Penn State University Home




Volume 31-----APRIL 28, 1998-----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 1997-98.

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

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

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

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


I. Final Agenda for April 28, 1998 Pages ii-iii

A. Summary of Agenda Actions Page iv-v

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks Pages 1-73

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to April 28, 1998 Appendix I

B. Attached

Door Handout - Senate Committee on FA -

Procedures for Terminating Tenure Protected

Faculty for Adequate Cause Appendix II

Door Handout - Senate Committee on SL Appendix III

Senate Calendar for 1998-99 Appendix IV

Chairs and Vice-Chairs for 1998-99 Appendix V

Standing Committee Assignments for 1998-99 Appendix VI

Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 1998-99 Appendix VII

Results of Senate Elections for 1998-99 Appendix VIII

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on FA -

HR-40: Extended Reviews Tenured Faculty Appendix IX

Corrected Copy - Special Committee on Faculty

Teaching Development and Evaluation Appendix X

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on FA -

Procedures for Terminating Tenure Protected

Faculty for Adequate Cause Appendix XI

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on SL -

Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions

To Discourage Alcohol Abuse Appendix XII

Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on SL -

Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all

Penn State Locations Appendix XIII

Senators Not Returning for 1998-99 Appendix XIV

Attendance Appendix XV



Minutes of the March 31, 1998, Meeting in The Senate Record 31:6----------Page 1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

(Blue Sheets) of April 17, 1998----------------------------------Page 1

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 14, 1998----------Page 1

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



Faculty Affairs

Proposed Revision of HR-40: Extended Reviews of Tenure Faculty ----------Pages 11-23


Collection of Faculty and Staff Libraries Fees-----------------Pages 23-27


Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation

Final Report ------------------------------------------Pages 27-33

  2. Faculty Affairs

    Procedures for Terminating Tenure Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause----------Pages 33-45

    Faculty Benefits

    College of Medicine Addendum: 1997 Report on Faculty Salary Equity

    by Gender-------------------------------------------------Pages 45-51

    Faculty Salary Comparisons within Penn State and Other Universities--Pages 51-52

    Outreach Activities/University Planning

    Faculty Involvement in the World Campus----------Pages 52-53

    Student Life

    Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol

    Abuse--------------------------------------------Pages 53-58

    Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State Locations----------Pages 58-62


General Education Implementation Committee

Guidelines for General Education Reform 1998 Knowledge Domains--Pages 62-65

Implementation of the First-Year Seminar ----------------------Pages 65-67

University Planning

Status of Construction Projects---------------------Page 67

Academic Calendar Changes--A Status Report----------Pages 67-69

Report of Senate Elections

Senate Council

Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities-----------------Page 69-70

Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

Senate Secretary for 1998-99

Senate Chair-Elect for 1998-99

Comments by Outgoing Chair Geschwindner------------------Pages 70-71

Installation of Officers

Comments by Incoming Chair Berkowitz---------------------Pages 71-72

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS - -------------------------------Page 72


UNIVERSITY - --------------------------------------------Page 73

M. ADJOURNMENT - -----------------------------------------Page 73


The Senate passed six Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs - "Procedures for Terminating Tenure Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause." This report reinforces the University’s commitment to tenure by codifying protections for faculty members facing termination proceedings which is beyond present Pennsylvania law. (See Record, page(s) 33-45, Door Handout Record Appendix II, Corrected Copy Record Appendix XI, and Agenda Appendix "E.")

Faculty Benefits - "College of Medicine Addendum: 1997 Report on Faculty Salary Equity by Gender." This report advances two recommendations to examine the unexplained differences in salaries within rank between male and female salaries at the College of Medicine. (See Record, page(s) 45-51 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

Faculty Benefits - "Faculty Salary Comparisons within Penn State and Other Institutions." This is the annual report on faculty salary caparisons and makes two recommendations concerning allocation of University resources and salaries. (See Record, page(s) 51-52 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

Outreach Activities/University Planning - "Faculty Involvement in the World Campus." This is a joint report that makes a series of seven recommendations ranging from faculty endorsement of the World Campus concept to the faculty and student interaction within the World Campus. (See Record, page(s) 52-53 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Student Life - "Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol Abuse." This report brings to a culmination a series of reports on the impact of alcohol abuse and it effects on the environment both in the academic and general University settings. (See Record, page(s) 53-58, Door Handout Record Appendix III, Corrected Copy Record Appendix XII, and Agenda Appendix "I.")

Student Life - "Guidelines for Basic Services at all Penn State Locations." This report makes a series of recommendations concerning student life functions across the University system. (See Record, page(s) 58-62, Door Handout Record Appendix III, Corrected Copy Record Appendix XIII, and Agenda Appendix "J.")

The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation – "Final Report." This report offers four recommendations to ensure that all academic units can further improve their methods of teaching development and evaluation. (See Record, page(s) 27-33, Corrected Copy Record Appendix X, and Agenda Appendix "D.")

