 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 34-----APRIL 24,
2001-----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 2000-01.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for April 24, 2001
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to April 24, 2001
B. Attached
Door Handout – Faculty Affairs Committee –
Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty
Door Handout – Faculty Benefits Committee –
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State
Corrected Copy – Faculty Benefits Committee –
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State
Senate Calendar for 2001-2002
Standing Committee Assignments for 2001-2002
Chairs and Vice-Chairs for 2001-2002
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2001-2002
Results of Senate Elections for 2001-2002
Senators Not Returning for 2001-2002
Attendance
FINAL AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 2001
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the March 27, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:6
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of April 10, 2001
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 10, 2001
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
Computing and Information Systems
Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State
Research
Courseware Policy
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –
University Planning
Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle
Faculty Affairs
Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001
Faculty Benefits
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State
University Planning
Status of Construction at Penn State, Sprint 2001
Committees and Rules
Report of Senate Elections
Comments by Outgoing Chair Schengrund
Comments by Incoming Chair Nichols
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate passed two Advisory/Consultative Reports:
Computing and Information Systems – “Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State.” This report was presented to demonstrate the relevance of Virtual Reality tools and interface techniques within research, instruction and communications. (See Record, page(s) 9-13 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)
Research – “Courseware Policy.” This report made five recommendations regarding the University community’s interest in courseware policies. (See Record, page(s) 13-21 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
The Senate heard four Informational Reports:
Faculty Affairs – “Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001.” This report contains a set of guidelines on performance expectations for part-time faculty and appropriate support services. (See Record, page(s) 24-25, Door Handout Record Appendix II, and Agenda Appendix "D.")
Faculty Benefits – “AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State.” This is the mandated internal salary report on faculty salaries for 2000-01. (See Record, page(s) 26-29, Door Handout Record Appendix III, Corrected Copy Record Appendix IV, and Agenda Appendix "E.")
University Planning – “Status of Construction at Penn State, Spring 2001.” This is the annual report on the status of the Department of General Services and Penn State major construction programs dated February 16, 2001. (See Record, page(s) 29 and Agenda Appendix "F.")
University Planning – “Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle.” This was an oral informational report by the Provost on the status of strategic planning. (See Record, page(s) 21-24.)
The Senate heard the Report of Senate Elections for 2001-2002 and the Senate Officers for 2001-2002 were installed.
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding. One hundred and forty-nine Senators signed the roster.
Chair Schengrund: 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 27, 2001 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for April 10, 2001. 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 10, 2001. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Schengrund: The Faculty Advisory Committee met on
Tuesday, April 17, 2001 and discussed the following topics: Faculty consultation regarding AD-57 and other
administrative policies; College diversity plans; Proposed courseware policy;
we revisited the faculty role in searches for academic administrators; we
discussed Penn, Temple and graduate student unionization; implementation of the
Faculty Senate recommendations for internal and external reports to the Senate
on Faculty Salaries; we discussed the possibility of an academic hall of fame;
LGBT minor; and we discussed the reorganization of the Commonwealth Educational
System.
Several memos were received from the president regarding implementation of reports passed by the Senate at its meeting of February 27, 2001. From the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities, a report titled “Recommendations To Refine And Expand the Models For Recognition Of Outreach Activities,” the president is pleased to accept the recommendations of this report. From the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, a report titled “A Clarification of ‘Active Learning’ As It Applies To General Education,” the president is referring this report to the vice provost and dean for undergraduate education to be effective immediately.
In a separate vein, usually at this point I would update you on our meetings with the Coalition of Students however, this will take a slightly different form today. As many of you are aware, there was another threat made against an African American student. This happened on Friday, and led to the staging of a peaceful sit-in by a number of students at the Blue-White football game on Saturday. The sit-in was carried on the news that night and was reported on in the Sunday papers. Not just within the University Park area but state-wide. One thing that I noticed was that in some instances the reason behind the student protest was not given during the TV news coverage. We cannot fault any student for being upset at the receipt of a death threat. On a personal level I know that it would cause me to look at the world in a less than trusting manner. It has been brought to our attention that some people believe that the actions of these students--the ones that protested on Saturday--were no different than those of the students that rioted after the basketball game. I disagree. This was a nonviolent protest against a threat that caused these students to feel unsafe on this campus.
As faculty, it is essential that whenever we see an act of intolerance or of incivility, that we let the person doing it know that this is not acceptable behavior. Everyone has the right to expect to be treated civilly, and we should be teaching our students the importance of diversity. America has traditionally welcomed everyone--the saying on the Statue of Liberty starts with give me your tired, your poor, your weary, your huddled masses yearning to be free. It doesn't say anything about country of origin, race or ethnicity.
The problem with the current situation, or one of the problems, is that we don't know who is sending the threats. It is quite possible that it is a single individual who may or may not have any connection with Penn State. What is certain, is that he or she has a problem that has made a number of our students feel less than welcome here.
Racism exists; it is not a problem that the faculty or the administration created. It is a problem that exists in part because people grow up in one type of environment, and they are comfortable in that environment. When they leave that environment and they go to a different environment such as a large university, and in this case one that has worked hard over the years to develop a diverse population of students, it forces the students to live in a more diverse world. This in itself is a part of every students education, but it can make some students very uncomfortable as they have to grow to deal with it.
Regardless of comfort level, it should not lead to acts of incivility or intolerance. As the Senate Officers said in the fall at our October meeting, we do not condone such acts of hatred and we offer the students who are receiving these threats our support. To show that support, the Senate Officers again strongly condemn these and other acts of hatred, intolerance and discrimination in any form. We further commit ourselves to the use of all appropriate tools within the authority of the Senate to fight hatred and intolerance at Penn State. As the officers of the Senate we reject the politics of conflict, confrontation and intimidation. Divisiveness in conflict within Penn State only play into the hands of the hate mongers and racists. We seek again to join arms with all those who will work with us in good faith to find real, meaningful and lasting solutions to the horrible problems that we face. As a step towards this we hope it will lead toward healing, the old Senate Officers and your newly elected Senate Officers plan to walk from here to Old Main to join the March For Unity that is starting at 4:00 p.m. This is why we have started the Senate meeting early and we hope that having started this meeting early we will finish well prior to the time of the walk and that many of you, hopefully all that are able, will join us in that walk. And in that view I will also ask, I know that we have some items that are on the Agenda that will engender quite a bit of discussion, but what I will ask is not that we don’t have discussion but that if someone has made a comment that you would like to make that you refrain from making it a second time. Give your colleagues credit for hearing it on the first go.
This is also
the time of year when a number of Senators leave us, and I would like to
acknowledge those Senators that have finished their term in office at this
time.
Larry Kuhns
Dennis Scanlon
Lynn Drafall
Zachary Irwin
Victoria Kazmerski
David Roth
David Christy
Ronald Bettig
COLLEGE OF EARTH & MINERAL SCIENCES
Shelton Alexander
Kostadin Ivanov
Thomas Jackson
George Lesieutre
Robert Prosek
Paul Clark
Robert LaPorte
David Myers
Jon Olson
Gerhard Strasser
John Ferriss
James Beatty
Wenwu Cao
Robert Mitchell
Victor Romero
James May
John Bardi
Kathleen Mastrian
YORK CAMPUS
Jane Sutton
John Dutton
APPOINTED SENATOR
John Leathers
Alison Altman
Chad Boushell
William Campbell
David Chao
Marcus Fedeli
Jennifer Flinchbaugh
Jessa Gabler
Joseph Garwacki
Amanda Hudnall
Jacob Kosoff
Melissa Landis
Quinn Morton
Amy Poggio
Alissa Shirk
Jenny Zhang
Philip Bower
Paul Gaffney
Daniel Kiefer
Chair Schengrund: And I think at this point we should thank them all for their service.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair
Schengrund: President Spanier is here and he has comments.
Graham B. Spanier,
President: Thank you very much Cara, and good afternoon everyone. First of all I want to thank the leadership
of the University Faculty Senate and thank all of you for your willingness to
alter the schedule for the day by convening early and adjourning in time so
that everyone has the opportunity to join us in our march today “No Hate At
Penn State”. I think all of you are
certainly familiar with the challenges that we have had at this university,
particularly at the University Park Campus this past year with incidents of
hate mail that have been directed at our students and others. I think everyone in this room would share
the philosophy that any act of hate, any threat directed at any one of us
really must be considered an act of hate and intolerance directed at all of us
to the extent that we believe in this community, and in the basic principles of
freedom and equity and justice, civility and tolerance in our community. It’s very important that we stand together
on these issues and your participation in the march today would be a welcome
symbol of that. We do expect quite a
substantial turn out. We have in fact
closed Old Main and will close it this afternoon early, so that people can make
preparations and, we have asked all the staff in the administration building to
actually close their offices mid-afternoon and participate. I have seen emails from departmental
listservs and other groups around campus suggesting that they are doing the
same thing, so I think it will be a very nice turn out. We do expect people from off campus as
well. We have been informed that groups
are converging from lots of different directions and we want to welcome them to
our community. Some of you may be aware
that among the more unfortunate aspects of the recent incidents is that 26 individuals,
including 23 students and three others engaged in an act of civil disobedience
on Saturday by cutting on to the field at the football game after warnings not
to do so, and then after they were on the field and locked themselves together
and were given several opportunities to leave peacefully and warnings to do so
they elected to remain on the field and to be arrested. They were charged with a criminal
misdemeanor trespass charge. I want to
tell you however, that within the last 24-hours following discussions with the
police, and in consultation with the district attorney we have asked, and they
have agreed to file these charges instead as summary violations as opposed to
misdemeanor criminal trespass charges.
That’s a nuance that some of you may not be familiar with, but as is the
case with many crimes there’s a continuum in which justice can be served, and
in this case we have prevailed upon the authorities involved to recognize the
circumstances, and for this to be a summary citation, which means it will be
handled in a way that the students will not be finger printed, processed, they
won’t need attorneys and it is not a criminal charge. It is something that more resembles a citation of the sort you would
get if you had a traffic ticket. There
would still be justice done in the sense of fines and/or community service, and
that would be left to the magistrate to determine, but it is not something that
would go to a judge or that would be handled any further by the district
attorney. We’re very hopeful that we
can see our way through to peace and tranquility through the rest of the
semester, and through graduation. We’re
very concerned about issues of safety and have done a number of things to try
to guarantee that. That will be the
case this afternoon and beyond. There’s
a lot of emotion on this campus right now.
I’m concerned about the level of emotion and the incivility and the
discourse that has crept into the situation.
