Penn State;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on this 23rd day of April, 2002, expresses its deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. John J. Cahir for his many accomplishments on behalf of the University, in support of excellence in undergraduate education. The Senate offers affectionate and heartfelt best wishes for many more accurate weather forecasts and a full and productive retirement.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
University Faculty Senate
Senate Calendar
2002-2003
REPORTS DUE SENATE COUNCIL SENATE
August 13, 2002 August 27, 2002 September 10, 2002
September 24, 2002 October 8, 2002 October 22, 2002
November 5, 2002 November 19, 2002 December 3, 2002
December 13, 2002 January 14, 2003 January 28, 2003
January 31, 2003 February 11, 2003 February 25, 2003
February 27, 2003 March 4, 2003 March 25, 2003
March 28, 2003 April 8, 2003 April 22, 2003
Standing Committee Membership
Standing Committee Assignments for the 2002-2003 Senate Year
COMMITTEES
AND RULES
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair 2003
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair 2003
Deborah F. Atwater 2004
Christopher J. Bise 2005
Melvin Blumberg 2003
Lynn A. Carpenter 2004
Joseph J. Cecere 2003
Peter Deines 2003
Pamela P. Hufnagel 2004
J. Daniel Marshall 2004
John W. Moore 2004
John S. Nichols 2003
Andrew B. Romberger 2004
Stephen M. Smith 2003
ADMISSIONS,
RECORDS,
SCHEDULING
AND STUDENT AID
Mark A.
Casteel, Chair
2003
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair 2003
Edward W. Bittner 2003
Stephen Browne 2004
Milton W. Cole 2004
Anna Griswold 2003
Geoffrey J. Harford 2003
Steven D. Koeber 2003
Luen-Chau Li 2003
Christopher J. Lynch 2004
Paul Neiheisel 2003
John J. Romano 2003
Thomas A. Seybert 2004
Richard A. Wade 2004
J. James Wager 2003
COMPUTING
AND INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
R. Thomas Berner, Chair 2004
Lee D. Coraor, Vice-Chair 2003
Anthony Ambrose 2004
Paul E. Barney, Jr. 2003
Hemant K. Bhargava 2004
Edward R. Bollard, Jr. 2004
David Breslin 2003
Victor W. Brunsden 2004
John T. Harwood 2003
Alan L. Horwitz 2004
Michael L. Jonson 2004
Anna S. Mattila 2004
Dawn M. Noga 2003
Joy M. Perrine 2003
Semyon (Sam) Slobounov 2003
John B. Urenko 2003
Russell S. Vaught 2003
Kay Wijekumar 2004
CURRICULAR
AFFAIRS
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair 2003
Judy Ozment Payne, Vice-Chair 2004
Phyllis F. Adams 2004
Lauren M. Applegate 2003
Laurie Powers Breakey 2003
William Brockman 2003
Douglas K. Brown 2004
Barton W. Browning 2004
Garry L. Burkle 2003
Chao-Hsien Chu 2003
Robert G. Crane 2003
Roger A. Egolf 2004
Christopher J. Falzone 2004
Gary J. Fosmire 2004
George W. Franz 2003
Sally A. Heffentreyer 2003
Brandon B. Hunt 2004
Ravinder Koul 2003
Robert A. Novack 2004
Mary Beth Oliver 2004
Howard G. Sachs 2003
Summer J. Spangler 2003
Bonj Szczygiel 2004
Rodney L. Troester 2004
FACULTY
AFFAIRS
Kim C. Steiner, Chair 2003
Sallie M. McCorkle, Vice-Chair 2003
Susan M. Abmayr 2003
Mohamad A. Ansari 2004
Kultegin Aydin 2004
Thomas W. Benson 2004
Leonard J. Berkowitz 2004
Clay Calvert 2004
Michael J. Cardamone 2004
Richard A. Carlson 2003
Debora Cheney 2004
Roy B. Clariana 2003
Elizabeth J. Corwin 2004
Robert P. Crum 2003
Dwight Davis 2004
Mary I. Frecker 2003
Margaret B. Goldman 2003
David J. Green 2003
Amir Khalilollahi 2004
Arthur C. Miller 2004
Jamie M. Myers 2004
Katherine C. Pearson 2003
Robert Secor 2003
Mila C. Su 2003
Joan S. Thomson 2003
Tramble T. Turner 2004
FACULTY
BENEFITS
Deidre E. Jago, Chair 2004
Dennis G. Shea, Vice-Chair 2003
Keith K. Burkhart 2004
Gary L. Catchen 2004
Michael Dooris 2003
Elizabeth A. Hanley 2004
Kathleen L. Lodwick 2004
Cynthia Massie- Mara 2004
Sandra J. Savignon 2004
Cara-Lynne Schengrund 2004
Patience L. Simmonds 2003
Marley W. Watkins 2004
Billie S. Willits 2003
INTERCOLLEGIATE
ATHLETICS
Martin T.