The Senate held two Forensic Sessions:

Faculty Affairs - "Proposed Revision of HR-40: Extended Reviews of Tenured Faculty." This report contains the extended review requirement, a statement on college flexibility, guidelines and a recommendation associated with proposed revisions for extended review of tenured faculty. (See Record, page(s) 11-23, Corrected Copy Record Appendix IX, and Agenda Appendix "B.")

Libraries - "Collection of Faculty and Staff Libraries Fees." This report outlines a method that faculty and staff may pay library fines/fees via payroll deduction.

(See Record, page(s) 23-27, and Agenda Appendix "C.")

The Senate received four Informational Reports:

General Education Implementation Committee - "Guidelines for General Education Reform 1998 Knowledge Domains." This report was information-gathering in nature and is the first step in several that will make it possible to implement the new General Education at the University. (See Record, page(s) 62-65 and Agenda Appendix "K.")

General Education Implementation Committee- "Implementation of the First-Year Seminar." This report was presented to engender the sense of the Senate regarding the First-Year Seminar for the new General Education. (See Record, page(s) 65-67 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

University Planning - "Status of Construction Projects." This report notes the University's major construction programs dated February 20, 1998. (See Record, page(s) 67 and Agenda Appendix "M.")

University Planning - "Academic Calendar Changes--A Status Report." This report was to inform the University community regarding the impact of the change of the calendar regarding the Thanksgiving breaks. (See Record, page(s) 67-69 and Agenda Appendix "N.")

A report of elections results for 1998-99 was read. The report was to announce the results of the Senate election for the 1998-99 Senate year.

Officers for 1998-99 were installed.

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Louis Geschwindner, Chair, presiding. One hundred and sixty-two Senators signed the roster.

Chair Geschwindner: It is time to begin.


Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting. You have received The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the March 31, 1998 meeting. It was also sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate Web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

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


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for April 17, 1998 in the mail.


Also, you should have received the report of the Senate Council, the meeting of April 14. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.


I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council that are contained in the minutes attached to today’s Agenda, and I will avoid repetition of these items.

I would like to read to you the names of Senators who will not be returning to the Senate next year. The Senate thanks these Senators for their dedication and hard work to the Senate, their voting unit and the university. The following Senators will not be returning next year from the College of Agricultural Sciences: Phyllis Adams, John Becker, Nathan Hartwig; from the College of Arts and Architecture: Jane Ridley, Cary Libkin; from Penn State Erie - The Behrend College: Meredythe Burrows, Kenneth Fisher; from Berks-Lehigh Valley College, the Berks Campus: Deena Morganti; from the Smeal College of Business Administration: Joseph Cavinato; from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Amy Glasmeier, David Gold, Paul Howell, Peter Thrower; from the College of Education: Eunice Askov, Joe Kincheloe; from the College of Engineering: Brian Dempsey, John Lamancusa, James Robinson; from the College of Health and Human Development: Robert Burgess, Virginia Fortney, Scott Kretchmar, Susan Youtz; from the College of the Liberal Arts: Irwin Feller, Paul Rose, William Schmalstieg; from the College of Medicine: Hamid Al-Mondhiry, Graham Jeffries; from the Eberly College of Science: Andrea Mastro, Richard Robinett; representing Military Sciences: Marc Goldberg; from the New Kensington Campus: Robert Howard; Wilkes-Barre Campus: Charles Ghilani; from the University Libraries: Katherine Clark; the following Appointed Senators: William Asbury, J. Gary Augustson, John Bruhn, Carol Hermann, James Ryan, Gary Schultz, James Stewart; Undergraduate Students: Kara Ballek, Timothy Blair, Timothy Creyts, Julie Laubach, Michael Platz, Carie Spampinato, David Lubkemann, Jayatri Das, Matthew Otstot, Julie Cain, Christopher Anderson, Michael D'Ausilio, John Baer, David Kayal; Graduate Students: George Crist, Irja Haapala, Lara Lomicka, Erica Michael; and Ex Officio Senator: Rodney Reed. Again we thank all these Senators for their service.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on April 9, 1998, and discussed the following topics: University Ombudsman; Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning; Post Tenure Review; a number of faculty issues at various locations; and the status of dean searches, especially for the Eberly College of Science. The FAC also held a special meeting on Thursday, April 23, to discuss the "School of Information Sciences and Technology." That was our last meeting of FAC for the 1997-98 Senate year and we are in the process of scheduling FAC meetings for the coming year.

I have been asked to announce that copies of the "1997-98 Operating Budget" and the "1997-98 Operating Expenditures" (Volumes I & II) are available for your inspection and review at the Senate Office.