That’s personally troubling for me, and has made my job much more
difficult than it normally is, but we will continue to work on that as best we
can. There’s a very large team of
individuals in the university administration who have been working on this and
only this issue for quite a good number of days now on a 24-hour a day cycle,
and so only a couple of them are here now, others are preparing for activities
this afternoon, but I do express my appreciation to all who have been
involved. Cara has been in regular
touch via email with expressions of her concern and willingness to be involved,
and offering the good offices of the University Faculty Senate and we
appreciate that, thank you Cara.
Chair Schengrund:
You’re welcome.
President Spanier: So
if you have any further questions on this general matter I would be happy to
take them in a moment. Let me just say
on one other topic that is very important, and one of the reasons I wanted very
much to change my plans to be back here today was because I knew that you were
having a final reading so to speak, of the courseware policy. Several of the Faculty Senate committees
have worked very hard on this for much longer than we thought it would
take. I think initially we thought that
might be a few months thing, and it has turned out to be a couple of years and
I know that some suggestions were made at the last forensic session that you
had and there have been yet further changes in the document as a result of
that, and I want to express my thanks to all of you who have been involved in
making sure that this turns out as well as it possibly can. The only input I would give to that
substantively is to say that from my perspective this almost certainly will be
an area where we will have to continue to re-visit the policy every couple of
years or so, to keep an eye on it and bring it back as necessary to see how
it’s working and determine if it needs to be tweaked. Almost every university in the country right now is going through
this process or has recently been through it.
Our policy I think stands up very well compared to the others, but I
think it would be foolish for any university to think that they understood
everything about where information technology is going and the implications it
has for how we operate the university, so we want to keep our minds open to the
possibility of changes in the future down the road. Well, with those two topics out and anything else you’d like to
talk about I’d be happy to take your questions.
Chair
Schengrund: Before you take a question I’d just like to say thank you for getting the
charges reduced. I think that was very…
President Spanier: Are
you speaking personally or on behalf of the Senate?
Chair Schengrund: I’m
speaking just that I think it was a good thing to do, personally I would guess.
President Spanier:
Well, thank you.
Tramble T. Turner,
Penn State Abington: President Spanier, there was a number of
articles of course, today in the Collegian relating to the issues that
you and Cara-Lynne have addressed. One
report was on your meeting with the Black Legislators. My question has to do with the report in the
Collegian that said the legislators view was that the Penn State plan to
foster diversity had failed. First, I’d
like to ask if that was indeed what they said, and that secondly, I’d like to
ask what you and others at the meeting brought up as aspects of partial
success.
President Spanier: I
received an indication Monday morning, I think, yesterday morning that members
of the Legislative Black Caucus, three of whom visited this campus a few weeks
ago had been in touch with our students, and had a heightened level of concern
as did some of the students and asked if they could meet with me. I happened to have been in Washington, DC at
the time, and I was just preparing to speak to the Association of American Universities
to moderate a session that afternoon, but instead of doing it by conference
call, I thought it would be best that I just go to Harrisburg which I did. I think that it was good that I went there. I met with the majority of the members of
the Legislative Black Caucus and was accompanied by Terrell Jones our Vice
Provost for Educational Equity. After
their visit here, they had promised that they would summarize their findings,
put a draft together and share that with us.
They did that and the comments that you just summarized are reflected in
that draft. Now it is not the final
document that they sent, it is a draft, and what I indicated to them is that we
at Penn State would look that over and give them some suggestions about
it. What they put in that document is
very substantially based on information they received from our students, so
what is in there is really from what they are saying if you put the words, “the
students believe the following,” before the substance of the comment. I think it’s a fair representation because
it is very much what the members of our Student Black Caucus organization told
them. Much of what is in there however,
is not actually factual. The students’
presentation makes certain representations about the curriculum, about Faculty
Senate actions, it quotes Cara and John in various settings in ways that I
think are somewhat out of context. It
presents our very substantial diversity efforts (which frankly I am proud of)
in a somewhat unfavorable light. Now
that’s not for a moment to say that I don’t think we have a lot to do, and I
would be the first to agree that the goals outlined in the plan to foster
diversity are not accomplished. We
agreed with the students and some of your Faculty Senate leaders were at a meeting
where we all agreed that was the case but that’s not to say that the plan is a
failure, or that we don’t care about it.
We are right smack in the middle of that five-year process. We have indeed made some progress, and we
have a lot of progress yet to make so I think any organization including the
Legislative Black Caucus can be most helpful if all organizations take a step
back, look at what is happening and what we are doing, look at what’s possible,
develop a little better understanding of where certain decisions are made. The Legislative Black Caucus had heard from
the students that they think there should be six mandatory credits in the
diversity area, and a lot of other mandatory things, and I think that’s not
just something I can snap my fingers and make happen even if I thought it was a
good idea. So that’s the zone we’re in
right now and I think we’re going to, after the semester is over, have to take
a fresh look at all of these different issues.
The emotion is running a little too high right now for there actually to
be a meeting where this could occur in a productive way, I’m sorry to say.
William A. Rowe,
College of Medicine: The death threat emails that the students
were receiving, is there a sense among the administration that this or at least
some of the opinions expressed are representative of even a tiny minority of
the Penn State community or are these the work of a psychotic who is simply
trying to get…
President Spanier:
There are some different theories out there. I don’t want to comment on that because this is in the hands of
the FBI and their laboratory right now, and there are others who have been so
open in talking about all the details that I think it actually compromises our
investigation. I do not want to be
party to that. It is, of course
difficult to trace anonymous mail, especially now under the way the postal
system is reorganized with these regional centers. It could come from a very broad array of people, you don’t know
where it’s really from. So there are
some different ideas out there about it of course and we wish we could find out
who sent this latest death threat.
There is an impression out there that somehow lots of people are
receiving lots of mail of this kind and that is not true to the best of our knowledge. I think most of the university community was
aware of at least four individuals who received such a letter from what appears
to be the same person with the same postmarks sent at the same date, from the
same mailbox so to speak, back in the fall and then this one here. Now, we’re trying to learn about any other
isolated incidents, that we may not have previously known about and there may
be a couple of others out there but we have not lately experienced a massive
series of letters to individuals. This
particular one has galvanized a lot of attention, because of the news
conferences that were called immediately and the mobilization that the students
went through around that letter.
Chair Schengrund: At
this point then, I’d like to say thank you and I think we should move on. As we start discussing reports, I’d like to
remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent
before addressing the Senate. We have
no forensic business, we have no unfinished business and no legislative reports
so we’ll move on to the advisory and consultative reports. The first one comes from the Senate
Committee on Computing and Information Systems. It deals with “Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State,” and you
can find the report in Appendix “B” and Semyon Slobounov will present that
report.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
None
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State
Semyon Slobounov, Chair, Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems
Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development: Thank you Cara, and good afternoon. As you probably know for the last two years we were working on this information and now in an advisory statement related to Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State and I’m pleased to present today the representative for the Center for Academic Computing that’s George Otto, Manager of Visualization Group who worked heavily with us preparing this first information statement last year when you heard about it and now we have an advisory statement, George will present it, and elaborate on some technicalities related with this report, and if you have any questions we will answer them within our scope of time. We also have a video clip that’s related to virtual reality at Penn State on the different campuses, different units and at the end of the oral presentation we’ll present you that video and George will lead the discussion on it. George, welcome.
George Otto, Center for Academic Computing: Thank you, Sam. Let me begin by saying thanks for the opportunity to be here today. I’m honored to be able to speak with you briefly about some thoughts and activities related to virtual reality here at Penn State. I’ll just begin real quickly by saying what virtual reality is, and that one way of thinking about that is to say it’s the experiential interaction with simulated phenomena or data in order to gain intuitive insight into the phenomena under study, usually these days involving computing systems, maybe in the future something else. We’ve been following in our group…I work in the visualization group at the Center for Academic Computing we’ve been following virtual reality trends there for about a decade. Starting in the early 90s and the mid- to late 90s was kind of a watershed time, when virtual reality started emerging from a select few research labs, and being practically applied in a number of research institutions. Perhaps as best evidenced by the supercomputing 1998 conference in Orlando during which there were 14 Immersadesks on the expo floor. We will see an Immersadesk in the tape and most of the national high performance computing and networking research organizations were well represented there in the virtual reality and telecollaborative virtual reality applications including the Department of Energy labs, Department of Defense labs, NPACE and NCSA affiliate institutions, etc. It was around that time that CAC put together the Visualization and Immersive Environments Testbed, the centerpiece of which is an Immersadesk, again you’ll see that, and since that time we’ve had some other significant acquisitions here at University Park with general purpose projection based VR facilities. These would include the Applied Research Lab SEALab, which is CAVE-like surround screen VR room. They’ve done a very nice job with that facility over the last year. Three facilities that are coming online to be shared among six or seven departments in the Colleges of Science and Engineering that will involve single screen projection facilities similar to our Immersadesk. This list obviously is biased in favor of general purpose, large format projection based facilities. There are other activities I’m sure, clearly around campus that can be considered supporting activities or VR activities per se. So VR is more than facilities. It can include a number of disciplines. Obviously, human computer interface, multi-modal interfaces kinds of work, numerical simulation, scientific data visualization, CFD, molecular dynamics, etc. Earth sciences, geographic information systems, engineering and design applications like CAD or architecture, computer mediated communication sorts of things, biomedical, computational biology, surgical simulation, we’ll see some of that on the tape, as well as more fundamental human subjects research like perceptual psychology, or kinesiology studies. With the current state of kind of general purpose systems VR can be complex, should be inter-disciplinary, and is often labor intensive, and should obviously have the domain specific knowledge of the researchers or scientists involved in a given case, but there’s usually quite a substantial layer of applications programming or systems integration skills that are required to pull these things off well. That is changing. Some commercial software vendors are starting to add VR extensions to existing application suites to make it easier for researchers to pull VR into their existing workflows, and have it a natural extension of their desktop but we’re not quite there yet. VR can and should be made easier for researchers, educators and students to seamlessly integrate within their existing word processors. So some of the things that we need to think about to lower the bar and extend the reach of VR, is how I like to talk about it, are things like what applications under what circumstances can benefit from VR techniques? What kinds of interaction tools and representation metaphors will be most effective, for what kinds of users, within what kinds of application contexts? And then what about the development of improved systems and software, based on the above? It’s my perception from being out in the kind of personal networking in the national community, in the national VR users groups, is that we really are on the cusp of bringing about useful applications which have been sorely missing, but there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done there, and I think that’s an important part of this process. We’ve also found in our facility that students can be some of the best contributors to that process, they’re very enthusiastic, and we were actually surprised in retrospect how much student activity we have in our facility as opposed to more peer research. Why I’m here today is to sort of put that little bit of context on the tape we’re about to see, and I think we are at the threshold of a really interesting opportunity here at Penn State. We have made some significant strides in recent years in acquiring facilities. There’s probably some more that we could do for student access. There is a burgeoning community which I hope will be a community, and share the results of each others work. So these are exciting times, and I’m here to provide a little bit of background, and solicit your support and encourage your participation and if any of you have activities that you think can benefit from these kinds of approaches. Thank you, and we can role the tape please.