Pietrucha, Chair
2003
Sandra R. Smith, Vice-Chair 2004
James B. Anderson 2004
William W. Asbury 2003
Timothy M. Curley 2003
Laurence M. Demers 2004
James T. Elder 2003
Robert Gray 2003
Kane M. High 2003
Janis E. Jacobs 2003
Diana Kenepp 2003
R. Scott Kretchmar 2003
Mark A. Levin 2003
Douglas McCullough 2003
Gary W. Petersen 2004
John J. Romano 2003
Stephen W. Schaeffer 2004
Susan Delaney- Scheetz 2003
Thomas C. Vary 2003
Jerry Wright 2003
Edgar P. Yoder 2004
Susan C. Youtz 2003
INTRA-UNIVERSITY
RELATIONS
David R.
Richards, Chair
2004
Dawn G. Blasko, Vice-Chair 2004
Rosann Bazirjian 2003
Robert H. Bonneau 2004
K. Robert Bridges 2003
Lance Cole 2004
Cheng Dong 2004
Fred G. Fedok 2004
E. Jay Holcomb 2003
Ali R. Hurson 2004
Zachary T. Irwin 2004
Billie Jo Jones 2004
Carl R. Lovitt, II 2003
Kidane Mengisteab 2004
Craig M. Meyers 2004
Al Mueller 2004
Victor Nistor 2004
Michael C. Ritter 2003
James F. Smith 2003
Macklin E. Stanley 2003
Robert A. Walters 2004
Mark L. Wardell 2003
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers 2004
Nancy I. Williams 2004
Stamatis M. Zervanos 2004
LIBRARIES
Brian A. Curran, Chair 2003
Dagmar Sternad, Vice-Chair 2004
Richard N. Barshinger 2003
Aida M. Beaupied 2003
Charles L. Burchard 2004
Meshawn Carter 2003
Michael J. Chorney 2004
David A. Cranage 2004
Nancy L. Eaton 2003
Bonnie MacEwan 2003
Wayne K. Marshall 2003
James E. May 2004
Annette K. McGregor 2004
Elise D. Miller-Hooks 2004
Wilson J. Moses 2004
Reiko Tachibana 2004
OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES
Thomas E. Glumac, Chair 2003
Julia C. Hewitt, Vice-Chair 2003
Theodore R. Alter 2003
David E. Barnes 2004
Ryan Fortese 2003
James W. Hilton 2004
Kenneth B. Kephart 2003
Donald E. Kunze 2004
Pablo Laguna 2004
Kevin R. Maxwell 2003
James H. Ryan 2003
Ladislaus M. Semali 2004
Keith Verner 2004
RESEARCH
Guy F. Barbato, Chair 2004
Paul J. Eslinger, Vice-Chair 2004
Anthony A. Atchley 2004
Paul E. Becker 2004
Leonid V. Berlyand 2004
John H. Challis 2004
Christine Clark- Evans 2003
Charles R. Fisher 2004
Joyce A. Furfaro 2003
David S. Gilmour 2003
Irene E. Harvey 2004
Leif I. Jensen 2004
Ernest W. Johnson 2003
Robert Killoren 2003
Digby D. Macdonald 2003
John M. Mason 2004
Rajen Mookerjee 2003
Carla Mulford 2003
Eva J. Pell 2003
Frank Pugh 2003
Dawn E. Rupp 2003
Evelyn A. Thomchick 2003
Gary Weber 2003
Douglas H. Werner 2004
Candice Yekel 2003
STUDENT
LIFE
Bill Ellis, Chair 2004
Irwin Richman, Vice-Chair 2003
William W. Asbury 2003
Arthur W. Carter 2003
James M. Donovan 2004
Charles R. Enis 2004
Andrzej J. Gapinski 2004
Timothy N. Gray 2003
Wallace H. Greene 2004
Dale A. Holen 2003
Andrew K. Masters 2003
Gwenn E. McCollum 2003
Kristin Breslin Sommese 2004
Jennifer Tingo 2003
Bridget Van Osten 2003
Alexandros N. Vgontzas 2004
UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION
Laura L.