I received a memo from President Spanier regarding the three advisory/consultative reports presented and passed at our March 3, 1998, Senate meeting. The first report titled "Revision of HR-23 Definition of Academic Ranks" is being referred to Billie Willits so that the necessary changes may be made in that policy statement. The second report entitled "HR-60, Access to Personnel Files" is also being referred to Billie Willits so that changes can be made in that policy statement as well. The third report entitled "Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Review Process" has also been accepted by the president. He indicated however, in recommendation #1, "that we will need to access our resources and our needs before we can commit ourselves to raising the amount of equity adjustment as recommended by the report". He continued, "we will do what we can to address the equity issues as recommended by the report but as I indicated last year in accepting the original report, it is probably unlikely that we will be able to remove as much as 25 percent of our raise pool for this purpose".

I also received a memo from President Spanier regarding the advisory/consultative report passed by the Senate on February 3, 1998, titled "Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning." He noted that there are a few particulars which need to be given consideration before he is able to endorse this report, particularly pertaining to issues of ownership and copyright. Therefore, the president along with the Senate Chair will appoint a joint committee to address these concerns and develop the details of implementation. This committee will report back to the Senate upon completion of its work.

I want to remind all of you from University Park that the new ID+ cards are being processed until May 1 in the White Building on the University Park campus. It takes about 10 minutes to complete the process under normal circumstances. I would encourage you to, if you haven't already, to go and get your new ID card and also ask that you remind your colleagues about this activity.

At this time I would like to ask Peter Deines and Susan Youtz to join me at the podium here in front of the stage.

For 28 years, Helen Clark has been serving the university. As Curriculum Recorder, she is the single clearing house for all issues relating to curriculum. She is the strength behind the work of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and is the person with the answers when any question is asked regarding the curriculum of this university.

Helen, would you please come down to the front of the auditorium.

This will be Helen’s last University Faculty Senate meeting, since she plans to retire at the end of this academic year. Susan, Peter and I represent the many past chairs of the Curricular Affairs Committee who wish to express our sincere thanks to Helen, on behalf of the entire university, for her many years of dedicated service. We present these 28 roses as a small token of that appreciation. Will you please join me in a rousing round of applause in thanks for all that Helen Clark has meant to Penn State.

Senators: Applause and standing ovation.

Helen Clark, Curriculum Recorder: Everybody that knows me, knows I'm a person of few words anyway. I just want to say thank you, everyone, and it's been a joy working with Curricular Affairs. I've enjoyed every year. Thank you very much.


We move on to comments by the President of the University, and President Spanier is here and he would like to make some comments.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much. Twenty-eight roses is very impressive. Nowadays university presidents get three or four, that's about all they can accumulate. Now it reminds me of a story. This young man gets up in the morning, goes down to breakfast and his mother is going to give him breakfast and he says, "Mom I'm not going to school today for two reasons, the teachers don't like me and the kids make fun of me." And the mother says, "Son you are going to school today and I'm going to give you two reasons. First of all, you're 49 years old, and second you’re the president of the university." So I really admire that you got 28 of those things.

A few announcements, we expect that our budget for the 1998-99 year will be signed tomorrow by the Governor at about 11:00 unless he has a change of heart. It's a good budget for Penn State this year. It is not as much as we had hoped for, but it is the most generous budget that we have received from this governor--in fact, about as well as we've done in quite a number of years. It's a 3.25 percent increase to our base budget, which, while it is ahead of inflation, still lags considerably behind what we consider to be our needs and helping us reach all of our aspirations and taking advantage of the opportunities that are out there. But we hope that in conjunction with a modest increase in tuition and fees, we will be able indeed this year to accomplish several things, and I think it's going to be a very good year for us. We hope to put together a fair and modest salary increase. We hope to begin to invest funds for at least two or three of the major initiatives that we announced last year that we would be launching in the future. Those initiatives are children, youth and families, material sciences, environmental sciences, and information sciences and technology. We hope to take the first steps on two and possibly three of those initiatives, and once we begin down that road we expect to make additional investments in each of those areas over a period of several years. We will continue our commitment to put $1 million of new permanent funding into the life sciences consortium. That is something that we began a couple of years ago. It's a five year commitment to put $1 million of new funds each year into that area, and we should be able to do that. Last year we began another initiative that is not quite so jazzy but I think is very important to the future of the university, and that is to increase the funds that we put into deferred maintenance. Fixing up things, maintaining things, renovations, bringing some of our facilities back into better conditions. Our needs there are phenomenal, and so our goal is to put $1 million of new money each year into that and gradually increase the base that's available on a continuing basis. We hope to be able to do that again this year. We will, of course need to put aside funds for funding of fuel and utilities associated with new buildings coming on-line or in some cases even renovation projects; because now something is air conditioned, for example, increases the utility bill. We have funds set aside for that and we do have a number of new facilities coming on-line at our campuses across the state. We want to make a continued investment in and upgrading of what we do in the entire range of initiatives in information technology, public access laboratories for students, networking, vamping up our involvement in Internet II, keeping up with the phenomenally growing demand of electronic mail and connections that all of you have. I think you know we have more than 100,000 active electronic mail users on the Penn State system. We're generating something like 1.7 million electronic mail messages a day. Access to our web pages, web sites and other electronic traffic is really phenomenal. We also want to put some new permanent money into the libraries. We're working on the final details of that right now. That's an area where you can never really put to much money in because of the continuing escalating costs and the demands that we have there, not only here at University Park but at our libraries throughout the state where we still have a way to go. We had made a commitment earlier to put funding into the new general education curriculum that you approved and we expect to fully fund that at the levels hoped for earlier. We will continue our initiative to add new faculty positions throughout the state. That will be facilitated not only by the budget generally but in large part because of increased enrollments that we expect. Of course there is a good news and bad news side to the increased enrollments. We would much rather be a university like ours that is very popular right now and where there is an intense student demand, but of course the volume of mail that I get from parents whose children have been rejected by Penn State is also greater than it's ever been and we do seek to have the right balance. But we will have record enrollments throughout the Penn State system next year and at the University Park campus. We will be adding new sections of courses, new faculty, and we might be asking some of you to take an extra student or two, or ten in your classes. Not a good time to mention that as you're trying to grade papers now and finish up the semester, I suppose. We believe that we will be able to accommodate in the budget all of the existing commitments that we have made, so we think it's going to be a pretty good year even though we still have some level of disappointment that the legislature was not able to be more generous with us in the end, particularly in a very good budget year for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We are continuing to be as entrepreneurial as we can. We're continuing through the University Planning Council to look at reallocations and there will indeed be some reallocations as a part of the budget process this year. Overall we think it will be a good step forward for us. Now, I would be happy to take your questions on any subject.