Semyon Slobounov: If you have any questions related to the topic. We tried to show a different example of virtual reality research and teaching lesson. If you have any specific questions related to this you’re welcome to…
Chair Schengrund: Please give your name and unit.
George A. Lesieutre, College of Engineering: I guess I’m not quite clear why the Senate is being asked to take a position on this? I was wondering if you could say a few words about what’s the best thing that could possibly happen as a result of this report being accepted? What are you hoping for, I guess?
Semyon Slobounov: Let me just address this question. First of all that’s a mission of the Senate Committee of Computing and Information Systems to provide the current status of the VR at Penn State, and the commonwealth campuses and the situation in Big Ten campuses. To be competitive both in terms of recruiting students and be competitive in terms of providing appropriate instructions, not only for in terms of research but also for instruction. Both for graduate and undergraduate students, we have to show that what is actually available currently and what we are doing here. In fact, three years ago we had nothing here and as George, correct me if I’m wrong, and we just started from scratch and with the efforts of the CAC and with in fact the support from Provost Erickson who used to be the Dean of the Graduate School we just started working in this kind of area, and it is a growing field in fact, not only in our campus but also in the Big Ten campuses and also in the world. The thing is again, to be competitive with other schools within the Big Ten attracting the people. The other issue is, we have different units that use currently the visual reality and advanced technology, and the time to get some input how to collaborate and to move further in this kind of direction that’s kind of the major purpose for this statement.
George A. Lesieutre: Well, what do you hope is going to happen? You didn’t really answer the question.
Semyon Slobounov: In vision of the future development? George would you please elaborate what you think would be an appropriate way of doing that.
George Otto: I guess to answer your question, Dr. Lesieutre I’ve been asked to provide some background information. I look at this myself as an opportunity to inform those of you who are not aware of these sorts of activities of their existence, and to invite your participation. From my perspective I think probably the most important thing to happen here, and that really needs to be worked out kind of at the “worker bee” level for lack of a better word, are close collaborative relationships and growing a community of users and developers, so that we aren’t ending up with a number of facilities that are dark; too great a proportion of a time, or that aren’t realizing their fullest potential because of redundant efforts and things like that. As far as what’s an actionable item for the Senate? I don’t know…
Chair Schengrund: You have the three recommendations in front of you in the report. Are there other questions? We will limit this to about five minutes total more on this item because we have to keep moving if we’re going to finish by 3:45 p.m.
Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley: Is there any charge for faculty to corroborate? Do you charge by the hour or is it free?
Semyon Slobounov: At this point my understanding is there’s no charge. The visualization particular with that is actually encouraging the collaboration then provided all access. In fact, to my knowledge the faculty and students from different departments actually are becoming heavily involved in that kind of research and teaching different undergraduate and graduate courses.
George Otto: I can only speak from our particular facility in that case, and this is the CAC Immersadesk facility. We are very open to working with people in sort of start-up prototype kind of efforts but obviously we have a limited staff, so there’s a limit to what we can do in that regard in terms of seed commitment. If there were more elaborate things required then that’s probably the time to look at cooperative grants or some other way to fund it, but no, we don’t have an hourly fee, and it’s really not programming for hire. That’s really not how we designed the facility.
Chair Schengrund: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of accepting this report from the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. At this point Dr. Spanier has a brief announcement.
President Spanier: That’s okay, I’ll do it quickly. We have an interesting bit of news regarding one of your Faculty Senate colleagues. I just spotted that John Lilley was with us and I wanted to make sure that all of you knew that John should be congratulated on a wonderful new appointment. He will become soon President of the University of Nevada, Reno, a land-grant university in the State of Nevada. Join me in congratulating him.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Schengrund: I think you’ll be missed by the people at Behrend. At this point Guy Barbato will introduce Tom Jackson and they will present the “Courseware Policy”. I guess we could call this the Guy and Tom show, instead of the Tom and Jerry show. If you have questions again, please feel free to ask them but don’t repeat the same comments or the same questions if you can avoid it. Thank you.
SENATE COMMITTEE
ON RESEARCH
Courseware Policy
Guy F. Barbato, Chair Senate Committee on Research
Guy F. Barbato, College of Agricultural Sciences: Thank you very much. Nice day for a march. Let me just say that this has been a long road and a long time coming and I think Tom’s committee—Shelton Alexander, Wayne Curtis, Gary Miller and Gary Weber deserve a lot of credit for the time and the effort that they put into developing this. For those of you who haven’t caught up with it, notice that in the policy that you have in front of you that came with the Senate Agenda, the underlined areas are individual statements that have changed as a result of the forensic session. The bolded areas are ones that existed already for emphasis, so that it is the underlined areas that have changed since the forensic session. We’re going to request that we vote on the recommendations individually, so we have an opportunity to see where faculty opinions specifically lie within the context of these recommendations. However, we will defer to the chair to call the vote on the document, in total. I would like to say that the Senate Committee on Research has been heavily involved in evaluating this document over the last year and the Senate Committee on Research voted unanimously to recommend approval of this by the Faculty Senate, so this is something that the committee feels extremely strongly about and hope this is reflected in the report.
Chair
Schengrund: While we’re waiting for them to begin, the chair has ruled unless
requested otherwise, that it will be voted on as a document of the whole.
Thomas N. Jackson, College of Engineering: I want to say a few words to introduce again, the “Courseware Policy”. You’ve all had a chance to look at this, so I won’t spend very much time. As President Spanier noted, this has been a work of not a few weeks or months but rather years, I apologize for that. As a perspective on this, one way might be to think of “THON” this was Saturday morning about 40 hours in, so I’d ask you to keep your sense of perspective and maybe save enough energy for the unity walk. The courseware policy purpose is to provide incentives for Penn State personnel to work on courseware while also protecting the university interests and also controlling cost to students. Of course, the difficulty is that there is a collision between some of those interests and it’s trying to handle that, that makes this difficult. For the purposes of this policy we define courseware a little differently than you might. What we call courseware or complete courseware is a course replacement. It’s computer based. It allows a course to be taught at a distance without direct interaction with students, so it’s fundamentally different than a residential course. Courseware module by contrast is some computer-based materials that are intended to enhance or supplement an existing course. Most of what Penn State faculty currently do falls in the category of courseware modules, not courseware. We’ve worked very hard to protect faculty rights and freedom of action for courseware modules, while still protecting the university interest particularly in those more complete courseware offerings. There is a decision tree to help lead you through the policy and who does what and how is it done. The first question is, “is it computer-based?” If it’s not, we’re not talking about courseware. If it is computer-based, “is it a complete course?” If it is then, it’s courseware that’s this first definition the one that most completely collides with the university interest. If it’s not, it’s a courseware module and we want to think about it differently. The second major decision point is, “why did you do it?” Were you commissioned to do it by the university, in which case we would naturally expect the ownership and control to rest there. Did you do this on your own initiative, in which case you ought to have some fruits that accrue from that. The philosophy underlying this is not a philosophy new and distinct to the courseware issue, but really comes out of the existing conflict of commitment and conflict of interest policy the university has, though it has highlighted that those policies themselves probably will need a little more care and a little looking over. So therefore, courseware and courseware module development needs to be consistent with what we see as the primary obligations to teaching, research and service, and that means that we’re not talking in this policy about those relatively few number of individuals at the university. While part of the structure whose focus is very different--professional courseware designers for example--that policy needs to be dealt with perhaps differently, this is to look at the broad faculty and staff interests. Because there’s this difference between whose interest needs to be protected, we recognize there is a significant potential for conflict of interest and conflict of commitment, and because of that, one of the philosophical underpinnings is that if there are areas where competition with the university is going to be a part of what’s going on there needs to be approval of the institution for that. Let me just quickly go through the different sections. First then is commissioned courseware. The university or a part of the university says we want you to write this course requirement, a written agreement is put in place for that, Penn State then owns the copyright, nonetheless the author will receive royalties if they are generated by external use for the continuing use of that courseware. It’s also possible that complete courseware offerings can be done by faculty on their own initiative and the most important part of the policy is to look at disclosure in that case. The university should know that’s happening and know that you’re working on a course replacement. In that case the author would normally own the copyright however, for works that are within the scope of the employees employment, Penn State is asking for a royalty free right of use and that’s a change from the forensic session information we got back, it is limited now to the scope of the authors employment. Where it’s used internally then Penn State will accept the legal responsibility and other uses are the responsibility of the author. Similarly, commissioned courseware, the university has come and asked you to do it, written agreement, Penn State owns the copyright, if there’s external use it provides royalties to the university, the author shares in that and non-commissioned courseware modules, disclosure, author owns the copyright and now another change resulting from the forensic session. The author will control the use of those in Penn State programs, and so although it may be offered royalty free the university will not have the right to continuing use of it without the author’s approval. The idea is that the author created it, has brought it as a supplement to a course or perhaps a course it is related to but retains fundamental control. Then finally looking at the use at Penn State there needs to be some sort of supervision, particularly for courseware because it is a course replacement. Courses are offered by programs in departments not by individuals where those are offered at minimal cost that supervision can be provided at the department level. For other items where the costs are going to be more significant, the university will accept only published works either internally published through Penn State, or externally through one of the available publishers. Courseware modules, the bulk of what most faculty will be doing if they are provided at no cost the author takes care of it on their own, controls it, puts it up on that web page or whatever with proper and due regard for the copyright laws we hope, and Penn State will provide assistance where that’s appropriate. If they are available at minimal cost, handle at the department level, no need to get anything higher involved. If there are things that involve substantial cost then again, published works only. President Spanier also mentioned that this is necessarily a work in progress, and I’d like to emphasize that as well. The mechanism to try and handle what we expect to be a large number of questions and also the potential for a large number of special cases where things don’t fit exactly the mold or don’t fit into the guidelines that have been prepared to that point, that there will be a courseware advisory committee selected by the Vice-President for Research and the Chair of the Senate that will deal with those issues as they arise. Their first step would be to provide the guidelines to make this policy work out in practice, but also to continually review the policy looking for modification as the technology continues to change, and with that I’ll leave it open for your questions.
Chair Schengrund: Thank you for a very good summary. Are there questions for Tom?
Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education: The College of Education Caucus would like to see this voted ad seriatim, not as a whole piece. Do I have to move that? My apologies, the College of Education Caucus moves that this policy be voted ad seriatim as opposed to an entire document.
Chair Schengrund: Since it comes from a caucus does it need a second? It has been moved and seconded that the items be voted on ad seriatim. This is a non-debatable motion and it requires a simple majority to pass it and I might add if you…I’ll just call the question. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"?
Senators: Nay.
Chair Schengrund: Division of the house. Would those in favor stand. I need some officers up here to count. Are the people in the back standing or are you standing to be counted? Only old Senators can vote, the new Senators do not vote today.
Senators: Laughter.
Chair Schengrund: In other words, those that are in office. Would you please sit down. Would those that are against voting it ad seriatim please stand? Okay, we don’t have to count the no’s have it and the motion is defeated. Are there questions for Tom?
Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg: This is a comment pertaining to implementation and the policy as written I think is quite laudable but absent is the definition of university personnel. In particular, I’m thinking about graduate students who may design other courses or courseware modules as part of their thesis or dissertation work I want to make sure that their rights are protected, and that there’s clarity in the instructions given to advisers of graduate students. It certainly doesn’t have to be done now, but it ought to be taken care of.
Thomas N. Jackson: I think that’s a very good point. There’s a review going on currently of the overall intellectual policy, and who does it apply to and how do we make that clear and certainly that should be done in this context as well.
Tramble T. Turner: Tom,
under Recommendation #2 unlike Recommendation #1, Recommendation #2 says,
“university personnel may initiate the development” so we’re not talking about
commissioned work and yet in the underlined item, bullet four, “control is with
the department” versus at least one of your recommendations where control is
with the author. Would you comment on
that please?
Thomas N. Jackson: Sure, the thinking there is
courseware again, back to the definition is a course replacement so this is in
fact a course. Courses are offered and
controlled by programs and departments; not by individuals. Now, obviously we would expect that in
exercising that control, a program in the department would covet the
information from the author and use it as appropriate. Speaking as an individual, I don’t see
difficulty in doing it at that slightly higher level as is done with normal
courses. It goes through a curriculum
committee or something like that to decide whether to offer the course, to get
other input as to whether it’s dated or not or whether the material is
appropriate. So I would think that the
first source of information a department or program would use and exercise in
that control would be the courseware author.
But the idea here is that courseware is what we say in the definition,
it’s a course replacement. It’s a
course that’s being offered by a part of the university not by an individual
and therefore, a department or program takes the responsibility for that and exercises
control. That’s the thinking there.
Wayne R. Curtis,
College of Engineering: I have a few questions and I’ll take them
one at a time. In Recommendation #2
does use include subsequent derivative works or not?
Thomas N. Jackson: I think that’s something that’s not completely worked out. I’ll give you a view from the discussions we’ve had in the committee, some of which you’ve been party to and also with the vice president. In the case of commissioned courseware the university uses it and they do what they want and so derivative works would certainly be included in that, and it needs to be worked out how that’s done fairly. If there is external sales of those derivative works, it certainly seems that royalties should flow to the author as well. Though their participation is now less than it was before, and how do you work out the percentage and how do you put in the new authors, etc. So there will have to be a procedure for doing a division. In the case of derivative works for non-commissioned courseware the initial thinking at least would be that no, derivative works by university personnel would not be allowed any more than it would any other copyrighted work. Remember in the case of non-commissioned work the copyright remains with the author, and so you have this individual right of use for both of those. But no, there’s no management right to seize the copyright, so that copyright would remain with the author. Does that answer your question?
Wayne R. Curtis: Yes, it does. And it gets to the continuing of the context in which you would use it. The potential risk of generating material like this is it’s easy to use them and easy to not update them and in an area for instance where somebody chooses to…that the material is now either outdated or I no longer believe in what I’ve generated in terms of interpretations and so forth. What you’re saying is now the ability to essentially pull the plug on that material that I think that it should no longer be used in instruction, this no longer resides with the author. The university has that ability to decide and the decision could be non-educational. In other words, I decide to use this because it’s cheaper. My question, what exactly does consultation…because here’s how I envision the consultation…I envision the consultation as we would like to use it, I think it’s outdated and shouldn’t be used anymore and I generated it, well sure, if you want to teach this course as an overload you can go ahead and we won’t run the software, otherwise we will. That will be the consultation and under that circumstance to me that’s not…without me having the ability, having generated the material to say that no it shouldn’t be used. The definition of consultation here, and the definition of use make this recommendation, in my opinion not quite ready. It’s a lot better than it has been previously.
Thomas N. Jackson: Well, I certainly see some possibility for abuse, and I would think that’s something that could be handled through the normal channels to basically complain about that sort of thing. My own view is that we’re straining after a natt here. That we have to assume malfeasance. Programs and departments that offer courses, that’s their lifeblood. Now we all know that our courses are at different levels of quality. We’re trying to bring up the ones that are perhaps below the average we’d like while, maintaining the high quality courses at that high level, or even improving it. So to assume that a department or program would deliberately take input from a faculty member that this is no longer valuable, but nonetheless offer the course, I think that paints Penn State in a money grubbing picture, that at least I don’t see in the departments and programs that I’m in. On the other hand I do see at the department level not uncommonly minor internecine warring (perhaps would be a generous way of saying it), and there are conflicts of opinion about who should offer a course, and who owns it, and how should it be and that sort of thing. And really the purpose of that policy, and it’s just to raise that procedure to the next level, and so your job as a faculty member saying that this is not appropriate is to go and convince the curriculum committee we don’t want to offer this course. And you go to your colleagues and say here’s why it’s no good, let’s go tell them, you do that and the course isn’t offered. I don’t see that as any different than any other course we offer, so if I think of courseware that way as a complete course offering, I have the same obligations to police it that I would if it was a residential course.
Alison Carr-Chellman: The College of Education Caucus discussed this, and I have some things to report from that discussion. First we recognize the work that the committee has done, and we respect that but also are sympathetic with the administration’s view however, we feel that may be different from faculty views in this case, and we should seriously consider how we vote in terms of the faculty view. The caucus supports Recommendation #1 strongly. Works for hire should stay for us. They do not support however, Recommendations #2, #3 and #4. Specifically, in item two the control issues that are raised, we reject the royalty free, non exclusive right as a violation of authorship. We do not support the first bullet in Recommendation #3 because regular teaching duties are now considered commissioned works and this confuses things too much, we find that problematic and we do not support #4 because specifically, on the last bullet we feel that it needs substantially more definition there. We do support Recommendation #5, however.
Thomas N. Jackson: Thank you for the input.
John W. Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration: This policy is as reasonable a balance as I think we can achieve just now. I agree with President Spanier that our experience in implementing courseware policy, as well as periodic external benchmarking, will inform future revisions of this courseware policy. This should enhance stewardship over university assets, optimize incentives for instruction innovation, and preserve faculty rights. To this end though, I sincerely hope there will be a diverse faculty participation in the near term, as there is implementation of this courseware policy, and also in the ongoing review of individual courseware proposals. More specifically, I hope that informational reports will come to this Senate floor, as the courseware implementation guidance is drafted. Then periodically thereafter, experience information should help us assess how the key standards in this courseware policy are defined and interpreted. Such data is essential to our future revision efforts.
Thomas N. Jackson: Thank you for the comments, and I’d like to stress that as well. This I think, is the key to Penn State having a continuing policy that serves the needs of the institution and the faculty. A change which perhaps at first looks minor, but I think it is really not in the preamble from the Senate Committee on Research, it now says, “that the Vice President for Research and the Chair of the University Faculty Senate will appoint”. Before it had said that the Vice President for Research would consult with the Chair of the Senate, and now we’ve asked that the Chair of the Senate be involved in that. Natural involvement to do but Faculty Senate has had the opportunity kicking and screaming in some cases to build up some expertise on this topic and get some of those people involved so that there is that continuing connection with the relevant committees and others so that those revisions, and also so that the information does flow back to the more general faculty. But also the reverse, information flows from the faculty to the policy.
Chair Schengrund: Also, if you look at the last sentence on that page it says, “the University Faculty Senate, Faculty Affairs and Computing and Information Systems Committees will review Courseware Advisory Committee actions as appropriate,” so there is provision for an ongoing review. Are there other questions?
Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: Given the emphasis on the advisory committee I had a question on page four, under “C. General” the third bullet. The other three bullets here under conflict of interest seem to be covered in the remaining recommendations. The third bullet, though, seems to be suggesting a different procedure from what you just expressed in terms of the courseware advisory committee. Is it possible that this is an error, and that courseware advisory committee will be the point of final approval?
Thomas N. Jackson: I don’t know it’s an error. If it’s an error, it’s an intentional error at least. The policies at Penn State normally have an individual involved who is charged with executing those policies. So in this case we’ve told you, where the buck stops, and the buck stops with the Vice President for Research. Now again, we could assume malfeasance, and that this individual is going to operate against the wishes of their advisory committee I don’t anticipate that, if that developed then it would certainly be the job of the relevant committees of the Faculty Senate to say this isn’t working. But my expectation is that the Vice President for Research will need to, in executing his or her function lean on that committee, and will choose to do so.
Chair Schengrund: Any other questions? Is this a different question, Jamie?
Jamie M. Myers: Yes it is. Thank you. Back to Recommendation #2 not to restate something that’s already been stated…
Thomas N. Jackson: Which is not allowed…
Jamie M. Myers: I have a great deal of uncomfortable feeling with the royalty free nonexclusive right to use such courseware and then the fourth bullet, the underlined bullet that gives this, so I’m going to move a change in this wording. There’s a couple different ways we could go with it, but I think the quickest way and easiest way is in the fourth underlined bullet and that is, “control of noncommissioned courseware remains with the courseware author.” That’s the motion that I’m making the substantive and current fourth bullet. Now I can give some reason by that, but I think people have already talked about those reasons, and I don’t want to repeat them, but I think it does not prevent the departments and programs from using the courseware, but it does retain the goal of the author to say, no it’s not up to date, I’d rather not use it, so it does strike a compromise I think, between giving the university nonexclusive right and giving the author some rights as to the ownership of the courseware.
Chair Schengrund: Is there a second to Jamie’s proposed amendment?
Senator: Second.
Chair Schengrund: Okay, so what we’re discussing is that the fourth bullet under Recommendation #2 instead of reading as it’s currently written would say, “control of noncommissioned courseware rests with the noncommissioned courseware author,” is that correct, Jamie?
Jamie M. Myers: Yes, that’s fine.
Chair Schengrund: Thank you. Comments or questions regarding that statement?