Pauley, Chair
2003
Bob D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair 2003
Cheryl L. Achterberg 2003
Richard I. Ammon 2004
Laura M. Beck 2003
Thomas E. Boothby 2003
John J. Cahir 2003
John P. Cancro 2004
Paul F. Clark 2003
Terry Engelder 2004
Cheryl Gallagher 2003
Peter D. Georgopulos 2003
Robert S. Hill 2003
Richard R. Kennedy 2003
John H. Kramer 2004
Amy E. Locke 2003
Nancy S. Love 2004
David W. Russell 2003
Dhushy Sathianathan 2004
Dennis C. Scanlon 2003
Julia B. Simon 2004
James A. Strauss 2004
D. Joshua Troxell 2003
Eric R. White 2003
Susan C. Youtz 2003
UNIVERSITY
PLANNING
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair 2003
William A. Rowe, Vice-Chair 2003
P. Richard Althouse 2003
William Anderson, Jr. 2003
John P. Boehmer 2003
Dan T. Brinker 2003
Eric B. Cowden 2003
Gordon F. De Jong 2003
Peter B. Everett 2003
William M. Frank 2004
Roger L. Geiger 2004
Daniel R. Hagen 2004
Christopher L. Johnstone 2004
Rodney Kirsch 2003
Karen H. Morin 2003
Robert N. Pangborn 2004
Paula J. Romano 2004
Louise E. Sandmeyer 2003
Gary C. Schultz 2003
Richard J. Simons, Jr. 2004
Timothy W. Simpson 2004
Edward C. Smith 2004
Gregory R. Ziegler 2003
The University Faculty Senate
STANDING COMMITTEE OFFICERS FOR 2002-2003
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Chair: Mark A. Casteel York Campus 717-771-4028 MAC13@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Carol A. Smith 201 Human Dev. East 863-0245 CAS35@PSU.EDU
Committees and Rules
Chair: Valerie N. Stratton Altoona College 949-5289 VNS@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Joanna Floros Hershey Medical Center 717-531-6972 JXF19@PSU.EDU
Computing and Information Systems
Chair: R. Thomas Berner 102 Carnegie Bldg. 863-7993 BX2@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Lee D. Coraor 233 Pond Lab 865-1265 CORAOR@CSE.PSU.EDU
Curricular Affairs
Chair: Shelley M. Stoffels 212 Sackett Building 865-4622 STOFFELS@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Judy Ozment Payne Abington College 215-881-7471 O96@PSU.EDU
Faculty Affairs
Chair: Kim C. Steiner 213 Ferguson Building 865-9351 STEINER@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Sallie M. McCorkle 210 Patterson Building 865-9472 SMM11@PSU.EDU
Faculty Benefits
Chair: Deidre E. Jago Hazleton Campus 570-450-3076 DEJ1@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Dennis G. Shea 116 Henderson Building 863-2901 DGS4@PSU.EDU
Intercollegiate Athletics
Chair: Martin T. Pietrucha 212 Sackett Bldg. 863-3954 MTP5@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Sandra R. Smith Penn State Fayette 724-430-4271 SRS9@PSU.EDU
Intra-University Relations
Chair: David R. Richards Hazleton Campus 570-450-3093 DRR@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Dawn G. Blasko Penn State Erie 898-6081 DAWNBLASKO@PSU.EDU
Libraries
Chair: Brian A. Curran 229 Arts Building 865-6326 BAC18@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Dagmar Sternad 266 Recreation Building 863-7369 DXS48@PSU.EDU
Outreach Activities
Chair: Thomas E. Glumac Mont Alto Campus 717-749-6217 TOMGLUMAC@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Julia C. Hewitt N352 Burrowes Building 863-2910 JCH11@PSU.EDU
Research
Chair: Guy F. Barbato 201 Henning Building 865-4481 GFB1@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Paul J. Eslinger Hershey Medical Center 717-531-8692 PESLINGER@PSU.EDU
Student Life
Chair: Bill Ellis Hazleton Campus 570-450-3026 WCE2@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Irwin Richman Penn State Harrisburg 717-948-6196 RAE3@PSU.EDU
Undergraduate Education
Chair: Laura L. Pauley 305 Reber Building 863-4259 LPAULEY@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: Bob D. Ricketts 275 Recreation Building 865-2421 RDR3@PSU.EDU
University Planning
Chair: Anthony J. Baratta 236 Reber Building 865-0038 AB2@PSU.EDU
Vice-Chair: William A. Rowe Hershey Medical Center 717-531-4874
WROWE@PSU.EDU
ROSTER OF SENATORS BY VOTING UNITS:
2002-2003
ABINGTON COLLEGE