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: We as the faculty are aware of the increase in the demand by external constituencies for accountability of faculty. You are the point man in making our case to these constituencies. How can you convince them of the effectiveness of our procedures for evaluating our faculty without giving them a body count?

President Spanier: Now is that related to the discussion you're about to have this afternoon? Well it is one of the…what you're raising is clearly one of the major issues in higher education today. Certainly it's an issue internally at universities because most major universities are having discussions similar to the one we're having this afternoon. Some have adopted internal mechanisms for a higher level of accountability; some have adopted post tenure review schemes; some have changed how they deal with issues of tenure and annual faculty review within their university. It's also an issue in higher education in a couple of other respects, first of all among governing boards. There is something called the Association of Governing Boards, and members of boards of trustees for all colleges and universities belong to this organization. They just had their annual meeting in Nashville last week and they talk about these issues there, very prominently and very often trustees come back from those meetings wondering how their institution measures up in the accountability arena. Then for public universities it is an important issue, because increasingly governors and legislatures--and people in the corporate business community that influence governors and legislatures--have somehow come to the conclusion that universities have not been demonstrating the same level of accountability that they think other institutions in society have had to step up to. So there can be no doubt that this is an issue, and, while faculty don't see it, I see it every day. Questions like this come up in many, many public forums that I attend. Now, I think we have a pretty good story to tell at Penn State, and I do tell it, and I don't feel like I've lost any of those arguments, so to speak, up to this point. We do about as comprehensive a system of annual reviews as any university does. Our second, fourth and sixth-year reviews leading up to tenure tend to be more comprehensive than you would typically find. Some universities don't even have a two and four-year--maybe they have one at three years, but we do more of that than you typically find at other universities. So what’s my conclusion on this? My conclusion is that Penn State has a good system in place. It works for us pretty well, and I feel very comfortable supporting what we're doing. On the other hand I do welcome the Faculty Senate's efforts to think about whether we can do more, because the greater the degree of accountability that we can show as a faculty, the better it is I think in the long run for this university. I want to make very clear, I don't have a strong position on the concept of post tenure review. This is not a make or break issue for me. I'm glad the faculty is talking about it. I think if we do something like that it probably makes my job a little easier, but this shouldn't be about making my job easier. I'm comfortable explaining and defending what we do in any sense. But it is important to be aware that there are sentiments about this issue that go beyond the faculty into governing boards and the Governor will sign tomorrow almost exactly a $300 million appropriation for Penn State, just maybe a little hair under that, and in the eyes of the taxpayers and the people who send us that money, they want to make sure that we're good stewards of those dollars. Admittedly they don't understand very well what tenure is all about, and the nuances, the issues that we all deal with on a day to day basis. So part of it is explaining what we do, but as I said we want to make sure that we're as accountable as we can be. My position is I'm going to support whatever your decision is on this. I'm sure you'll have a good discussion about it.

Gregory K. Farber, Eberly College of Science: I am in the College of Science, one of a growing number of colleges that is searching for a Dean. I would like to know under what circumstances internal candidates are considered for Dean searches, and under what conditions are searches limited to external candidates?