Thomas N. Jackson: There was discussion of how the control should be written after the forensic session, and the net of that was particularly input from those that have the university interest focus so those who might like to exercise this right of use for works that have been created within the scope of employment was that they have no rights if that control is given up because all that has to happen is the author says, “I don’t want you to use it,” and you’re done. So what is a right to use it, if you have no control over that right, and so what was done was to put the consultation in there as a necessary step but to recognize that if we are serious about this right which was limited after the forensic session to works within the scope of the employment of the author, if we’re serious about that right it goes away if there’s no control to exercise that right.
Chair Schengrund: Any comments? If not, I’d like to call the question and you’re voting now on the proposed amendment which would change that bullet to read, “control of noncommissioned courseware used in university programs shall rest with the noncommissioned courseware author”. All those in favor of this change, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"?
Senators: Nay.
Chair Schengrund: We need to have a division of the house, because I can’t hear well enough to distinguish. Would all those that voted for the amendment, please stand, and if you are in the back, could you please sit or put your hand up if you’re voting for it. You may be seated, and would those that are voting no please rise. There were 65 no, and 52 yes, this is a simple majority vote, therefore the amendment was defeated. Are there any other comments or questions for Tom? Hearing none I’ll call the question. All those in favor of accepting this advisory and consultative report, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"?
Senators: Nay.
Chair Schengrund: The aye’s have it and the motion is carried, and I would like to just thank everyone for surviving this discussion.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Schengrund: And for those of you that may have been disappointed with the outcome of the vote, you can make your comments known to the advisory committee which will be appointed and see what changes might be affected over time, and especially after we’ve lived with it for awhile, and know a little bit more about how it works. Also, if it’s possible it would be nice to have people stay, so that if you feel so inclined come and walk with us at 4:00 p.m. Moving on to informational reports, our next report comes from the Senate Committee on University Planning it’s on “Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle,” and Provost Rodney Erickson will present this report, and this is at the invitation of the Senate Committee on University Planning.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle
Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning
Rodney A. Erickson, Provost: Thank you, Cara and let me just say in a few seconds here, thank you to everyone in the Senate who’s been involved in these discussions related to the courseware policy. It’s hard to imagine now, but it was about 27 months ago when I appointed the task force with Senate representation, and charged them to look at this whole set of issues. This is an incredibly complex set of issues and I think we have arrived at a compromise piece of legislation here that obviously it’s going to have to be adjusted as we gain experience with these kinds of things, but I think it does provide some balance in terms of the faculty interests, the institutional interests and so on. When I compare what’s going on at a number of other institutions with what’s taken place here I can’t tell you how proud I am of the process of consultation that’s gone on. And believe me as I talk to my counterparts across the Big Ten and across the country, this is a very live topic and I would not be at all surprised to see this legislation become a kind of model legislation for other institutions. The fact that we have taken actions here, I think puts us really very much in the middle of this whole set of activities. On the one hand you have some institutions who apparently are moving to try to essentially require the faculty to give away all of their courseware to put it out on the web for free. On the other extreme you have cases like the State of Arizona which I’m told the legislature has now decreed that all public institutions, anything that comes out of their heads, is owned by the state and that even the kinds of things we would put on the web for courseware will now become essentially state property. I certainly would not want anything like that to happen but it will be important that we maintain a Senate direct involvement, and the clear voice of the faculty as this moves forward and we confront many of these new issues.
In just a few minutes here I’d like to bring you up to date on the current plans that we have for laying into place the next round of strategic planning at the university. I think most if not all of you are familiar with the current university strategic plan “Academic Excellence, Planning for the 21st Century”. That plan of course, was in the development stages during the 1995-96 and the early part of the 1996-97 academic year and covered the period from 1997 to 2002 so we’re really rapidly nearing the end of that process with one more year to go. Many of you have been involved in that process either within your own units or Senate Officers, who have been very much involved in the University Planning Council. We’re undertaking a significant number of changes in the way that we’re going to go about the next round, and that round would really cover the period from 2002-2003 through a three-year cycle. We have chosen a three-year rather than a five-year cycle for a number of reasons. One is, certainly involving the relationship to the budget process and some of the uncertainties that we face there. That said, we are certainly encouraging the units to think strategically in the at least five to ten-year horizon in terms of many of the long term issues that they are facing and where they would like to see their units go. So we’ve engaged in a lot of discussion about the next round, we started some of these discussions…I think that’s my telephone. If you would indulge me for a minute please.
Chair Schengrund: I have nothing to say, so why don’t you just talk to each other. I’d be happy to tell a joke but I’m lousy at it. By the way Rod, I think there are a number of faculty that don’t allow cell phones to be on during class. Maybe we need to ban them at the Senate meeting.
Rodney A. Erickson: George told me not to forget to bring the milk home. That was not Governor Ridge, but as you might imagine there are a lot of things happening this afternoon, so my apologies to the Chair and the members of the Senate.
Chair Schengrund: Not needed.
Rodney A. Erickson: I think I did turn this off. So we have had discussions starting last spring with the University Council on Continuous Quality Improvement. We’ve had a rather lengthy set of discussions formally and informally with the Council of Academic Deans, with the President’s Council and I met with the Senate Committee on University Planning, and we received some very good suggestions through Peter that came back to us that were important insights as well into the process, and I thank the Senate Committee on University Planning for that opportunity to meet with them. So we’re talking about a three-year time horizon. We’re talking about a lot more flexibility in the next round of planning than there was in the past round, in part, because many of the units are at somewhat different stages in the strategic planning process. There’s been quite a lot of turnover as you’re aware in terms of the leadership. On the academic front if you can think about it, we have ten deans who have been with us less than two years and 15 deans who have been with us less than five years, and we have deans who in many cases working with their faculty, students, staff and external constituencies really want to take a fresh look. In some cases the process is pretty well established, so we want to have a very flexible kind of system in place that allows our academic and administrative leaders as much latitude as possible to address the key issues in their units, both in the long term, as well as the more immediate three-year planning horizon. We’re also planning to issue directives that would ask the budget executive--those 34 budget executives in the university who will be submitting the plans--to include information relevant to a number of Senate and university reports. The Senate, of course has asked that we include in the strategic plans, information and plans about fixed term and part time faculty use, about the sustainable university and certainly we want to include attention to the vibrant learning environment as well. The e-Education Council has asked us to have academic units indicate their teaching and learning plans, that is how they will seek to incorporate technology into the learning environment over the next several years. We will continue to encourage units to collect and use strategic performance indicators. We feel that this has been an important dimension of the strategic planning that’s gone on in the last two or three years, not only unit performance indicators, but university wide performance indicators as well. We decided that we’ll not go with the old model of a very large University Planning Council, but rather to organize around a series of much more nimble and I think more manageable task forces on specific issues. Obviously, those would include significant Senate representation as well, but rather than having a large bureaucracy we would much prefer to go with a more flexible kind of approach to planning. We are still in the process of discussion of recycling whether that will take place entirely within budgetary units or what will take place in a central kind of fashion that has been the case in previous years and over the next few weeks we will hopefully get a little better idea of what the implications of state budgeting might be and how that might impact our recycling. We intend to continue with the integrated planning model for the campus colleges for those of you who may not be familiar with past reports that have been provided, this was an effort to really link together a number of different strategic elements at the campus colleges, in fact on a campus by campus basis where we brought together academic planning, enrollment management and administration, budgetary planning as well as facilities planning. And we had found that over the course of the past year it has been I think, recognized as quite helpful at the campuses and it has certainly been helpful to the president, to me, to other members of the leadership team as we really evaluate the capacity in many cases in the plans for our campus colleges and individual campuses that really look at in a much more wholeistic way at what might be appropriate at particular campuses. Finally, I would indicate that we intend to--while the unit strategic plans are going to be due in February of 2002, so about ten months from now we’re asking for a separate progress report on the seven challenges outlined in the “Framework to Foster Diversity,” that would be due on December 15 of this fall. We made that decision actually last summer, and in view of much of the discussion of the unit level strategic plans that went on in the University Planning Council, we were concerned at the rather wide variation in the attention that the “Framework” had received in the unit level strategic plans. Some it received little attention, and others it was quite well developed. The feeling was that in too many of the plans the “Framework” had somehow become at least partly lost or too far subsumed into the unit strategic plans. So we made the decision last summer that we really wanted to seriously move forward with a call for a progress report on the second challenge, and we are committed to doing that as a way of really bringing those issues of the “Framework to Foster Diversity” to front and center. So that is a brief run down, I think I’ve hit the major points in a very short period of time as to where we’re headed with the next round of strategic planning. We hope to issue the guidelines in the next few weeks. The guidelines related to the “Framework to Foster Diversity” progress report should be going out within the next ten days or so and shortly thereafter the guidelines for the unit strategic plans in the next round. Thank you.
Chair Schengrund:
Thank you. Are there questions
for Provost Erickson? Okay, thank you
very much. Our next informational
report will come from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. It’s the “Report of the Working Group on
Part-Time Faculty 2001”. It is in
Appendix “D” and Margaret Goldman is here.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Report of the Working Group on
Part-Time Faculty 2001
Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
Louis Milakofsky,
Berks-Lehigh Valley College: I’d like to introduce Margaret Goldman who is
Chair of the Faculty Affairs Subcommittee on Faculty Development and who has
worked very hard on this issue and is a member of the working group. And just an added note here, is Rod still
here or is he answering his telephone?
Okay, I’d like to thank you for including in the strategic plan the
issue about Fixed Term I and II faculty, thank you.