President Spanier: Just to summarize to get everybody on the same page, we have an ongoing search right now for Dean of the College of Science. I think we're fairly close to bringing in a group of finalists in this round of the search for that position. We have an ongoing search for Dean of the College of Education, and this afternoon in fact after this Senate meeting, John Brighton and I will be meeting with the faculty and staff of the College of Communications to talk about the appointment of a search committee and to launch a search there. We would expect in a typical year at Penn State, given our size and the number of academic units we have, to be searching for two or three deans and a couple of campus executive officers or deans on our campuses. It would be very unusual for a search at the level of dean or higher in the university to not have a national search. There would be exceptions to that, exceptions could come about for a variety of reasons--some emergency where a permanent person has to be appointed, that somebody is so clearly a front runner who happens to be internal that it doesn't make sense to anybody to do a broader search. In my career I've seen other reasons why internal searches are done, but at least nine out of ten times and probably more like 99 out of a 100 times for a position like that you are going to do a national search. It has a way of slowing things down, and the process can become a little more complicated--reference checking is slower, getting schedules for people to come in slows things down so there can be a down side to it--but generally that's the preference.

David Kayal, Student Senator, Division of Undergraduate Studies: What kind of message is the university sending by hosting cocktail parties for legislators and Board of Trustee members before and after football games. And also that the university licenses out its name to be printed on shot glasses and beer mugs. What message do you think that sends to students?

President Spanier: On the general issue this is something of course I've given a lot of thought to, and in fact I've been thinking about it a lot lately because tomorrow I'm giving the keynote address at a national higher education conference sponsored by the American Council on Education on this very topic of excessive consumption of alcohol and the problems that it poses for colleges and universities nationally. I think Penn State is at the moment a model of programs that have been implemented principally through our Student Affairs Office to deal with these issues. The Faculty Senate leadership last year sent out a letter to faculty pointing out ways in which the faculty could be involved. We have a council that involves people in the community. We have ongoing discussions with medical personnel in the local hospital emergency room. We are really trying to deal with this issue in so many ways, and I think we've had some modest success but still have a long way to go. Just for the record, when we entertain legislators here in conjunction with football games, we do not serve them alcohol. We entertain them at the Nittany Lion Inn, and we feed them, but the fluids that they are offered tend to be coffee, tea and soft drinks. So I don't want to leave any impression on the floor that that's what happens when we invite legislators here. People do point out the phenomenon that around football and other events people often do drink, but we hope that the people who are doing that are 21 years of age or older and doing so responsibly, and if they are over 21 and they're doing so responsibly, that's really not the principle issue for us. The problem that we're mostly combating at the university is the excessive consumption of alcohol by underage individuals and binge drinking, which is a phenomenon in colleges and universities nation wide which really has some pretty serious consequences. As near as we can tell the phenomenal level of alcohol-related crime that we see in our region, the hospital emergency room admissions that are alcohol-related, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, vandalism, fighting, injuries that are alcohol-related, and some of the other negative consequences that we monitor really come about not from somebody who is of legal age having a drink or two at a university-sponsored social function or even on their own around the edges of a university activity, but it is the underage binge drinking that relates to most of those issues. That's really where we're focusing the energies, and for me this has never been about saying, "nobody should drink," or we must have some level of prohibition about Penn State. It's trying to bring to our whole scope of activities a higher level of responsibility.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I have a small specific concern that will actually have a great impact on faculty who use the journals in the library. Business Services runs a copy service in the library, and it's my understanding that service is going to end. This will inconvenience faculty a little bit, and they have to spend quite a lot of time standing at the xerox machine when in the past they could leave the article with the service. This is quite a contrast to ten years ago, when I was at Indiana University and you could order an article by using email and the xerox would show up in the mail a couple of days later, yet we consider ourselves to be so technologically advanced here today.

President Spanier: Well let me say that it's a real good question and I don't know the answer because I'm not sure what's happening there. I am aware that this whole scheme of things is going to be changing over time. Right now, for example--here's a bit of trivia--Penn State has become just overnight since its conception the largest user of the new J-Store program. Have any of you used that? This is the new journal storage project. Penn State is a subscriber, and we have Penn State data. Thousands of our faculty and students are using it. Where principally social science journals at this point…they have digitized the permanent archives of a whole range of social science and other journals, and you can go in and get copies and access them electronically, and this will expand to other journals quickly over time. The retrieval and printing and accessing of journals is changing, and so the traditional method of going somewhere and printing them out is probably going to shift. Clearly what you describe is a need that I suspect we continue to have, and I don't know if it’s a copyright issue where our folks have been warned by somebody that we need to constrain that, or if it's as you have suggested it might be, a financial issue. If it's a financial issue, I imagine there's some way to solve that problem. Do we have an expert on this topic here?

Linda C. Friend, University Libraries: I'm not an expert but this is a contracted service. It's actually offered by Business Services and they have indicated that because of financial reasons they are discontinuing this service.

President Spanier: Well John Brighton is leaving for China tomorrow to represent us at a very important event there--actually that's kind of interesting what's happening there in its own right--so maybe what we could do is hereby appoint Vice Provost Bob Secor to look into this matter and to….

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: Unless you feel this is something which should be handled by the Provost, in which case you could send me to China instead.

President Spanier: There's usually another side to the story, you learn in university administration, but assuming it's something as simple as just getting the financing of it worked out, it does sound like something we ought to pay some attention to. We'll look into that, and we'll either fix the problem or we'll get back to you with an explanation why it's more complicated than it might seem.

Chair Geschwindner: I think we have time for one more question.

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware Campus: What comments can you make about changes in the new division head structure in the Commonwealth College in light of discipline coherence?

President Spanier: Well, again, sort of a complex issue for the rest of the group that's not as close to this. When the Commonwealth College was put together--the college consisting of 12 of our campuses around the state--we realized that to make the transition to functioning as an academic unit it would need a different kind of structure. Many faculty members then chose to have their tenure in that college, some continued to choose that their tenure home would be an academic department at University Park. But new faculty coming in will increasingly affiliate with this new college. So there is a need to have within the college, not just a liaison function but people who are in positions of responsibility where they can oversee, monitor, facilitate issues like faculty development, promotion and tenure, sort of nurturing the academic side of the disciplines. The original structure that was put into place, which was done quickly and which many people thought might or might not work and that would in any event be fine-tuned after the first year, consisted of putting into place 17 divisions, with 17 division heads who were spread over the 12 campuses. So you might have the person in charge of English at one campus, with nothing more than a reduction of one course, to oversee 70 some English professors in the Commonwealth College. As we began to look at this through the year, it occurred to many individuals, I think, within the college, and I must admit also to me, that this may not have been the most functional system. There were other things that popped up, like some concern about the level of connection between those division heads and the faculty they represented, and their disciplinary homes or their former disciplinary homes at University Park. So we've been looking at that. Many of us have been struggling with this for a few months now and Joe Strasser is in the process. He is today visiting one of the campuses. He is today visiting his fifth campus. For the last two weeks he's been on a swing of the campuses. He will have visited seven by the end of this week. He's been communicating by email with other faculty members, and what he would like to come out of that consultation is a plan for some adjustments in the division structure. I think you pointed out pretty well the balance that he's going to try to strike is trying to bring down the number of divisions to a more manageable size, trying to set up the divisions so that the faculty who are involved truly have the resources to do their jobs properly, and we're working that discussion through the budget process right now. It's one of the loose ends that we'll be trying to tie up, but at the same time trying not to have so few divisions that faculty members in a particular area are put together with faculty who have very little in common with them. There needs to be enough of an appropriate connection there that people feel, I don't know, if they're a social scientist that somebody who has the appropriate social science background is associated with them, or English with English, and Math with Math, and Engineering with Engineering and so on. That's what he's in the process of working through right now. You're not happy with that answer.

Peter D. Georgopulos: The point is that the present system for instance has division heads in physics, chemistry and biology. The idea of getting one liaison, a scientist, sounds fine. If we reduce the number from 17 down to say 8 persons, a number which from an administrative point is manageable, but from a faculty perspective say in the sciences, I think is a disaster. If you want disciplinary coherence, you don't want someone in biology trying to judge someone in physics or in chemistry. We further lose the connection that we had with the traditional departments and the discipline.

President Spanier: I think it's an interesting question. Can a physicist promote the faculty development of and oversee a promotion and tenure process for a chemist? We do that at Penn State Erie, for example, we have long standing experience with that. The Dean of the College of Science has to be either a physicist or a chemist or a mathematician, and they are making decisions about people. Theoretically, of course, we'd all say, "yes it's possible," but I think the devil is in the details. It's whether a physicist is truly making the preliminary promotion and tenure recommendation on that individual, or are they a facilitator for putting together the appropriate committee which will make the decision and shepherding it through the system. I think it's questions like that that Joe Strasser is trying to get a reading on and--did you say you're at Delaware?--so I think he's already been to your campus and undoubtedly heard your thoughts on that.

Peter D. Georgopulos: The point I'm trying to make is we lose that connection to the departments at University Park.

President Spanier: Let me comment on that, too, because that is at the top of the list of what I've been pushing in looking at how the system is working. I think we've lost a little bit of that with the 17 division head structure, and I am adamant, as many people in this room know, because they've heard me talk about it in other contexts. I am adamant that we continue to view this university as one university, geographically distributed. There is one faculty at Penn State, there is one president, there is one Board of Trustees, there is one Faculty Senate, and we need to pull together, and that means that there needs to be clearly identified people who are providing leadership across the whole university. If you're a physicist, I want all of the physicists within the university to feel they have something in common. They are Penn State physicists. I want the head of the Department of Physics to feel some responsibility for facilitating faculty development for all physicists, but we have to get the right balance. I don't want the Dean of the College of Science at University Park to feel that he is literally in charge of all physicists when that person might be in a different college and belong to a different dean. That's the balance we're trying to strike. We are trying to come out of this with much greater disciplinary cohesion rather than having it fractured, and that's what we have to work on, and believe me I appreciate very strongly the perspective that you're bringing. We just have to get the details right and make sure it fits together.