Margaret Goldman,
College of Medicine: As many of you know, nationally there has
been a great deal of attention to the fact that over the years there’s been an
increase in the number of faculty hired at colleges, who are either part time
or are full time, but not on the tenure track, and Penn State has tried to
begin to asses this issue from a number of different points. Last year the Senate Committee on
Intra-University Relations gave the first report on collecting data about how
faculty are distributed at various campuses, and in January the Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs presented the report of its survey across ten
different locations, trying to get a sense of how the hiring of faculty off the
tenure track both full time and part time affected faculty development
especially for tenure track faculty. And
as the Senate Officers visited their various locations it became quite clear
that how part time faculty are incorporated into the culture at the different
campuses varies greatly from being a full participant to being very much
neglected. The Provost’s Office has
been very concerned about how we can address these issues and therefore,
appointed this working group with a very specific charge so that we could come
up with some recommendations in a short period of time. The charge was that because Penn State needs
to improve preparation, evaluation, integration and assimilation of part time
faculty members into the lifeblood of the institutions unit, a set of
guidelines and suggestions is to be assembled on what Penn State should expect
of its part time faculty members, and what part time faculty members should
expect of Penn State. This working
group chaired by Dean Anderson from the College of Communications then got
information from different deans across the campuses, collected handbooks that
a number of campuses have for their part time faculty and full time faculty and
came up with a set of appropriate levels of institutional support and services
for part time faculty. And basically
these revolved around the fact that part time faculty needed to know what the
unit expected of them, and they also need to be included in the activities of
the unit. They needed to be familiar
with policies pertaining to faculty and students, and to understand what
resources and support might be expected from the unit as they carry out their
teaching responsibilities. We also
wanted to list appropriate institutional expectations for part time members,
and basically these revolved around the fact that we wanted the part time
faculty to adhere to the standards for teaching and course administration that
had been set by the unit. We also
listed a number of exemplary practices that were in place in different
locations, and basically the exemplary practices were again, inclusion, recognition
and also equity because there was some concern that the part time faculty
salaries were not competitive with other educational institutions around and we
were losing some of them. We’ve made a
number of suggestions and recommendations and basically they were following the
examples that were carried out at a number of campuses particularly well at
Shenango and Altoona, although other campuses did it well, in having a handbook
of orientation, and this facilitated greatly the communication and the
understanding of what was expected. We
also thought it would be appropriate if we recommended developing a reward and
recognition system that could effectively promote accomplishments and mutual
commitment, quality improvement and retention among the part time faculty. And what you have as your door handout that
was also a part of the report were guidelines for an orientation booklet for
part time faculty and basically these took a lot of components from all the
different handbooks that we saw so that campuses as they develop their own
handbooks would be able to sort of pick and choose what would suit them but the
whole goal was to really enhance communication, enhance inclusion and hopefully
this would be extended to all faculty.
We thank Provost Erickson for his support of this. Any questions?
Chair
Schengrund: Seeing none, thank you Margaret.
Thank you Lou. Moving
on, the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits has their “AY2000/2001 Faculty
Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State” report which is given in Appendix
“E” and Len Berkowitz who is Chair of that committee will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of
Academic Units Within Penn State
Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee
on Faculty Benefits
Leonard J. Berkowitz,
York Campus: Well actually I’d like to introduce Jake De
Rooy to present the report since he chaired the subcommittee, unfortunately
Jake’s not here so you’re stuck with me.
We got a bit of a late start due to problems internal to the committee
so this report isn’t everything we had hoped it would be but I thought it was
really important to present as much of the report as we could put together
within the time frame we had. It does
have some holes in it but those are things that are due to the time pressure we
worked under. We got the data we asked
for in a timely way from the Office of Planning and we thank them for
that. You may have noticed that the
Eberly College of Science and the DuBois Campus were missing, you’ve got that
information as a door handout. That’s
in the same form as the rest, it was just inadvertently left out of the report
that you got. A second factor is that
in this report only standing faculty were included, I’ll address that more
fully in a minute so we do have data on fixed term faculty. What we would like to do is provide a more
complete report including a more thorough analysis of the data and including
all Fixed Term I and Fixed Term multi-year faculty in the fall so you’ll see
more then. Finally, there are a number
of small errors that could be termed editorial and I’ll leave it to Cara-Lynne,
do you want me to read through them or simply provide them later?
Chair Schengrund: You
can provide them later. Those of you
that have just come in you’re welcome to take any empty seat that you can find
you don’t need to stand.
Leonard J.
Berkowitz: Let me just provide then a couple minor examples of this. For example, on page seven you may note that
under Agricultural Sciences there is a disagreement with the chart at the top
and the bar graph at the bottom. The
chart at the top says that professors mean salary is $79,934 and the bar graph
at the bottom indicates the mean salary is somewhere around $92,000. In consultation with the college the
professors have decided to accept the bar graph, unfortunately the chart at the
top is the correct one. The other one I
want you to notice is page 25, and that’s Penn State Fayette under Associate
Professors the Associate Professor you’ll notice the mean here is in rank,
there is 56,004, they’ve been there a long time, it may seem like that, that
number is incorrect, it’s ten. There
are a number of minor transcription errors that we will correct and the Senate
Office will find the most efficient and convenient way to bring those to each
and every Senator.
Chair Schengrund: I
think the suggestion was that each Senator get a hard copy of this report after
it is corrected.
Leonard J. Berkowitz:
That’s fine with us. With that
if there are any questions about what you have I’ll be happy to address them.
Peter D. Georgopulos,
Delaware Campus: Could you and would you next time this
report comes out include a summary of the Commonwealth College as a whole?
John M. Lilley, Penn
State Erie-The Behrend College: I always wonder reading these reports through
the years after it’s all said and done, what does the committee think it means?
Leonard J.
Berkowitz: There have been times when the committee has drawn not only analyses but
recommendations about what should be done.
That takes time and analysis that we obviously did not have time to do
at this point this year. Much of our
efforts went into the report you saw last month to try to develop a long term
plan as to how all the reports should look so that we don’t end up with
non-comparable reports year after year and decade after decade. And that was the main reason that this
report didn’t get the full attention that we hoped to be able to give it, so at
this point I can’t give you a direct answer to that. What I can say is one of the things that’s on our agenda for next
year is to review the legislation that has come out of this committee over the
past five to eight years, some of which has passed the Senate and been accepted
in various forms by the administration, and to look and see how that’s been
implemented, and that will in part, inform what we want to do with the data we
get both for internal and external reports.
John M. Lilley: I
just think it’s very important for the Senate to know what you think all of
these data mean.
Leonard J. Berkowitz: At
this point I don’t have an answer for this report.
John M. Lilley: I
understand.
Brian B. Tormey, Penn
State Altoona: Just following up on Dean Lilley’s
request. Would you then consider
including this information in your follow up report for the fall?
Leonard J. Berkowitz: We
certainly will consider it, the question is whether there will be a consensus
about what it does mean. That is, we’ll
look at it and various people come to various conclusions. You have been around long enough to know
we’ve had many lively discussions with very little consensus about what these
various data do mean and I won’t presume to be able to say that next year’s
committee will come to a consensus. We
will discuss it, and if we can come to a consensus we will, and one of the
things I hope will be that at that meeting there will be time enough for that
fuller discussion even if there’s no consensus.
Vasundara V. Varadan,
College of Engineering: Why was the decision made not to include
salaries divided out by gender this year?
Leonard J. Berkowitz: If
you recall, at last month’s meeting we decided that what should be done is we
focus on one of those issues such as gender once every five to six years. There are like five or six items and the
reason for that is there will not be changes in that in a year-to-year
basis. What we’re really interested in
is are we making progress, are we losing progress or are things the same over a
period of time. So that will be one of
the major things we will be looking at exactly when is the next time we ought
to look at that issue that depends on when the last time we looked at that
issue is. It may well be that we’ll
have to look at more than one in order to do them in a sufficient frequency. The thing we wanted to look at this time
that we didn’t get to, and we hope to give you in fall--remember now for fall
it’s going to be the same data--will be growth rates, something that has never
been done. That is, in what way has
salary increases been implemented in this university unit by unit so that’s a
new one. But yes, you are absolutely
right. Such things as differences by
gender, as well as by location, as well as a number of other things are absolutely
critical and we’ll have to look at exactly when the last one was done but it
wasn’t done this time because there simply wasn’t time to do everything and
that one wasn’t the top one on our list.
Chair Schengrund:
Vasu, you have the right to ask for a specific analysis. Anyone in the Senate can ask for a specific
analysis to be done on any given year if you think it’s necessary because it’s
been a couple of years even if it hasn’t been the six year time span. That was also in the legislation that we
passed last time.
Vasundara V.
Varadan: I just feel that a five to six year span to look at faculty salaries by
gender is too long of a gap because people suffer and…
Chair Schengrund: Then
request that the committee include that in next year’s report.
Margaret Goldman: I
understand that over the years we’ve had a lot of problems setting up a valid
survey from Hershey. I know the Senate
Committee on Faculty Benefits is working on this very hard and I just want to
urge you to continue to see a valid study so that we get some meaningful data.
Leonard J. Berkowitz: Well
you will notice that we do have data from the College of Medicine here.
Margaret Goldman: Yes…
Leonard J. Berkowitz: I
can in the corrected, more finished version be able to provide the AAMC
percentiles which is a critical part of the College of Medicine salary process
so that will be in that data.
Margaret Goldman:
There are a lot of components and counting and how that data should be
collected in the first place. The
College of Medicine has been working very hard in setting up the information
that would be correct and that’s appreciated…
Chair Schengrund: This
data, Margaret was the same data I believe, that Wayne Zolko showed at our
faculty organization meeting which may have some inaccuracies.
Louis
Milakofsky: I’d also like to request that other campus colleges, who are more than a
location, being collectively done it’s hard even for us to treat ourselves as
one unit. With regard to fixed term
faculty is that report coming through at the same time or a later report coming
through in the fall is that also going to be done?
Leonard J. Berkowitz: The
plan that I have in mind is that the data for Fixed Term I and Fixed Term
multi-year will be included in that report because we have those data now.
Louis Milakofsky:
Okay, thank you.
Chair Schengrund: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much Len for standing in for Jake. The Senate Committee on University Planning has the report on the “Status of Construction at Penn State, Spring 2001”. Peter Deines has indicated that he will be happy to address any questions via email and do you want to say anything at this time, Peter?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Status of Construction at Penn
State, Spring 2001
Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on
University Planning
Peter Deines, College
of Earth and Mineral Sciences: No, thank you very much. I think the report is self-explanatory; it
is an update from the report last fall.
Next fall we’ll have the new report.
If you have specific questions, just email me please. Thank you.
Chair Schengrund:
Thank you, Peter and thank your committee. At this time I’d like to ask John Moore to report on the “Senate
Elections”. He oversaw the conduct of
these elections and it’s time for him to give
us the results.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Report of Senate
Elections
John W. Moore, Chair, Elections Commission
John W. Moore,
College of the Liberal Arts: I am
pleased to report the results of this year’s
elections.
The first is the election for Senate Council. Connie Baggett, College of Agricultural
Sciences; Travis De Castro, College of Arts and Architecture; John Bagby, Smeal
College of Business Administration; Alan Scaroni, Earth and Mineral Sciences;
Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education; Wayne Curtis, College of Engineering;
Robert Burgess, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis Gouran, College
of the Liberal Arts; Peter Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Loanne Snavely,
University Libraries, Combined Departments of Military Science, College of
Communications, Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Great Valley Graduate
Center; Brian Tormey, Altoona College; Tramble Turner, Abington College; Ronald
McCarty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; John Lippert, Penn State
Harrisburg, The Capital College; Alphonse Leure-duPree, College of
Medicine; Salvatore Marsico, The Commonwealth College; and Louis Milakofsky,
Berks-Lehigh Valley College. That will
be the constitution of the Senate Council for next year.
Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules.
Joseph Cecere, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College; Margaret
Galligan, Penn State Mont Alto; Joanna Floros, College of Medicine; Jean Landa
Pytel, College of Engineering and Valerie Stratton, Altoona College are the
five members elected to serve a two-year term.
Stephen Smith, College of Agricultural Sciences was elected to serve a
one-year term.
The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee: Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg, The
Capital College (Harrisburg); Rod M. Heisey, Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital
College (Schuylkill); John A. Johnson, College of the Liberal Arts, (DuBois);
and Vasundara Varadan, College of Engineering, UP.
The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure: Margaret B. Goldman, College of Medicine,
Member; and Peter Deines, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences, UP,
Alternate.
For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we
have three categories: Faculty from University Park: Sallie M. McCorkle, College of Arts &
Architecture, Member; and James B. Stewart, College of the Liberal Arts,
Alternate.
Faculty Other than University Park: Dawn G. Blasko,
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, member.
Deans: David H. Monk, Education, Member; and
Richard W. Durst, Arts & Architecture, Alternate.
Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President: P. Peter Rebane, Abington College.
For the office of Secretary of the Senate: Deidre E. Jago, College of Health &
Human Development, Penn State Hazleton.
For Chair-Elect of the Senate: John W. Moore, College of the Liberal Arts, University Park.
Thank you.
Chair Schengrund: Thank you, John
and I think we should congratulate all of them.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY OUTGOING CHAIR SCHENGRUND
This is the time at which the chair actually gets to say something about what they have been thinking for the past year. I’ve tried very hard to not say too much. I’d like to start by thanking everybody for your support and for your hard work on the Senate during this past year. From my perspective it has definitely been an interesting one in which to be a Senator. It started with the move from Birch Cottage to Kern, and it continued right on through today’s meeting with amongst other agenda items the vote on the proposed courseware policy which I am very glad is over.
By way of review of this past year, the Senate started off by recommending revision of Senate Policy 42-27 on class attendance which included the Martin Luther King Day of Service as a university approved activity. We were advised about the impact on faculty development of hiring faculty off the tenure track, which in turn led to the formation of a joint committee to develop guidelines for what part time faculty that Margaret Goldman reported on today. We recommended that the university make more use of retired or emeritus faculty. We amended the active learning policy for Gen Ed courses. We looked at the format for the annual report on faculty salaries. We had a report today on faculty salaries. We recommended a change in adoption benefits, and a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures. We made some progress but not enough with the ongoing process of re-certification of Gen Ed courses. We established a joint Senate and administrative committee to review the calendar the results of which you should hear about next year. We recommended a plan that the university develop a plan that would make it ecologically sustainable. We learned about virtual reality. We learned what the alumni are doing. We heard about the accomplishments of the Commission for Women and about what still needs to be done and we also experienced what can happen when the press misrepresents an action taken by the Senate when we read in the paper and heard on TV that we had voted to “ban booing” instead of to ask fans to welcome the opposing team in a manner in which they would like Penn State athletes to be welcomed. We learned that to condemn acts of intolerance is not newsworthy, that was done at that same meeting, and that not everyone believes that the first amendment right of free speech applies to all. To offset the negatives, students again pointed out that they are interested in the world around them and are willing to offer their help to make things better.
There are however, a number of issues that need our attention. Aside from the ongoing issue of re-certification of Gen Ed courses, there are four issues that I believe merit the continuing attention of the Senate. They include:
• Diversity issues. These remain at the forefront. The Coalition of Students made the Senate very aware of the fact that they do not believe the university has made the climate a welcoming one for African American students, the LGBT community continues to look for equal benefits, and the report from the Commission for Women included a number of issues that need to be addressed including the fact that women hold a disproportionate percentage of non tenure track positions, the fact that the gender gap with respect to salaries appears to be increasing, and the need for equitable family care opportunities at all locations. The disproportionate number of men relative to women on the Board of Trustees, this is related to the percentage of women graduates from this institution.
• Equity issues must continue to be addressed by both the Senate and the administration. This issue was one that was raised during our campus and our college visits. The question of equity in salaries across the university, equity in whether junior faculty are given release time in order to accomplish research needed for Promotion and Tenure, the number of courses faculty are commonly asked to teach per semester, and the facilities made available to faculty are just some of the questions that were asked and need to be addressed.
• The changing ways in which courses can be delivered. The report that we just had from the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems pointed out evolving technology and the need for Penn State to try to stay current. It is also something we heard about on our college visits. There is a real cost for this institution to try to stay current with technology and it is a point that some of the colleges are very concerned about and the question of how they will meet this cost and of course the continuing worry by faculty of what happens once their thoughts are put online.
• The final issue that I would raise is the apparent disconnect between University Park and the rest of the campus colleges. This is something that became quite apparent during our campus visits in the fall and to a lesser extent was raised during our college visits during the spring. I don’t necessarily have an answer but I’m just raising it as something that needs to be addressed.
Finally, I would like to remind everyone that shared governance is more than just a concept and I was actually hoping that the president and provost would still be here. It is the key to having a great university. At one of the CIC Leadership conferences Dr. Skorton, who is Vice President for Research at the University of Iowa made the statement that the ultimate change agent within the university is the faculty, while Lou Anna Kimsey Simon, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Michigan State University reminded the people in attendance that people in leadership positions are there for only a short time and therefore when someone in such a position makes a decision, he or she should be prepared to live with the consequences of that decision even when they are no longer there. She also indicated that a leader must be open and honest. As faculty we must make sure that Penn State retains its commitment to shared governance, that we are not just considered employees without a perspective worth learning about. We have to be willing to continue to put forth the effort needed to make shared governance work and this is something that I want to thank all of you for doing this past year.
Now before I actually hand the gavel over to John Nichols there are some special thanks that I would like to make. The first is to the entire Senate Office: Sherry, Lori, April, Linda, Betsy, Vickie and George. I want to say thank you to all of you for all the hard work you do and for the fact that you function so well as a team. I’d like to thank George Franz, the other George at the front table for keeping me from breaking too many of Robert’s Rules on Parliamentary Procedure. To the officers that have survived this year with me I’d like to give individual thanks. The first is to Murry Nelson our out-going past-chair, you can stand, I know we all know who you are but we need to see you. I would like to give you my thanks for teaching me the need to view things with a sense of perspective—I didn’t say what kind. To see humor even though things seemed to be going awry which they have done a number of times this year, and for letting me know that it’s okay to smile and be ecstatic at the thought of finishing my year as Senate Chair. Thank you. Actually, he started his countdown about six weeks earlier than I did. I can remember his doing that last year. However, when I was Chair-Elect, Murry was supposed to have taught me a lot of things and he did. I became more dedicated to doing cross-word puzzles, but I didn’t master the ability to do them while running a meeting. I also didn’t master the ability to stand here for the whole meeting and look wide-awake, when I was actually somnolent. To John Moore, who as Secretary of the Senate used his background in English to frequently help with the word-smithing of documents brought to Senate Council, and whose wit provided levity on our travels, many thanks for your sincere help in our meetings with the Coalition of Students. He taught us, and Nick and I are going to take this lesson home that a closed mouth prevents the foot from being inserted. This is a take home message we should all remember. I think that your colleagues also appreciated all your hard work since they have elected you Chair-elect. Now to Nick, I would like to thank you for your commitment this past year to your position as Chair-elect. Your ability to communicate with everyone should stand you in good stead as Chair. I don’t know whether you train your students to take good notes, but one thing I noticed is that you never, except last night you let me down, attended a meeting without bringing a bound notebook with you—please open it. I was impressed by the copious notes that you took and which in all honesty I think only you can read because I actually did try to read over your shoulder. I’m not nearly as well organized as you.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Schengrund: So I felt I should contribute to your notebook collection because I’m sure you filled at least one this year and I also felt you needed something with which to write. However, despite all of your organizational talents, there is one thing that you have yet to master and that is the ability to eat cookies. This is an essential talent for everyone and I have to tell you I love chocolate chip cookies, and John has picked on me unmercifully all year for eating them. Since I haven’t been able to convince him of the nutritional value, I won’t try, however I will suggest that when you are feeling slightly frustrated or out-of-sorts a chocolate chip cookie is not a bad reward or pick me up. So, to start you out on this I felt I should provide you with the first cookie you would have as Chair of the Senate, as well as the gavel and wishes of good luck for the next year!
Senators: Applause and standing ovation.
COMMENTS BY INCOMING CHAIR NICHOLS
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
Loren Filson, Student Senator, Eberly College of Science: I’d like to make a request of the Undergraduate Student Government and all of the, at least University Park and I hope the Commonwealth Student Senators as well, when I say and encourage you to come this afternoon. In the past few nights we hosted community meetings with the Black Caucus presenting and yesterday I assured them that we as students would represent their interests here today and this morning in the committee meetings and that I would encourage all of you to talk to them and march with them today. They are willing to talk and I told them much more could be accomplished during a nice walk during the daylight, rather than a big, loud mess almost at a Faculty Senate meeting. So I encourage all of you to come and I encourage you to talk to them. Help out the students to work with this problem and help the administration as well.