Chair Geschwindner: President Spanier, thank you very much. We're going to have to relieve you from your time at the podium. Now, all those folks who are standing in the back waiting for an opportunity, if you want to find a seat, please feel free to join us. As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. I will also point out and remind all of our visitors that only Senators will be recognized to speak except for those people who have, prior to today, asked for permission for the privilege of the floor, and it has been granted and I will call on them as appropriate. Our first piece of business is a forensic session sponsored by the Faculty Affairs Committee, the proposed revision of HR-40. Murry Nelson is here to begin this discussion.



Proposed Revision of HR-40: Extended Reviews of Tenured Faculty

Murry R. Nelson, Chair

Murry R. Nelson, College of Education: Thank you, Lou. We have a couple of things we wanted to say to you before hand. I'll try to contain my remarks to about a minute, and then Bob Secor will talk for about five minutes to give some of the larger background to this. I wanted to say a couple things about this in reference to, first of all, the responses that we've gotten. As you may know, I think most of you know, this report was put on the web, and I wanted to make sure first of all that your responses to this report are to the revised report which was put on the web after our last meeting of March 31. So, I hope that if you have not double checked that, you will check what's in the document today and make sure whatever remarks you may have indeed are relevant to the particular report that we have here. Second the responses that we had--and there were many--and some of you may have sent them, have focused on a lot of different issues. What we will do today in the session is try to cull from your remarks today those things that will be useful to us in trying to again revise the report. Remember that this is a draft and it will change. We are not putting forth this particular document. We are putting it here because this is where we are at this point and will make whatever changes we feel are necessary after reviewing the commentary that comes from this particular forensic session. The comments that we have gotten have indicated at times that there is an overall--on the part of some people--there's an overall opposition to the notion of any sort of review like this, so we note that. There's not much we can say about that substantively, but we note that there are folks that are against the whole notion, and that won't really add much to the forensics other than to say that this is something you are against. We are hoping that we will be able to deal with substance, or, if you are against that, you can say, "I'm against it," but we have received many comments about reasons why and things that may be useful for us to see. There are some changes I want to note, and if you'll please make notes on your particular documents you'll note three things at least that we have identified as changes in this report.

The first occurs on--these are all small--on page four, under "C" just to make sure that there is not a misunderstanding. The last words should be the "faculty member," because the implication by using the term candidate is that this is someone who is up for something, and they aren't.

The next is on page six, under Roman numeral VI, having to do with cost and implementation. There was a general feeling, and this was given to us in a number of emails, also, the notion that there is no additional cost should be modified to say, "the only additional cost for this program will be in the time and effort for faculty members." I think a number of people took umbrage at the notion that faculty members' time and effort was not worth anything. The point of this is that when we cost things out we have dollars and cents. This is not to imply that faculty members time and effort is not worth something. We simply can't put a price on it; it's worth that much more.

Finally, for some reason the "rationale" in the beginning was reiterated at the end on page seven, and that wasn't intended. So if you'll just put a line through that to note that we did not mean to have that there a second time.

I certainly could say much more. I do want to just note that the impetus for this is something that has grown over the years nationally, and we were not put in any position to be forced to do any of this as a committee. We have done this as a committee with the understanding that this is something that is going on nationally. We also have a number of external forces that have been brought to bear on higher education generally, but there is no gun to our collective heads and the Senate's decision on this which will come in the fall will indeed be the Senate's decision. The committee feels that we have spent an awful lot of time on this--in fact we know we've spent a lot of time on it--and we feel that what we have put forth at this point is a good report still undergoing some modifications. We hope you will help to improve it and give us some ideas about what those should look like. Bob Secor has done much of the work at the committee's behest. Bob has also provided much of the background and has also engaged in a number of research studies about what is going on nationally. Bob is going to make some short comments and then we will "forenz."

Robert Secor: Thanks Murry. I must say in working with the Faculty Affairs Committee and reviewing the comments that we received from you, a number of them had the tone of, "Why should we vote for this proposal? After all, turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving." Well, I'm here to try to convince you that you are not turkeys, and to ask that you engage in this forensic session with an open mind rather than that of a turkey being presented with a proposal for Thanksgiving.

A major part of my responsibility is to oversee and to be a spokesman for, our tenure system--to make sure it works, and also to convey both internally and externally the importance of tenure and to defend and support the concept. I would not come to you on behalf of a proposal that would in any way undermine our tenure system. That is an assignment I would not accept. My support of this proposal is just the opposite--that I think, as do people in my position around the country--that such proposals are necessary to protect what we have.