ADJOURNMENT
May I have a motion to adjourn? The April 24, 2001 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:39 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO APRIL 24, 2001
Computing and Information Systems – Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State
(Advisory/Consultative)
Research – Courseware Policy (Advisory/Consultative)
Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report of April 10, 2001
Faculty Affairs – Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001 (Informational)
Faculty Benefits – AY2000-2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within Penn State (Informational)
University Planning – Status of Construction at Penn State, Spring 2001 (Informational)
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate Calendar
2001-2002
Reports Due Senate Council Senate
August 7, 2001 August 21, 2001 September 11, 2001
September 18, 2001 October 2, 2001 October 23, 2001
October 30, 2001 November 13, 2001 December 4, 2001
December 11, 2001 January 15, 2002 January 29, 2002
February 1, 2002 February 12, 2002 February 26, 2002
March 1, 2002 March 12, 2002 March 26, 2002
March 29, 2002 April 9, 2002 April 23, 2002
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Standing Committee Assignments for the 2001-2002 Senate Year
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING
AND STUDENT AID
Deborah Atwater, V-Chair 2003
Edward W. Bittner 2003
Ingrid M. Blood 2002
Kevin R. Cheesebrough 2002
JoAnn Chirico, Chair 2002
Peter Deines 2003
Anna Griswold 2002
Elizabeth Hanley 2003
Winand K. Hock 2003
Chau-Luen Li 2003
Annette K. McGregor 2003
Katherine Neimeister 2002
Victor Nistor 2002
Martin T. Pietrucha 2003
P. Peter Rebane 2002
John J. Romano 2002
J. James Wager 2002
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Anthony Ambrose 2002
Paul E. Barney 2003
Edward R. Bollard, Jr. 2002
Ali Borhan 2003
Lee D. Coraor, V-Chair 2003
John T. Harwood 2002
Robert D. Minard 2003
Joy M. Perrine 2003
David R. Richards 2002
Dhushy Sathianathan 2002
Sam Slobounov, Chair 2002
John B. Urenko 2003
Russell S. Vaught 2002
Sunny M. Webb 2002
CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Phyllis F. Adams 2002
R. Thomas Berner 2003
Laurie P. Breakey 2003
William Brockman 2002
Douglas K. Brown 2002
Barton W. Browning 2002
Garry L. Burkle 2002
Jeremy Cohen (ACUE) 2002
Robert G. Crane 2003
Gary J. Fosmire 2002
George W. Franz 2003
Louis Geschwindner, Chair 2003
Darla Lindberg 2003
Robert A. Novack 2002
Judith Ozment Payne 2002
Sheila E. Ridley 2002
Howard Sachs 2003
Roger C. Shouse 2002
Richard J. Simons 2003
Carol A. Smith 2003
Shelley Stoffels, V-Chair 2003
James A. Strauss 2003
James B. Thomas 2003
Rodney Troester 2003
Joshua D. Walker 2002
Anthony Wardle 2002
Chair, Graduate School Com.
on
Programs/Courses 2002
FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr 2003
Syed Saad Andaleeb 2002
Kultegin Aydin 2002
Melvin Blumberg 2002
Clay Calvert 2002
Richard A. Carlson 2003
Lynn A. Carpenter 2002
Roy B. Clariana 2003
Cheng Dong 2003
James M. Donovan 2003
Jacqueline P. Esposito 2002
Dorothy H. Evensen 2002
Mary I. Frecker 2003
Margaret Goldman, V-Chair2003
David J. Green
2003
Janis E. Jacobs 2002
W. Larry Kenney 2003
Ravinder Koul 2003
Sallie M. McCorkle 2003
Katherine C. Pearson 2003
Andrew B. Romberger 2003
Robert Secor 2002
Jeffery M. Sharp 2003
Stephen W. Stace 2003
Kim C. Steiner 2003
Mila C. Su 2003
Joan S. Thomson 2003
Vasundara Varadan, Chair 2003
FACULTY BENEFITS
Leonard Berkowitz, Chair 2003
Michael H. Bernhard 2003
Keith K. Burkhart, V-Chair 2002
Alan V. Derickson 2003
Jacob De Rooy 2002
Frank Provenzano 2003
Dennis G. Shea 2003
Patience Simmonds 2003
Mark Strikman 2003
Billie S. Willits 2002
J. Randall Woolridge 2003
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
James B. Anderson 2003
William W. Asbury 2002
Ann J. Atkinson, V-Chair 2002
John J. Cahir 2002
Linda L. Caldwell 2003
Timothy M. Curley 2002
Laurence M. Demers 2003
James T. Elder 2003
Terry P. Harrison 2003
Kane M. High 2003
Diana L. Kenepp 2002
R. Scott Kretchmar 2002
Harvey B. Manbeck 2003
Michelle H. McCarney 2003
Douglas McCullough 2002
Murry R. Nelson, Chair 2003
Ellen L. Perry 2002
Robyn A. Ricketts 2002
John J. Romano 2002
Thomas C. Vary 2003
Jerry Wright 2002
INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
David Barnes 2002
Rosann Bazirjian 2003
Alan A. Block 2003
Robert Bonneau 2002
K. Robert Bridges 2003
Robin Ciardullo 2003
Fred G. Fedok 2003
Hector Flores 2003
Thomas A. Frank 2003
Sandra Gleason(ACUE) 2002
Lonnie M. Golden, V-Chair 2002
Timothy N. Gray 2002
E. Jay Holcomb 2003
Pamela P. Hufnagel 2002
Pablo Laguna 2003
Michael Navin, Chair 2003
Henry O. Patterson 2002
Barbara L. Power 2003
Winston Richards 2002
Michael C. Ritter 2002
James F. Smith 2003
Marieta Staneva 2003
Robert A. Walters 2002
Rep. Grad School Committee
on Programs
and Courses 2002
LIBRARIES
Richard Barshinger 2003
Aida M. Beaupied 2003
Charles Burchard 2002
Mark A. Casteel, Chair 2003
Brian A. Curran 2003
Nancy Eaton 2002
Paul J. Eslinger 2003
Dale A. Holen 2002
Wayne K. Marshall 2003
Gwenn McCullum 2002
Laura Serfass 2002
Dagmar Sternad, V-Chair 2002
Adrian J. Wanner 2002
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Theodore R. Alter 2002
G. Jogesh Babu (R) 2002
Christopher J. Bise, Chair 2003
Patricia A. Book 2002
J. Christopher Carey 2003
Irene E. Harvey 2002
Julia C. Hewitt 2003
Kenneth B. Kephart 2003
Donald E. Kunze 2002
Kevin R. Maxwell 2003
Jamie M. Myers, V-Chair 2003
James H. Ryan 2002
Karen Wiley Sandler 2002
Adam A. Schott 2002
RESEARCH
Guy F. Barbato, Chair 2002
Leonid V. Berlyand 2003
Steven P. Dear 2003
Renee D. Diehl 2002
Peter C. Emigh 2002
Christine Clark Evans 2003
Charles R. Fisher 2002
Sally L. Flowers 2002
David S. Gilmour 2003
Brandon B. Hunt 2002
Ernest W. Johnson 2003
Joan M. Lakoski, V-Chair 2002
Robert A. Killoren, Jr. 2002
Digby D. Macdonald 2003
Rajen Mookerjee 2003
Alfred Mueller 2003
Eva J. Pell 2002
B. Franklin Pugh 2003
Gary W. Rogers 2003
Evelyn A. Thomchick 2003
Susan Welch 2002
Gary W. Weber 2002
Douglas H. Werner 2003
Chair, Graduate Council
Committee on
Research 2002
STUDENT LIFE
William W. Asbury 2002
Arthur W. Carter 2002
Mackenzie L. DeVos 2002
Bill Ellis, Chair 2002
Andrzej J. Gapinski 2002
Wallace H. Greene 2002
Nichola Gutgold,V-Chair 2003
Karen E. Johnson 2003
Jeffrey S. Mayer 2003
Nicholas J. Pazdziorko 2002
Deborah Preston 2003
Paul A. Ricciardi 2002
Irwin Richman 2003
Michael C. Saunders 2003
Jose A. Ventura 2003
Justin A. Zartman 2002
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg 2002
Richard L. Ammon 2002
Theresa A. Balog 2002
Dawn Blasko 2003
Thomas E. Boothby 2003
Richard J. Bord 2002
James E. Brasfield 2003
George J. Bugyi 2002
John J. Cahir 2002
Paul F. Clark 2003
Rebecca L. Corwin 2002
Loren E. Filson 2002
Peter D. Georgopulos 2003
Robert S. Hill 2002
Richard Kennedy, Jr. 2003
Laura L. Pauley, Chair 2003
Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair 2003
David W. Russell 2003
Thomas A. Seybert 2003
Terry R. Shirley, Jr. 2002
Reiko Tachibana 2003
Eric R. White 2002
UNIVERSITY PLANNING
P. Richard Althouse 2002
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair 2003
John P. Boehmer 2003
Michael Cardamone 2002
Eric B. Cowden 2002
Gordon De Jong 2003
Peter B. Everett 2003
Joseph K. Ferenchick 2002
William M. Frank 2002
Daniel Hagen 2002
Ali Hurson 2003
Rodney Kirsch 2002
Karen H. Morin 2003
Robert N. Pangborn 2002
Paula J. Romano 2003
William A. Rowe, V-Chair 2003
Louise E. Sandmeyer 2002
Gary C. Schultz 2002
Paul J. Tikalsky
2003
Marley W. Watkins 2002
Daniel E. Willis 2002
Gregory R. Ziegler 2003
c:\comitlst\assignm.ent
Revised:
6-26-01
The University Faculty Senate
STANDING COMMITTEE OFFICERS FOR 2001-2002
COMMITTEE CHAIR PHONE VICE-CHAIR PHONE
Admissions, Records, Scheduling JoAnn Chirico 724-773-3846 Deborah F. Atwater 863-3364
and Student Aid Penn State Beaver 205 Sparks Bldg.
Committees and Rules Jean Landa Pytel 865-7539 Valerie N. Stratton 814-949-5289
208 Hammond Bldg. Altoona College
Computing & Information Systems Semyon (Sam) Slobounov 863-3883 Lee D. Coraor 865-1265
19 Recreation Bldg. 233 Pond Lab
Curricular Affairs Louis F. Geschwindner 863-2087 Shelley M. Stoffels 865-4622
104 Engineering Unit A 212 Sackett Bldg.
Faculty Affairs Vasundara V. Varadan 863-4209 Margaret B. Goldman 717-531-8881
212 EES Bldg. College of Medicine
Faculty Benefits Leonard J. Berkowitz 717-771-4159 Keith K. Burkhart 717-531-7057
Penn State York College of Medicine
Intercollegiate Athletics Murry R. Nelson 865-6321 Linda L. Caldwell 863-8983
168 Chambers Bldg. 201 Mateer Bldg.
Intra-University Relations Michael J. Navin 717-240-5296 Lonnie M. Golden 610-892-1448
Dickinson School of Law Penn State Delaware
Libraries Mark A. Casteel 717-771-4028 Dagmar Sternad 863-7369
Penn State York 266 Recreation Bldg.
Outreach Activities Christopher J. Bise 863-1644 Jamie M. Myers 865-2161
103-A Hosler Bldg. 254 Chambers Bldg.
Research Guy F. Barbato 865-4481 Joan M. Lakoski 717-531-8287
201 Henning Bldg. College of Medicine
Student Life Bill Ellis 570-450-3026 Nichola D. Gutgold 610-285-5101
Penn State Hazleton Penn State Allentown
Undergraduate Education Laura L. Pauley 863-4259 Robert D. Ricketts 865-2421
305 Reber Bldg. 275 Recreation Bldg.
University Planning Anthony J. Baratta 865-0038 William A. Rowe 717-531-4874
236 Reber Bldg. College of Medicine
ABINGTON COLLEGE
SENATORS (5)