I am sure you are all aware of the attacks on universities as bastions of privilege and inefficiency, leading to reductions of public support and attacks on faculty and the tenure system. Higher education in Pennsylvania has not avoided the attacks or the scrutiny. You know how well President Spanier has defended Penn State against such attacks in Harrisburg, confronting, on our behalf, such questions as why Penn State faculty need to have sabbaticals, or tuition reduction arrangements for our children. Our Extended Review proposal does not come from Graham Spanier, but I am convinced that it will help our president to help us when he speaks on our behalf in Harrisburg, particularly when issues of tenure come up.

The concept of tenure is constantly being raised by the public, the legislators and boards of regents and trustees in every state in the nation, with the primary question being, why do professors have lifetime security where they can do anything they want, cut the lawn while we have to go out to work, and we have to support them with our tax dollars while we have to worry about our jobs every day of the week? Let me quote from an issue from the Chronicle of Higher Education last semester: "The top policy maker for public colleges in Massachusetts [James F. Carlin, chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education], said last week that U.S. colleges would improve only if they abolished tenure, ended presidential search panels, limited research, and re-evaluated faculty duties. [He said tenure was] an 'absolute scam' that insures 'a lifetime job guarantee' rather than academic freedom." Mr. Carlin said "ending or overhauling tenure, as well as redistributing faculty workloads, would be 'the No. 1 and 2 issues for the state board."

That's Massachusetts, not all that far away from us--unlike California. Although I did hear one speaker on the subject say in a national conference recently, if there ever was a Proposition 209 on tenure, we would lose--and no resolution from the AAUP would protect us against that kind of a state law.

The responses of our institutions have been twofold: one, to get the word out the best we can about what tenure really is, and what faculty life really is like; and we tried to do that here as well. As you know I spoke before the Board of Trustees making every argument I could as to what tenure means, how it came to be and why we still need it. You know what I said, because I made that presentation to Faculty Senate at the request of senate officers. And then President Spanier and Provost Brighton and myself put together a four hour workshop for the Trustees just to go through what a faculty life looks like and to take out our P&T dossiers and show them what it means to get tenure in this university and to talk about accountability." The accountability that we all have every day of our lives. In both of those sessions the question came up from members of the board, "how do we know that the faculty you tenure continue to do what they need to do, how we talk about accountability. And we did mention that the Faculty Senate was looking at post tenure review. If we didn't say it, they would have asked. The second way of ensuring the public and our external constituencies that we know what we're doing, is to assure them that we have accountability, but that accountability is our business, not that of outside forces like state legislatures or boards of trustees. As Donald Kennedy, President Emeritus of Stanford says, "The alternative to internal reform with active faculty participation is apt to earn intensified drive for external accountability. Most of the academic community will surely prefer a social contract revived from within."

Many of you may know the case in Minnesota last year. It was all over the internet, all over the Chronicle, the newspapers--where the board of trustees at Minnesota have gotten involved with tenure considerations and suggested they would change some of the tenure assumptions at Minnesota. The faculty at Minnesota organized and it became a very public battle conveyed around the country. Ultimately the board did back down, four members of that board resigned and didn't run again. What the faculty said was, "we will institute on our own, post tenure review. Get off our backs we'll take care of ourselves." That is the nature of the conversation. Minnesota is engaging in post tenure review, faculty decision.

Our own national organizations have been making this argument since the 1980s, but most intensely at the present moment. In 1982, the National Commission on Higher Education Issues stated that "nothing will undermine the tenure system more completely than it's being regarded as a system to protect faculty from evaluation," and the more recent 1997 publication of the AAHE said that we need to have procedures that confront "public and government concern about the public accountability of universities." As you know more than 30 states now have it, it's coming. I was asked just the other day to join a listserv by AAHE for a discussion among those concerned with such issues. I was told that there were currently 300 subscribers. This is not something new to Penn State.

Let me just say a word about our proposal and then turn it over for discussion. The subcommittee that first presented a proposal to Faculty Affairs, it was a small group (two deans and the past Senate Chair). We reviewed about 15 policies, from such schools as the University of Texas, the University of Virginia, and the Universities of Maryland, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, Rutgers--all of these being comparable to Penn State in reputation and mission. Our goal was to draw on these policies, but not be limited by them, to come up with the best policy we could that would work for our faculty, stressing the developmental possibilities of what we chose to call extended review. Last year Faculty Senate voted for annual written reviews.

All that was needed was to pause every five years to make that review--rather than a one or two year review, a more extended review--looking back five years and projecting ahead into the future allows for recognition and support, adjustments, plans for developing and responding to areas of concern. Our desire was also to keep it simple--vitae, evidence of teaching, anything else desired, and a statement of future plans for professional achievement. Our desire was to make it peer based.

Let me just indicate one observation: one of the first in there was the University of Hawaii. They just did a review--a ten year review--of how it worked for them in the previous ten years. They had two conclusions. 1) In ten years, 1,079 reviews. Some of those reviewed developed plans to improve their performance as a result of those reviews, and some may have retired earlier than they otherwise would have, but none, not one, was terminated as a result of a post-tenure review. 2) Most of those surveyed concluded that it was all worth the effort.

I'm going to let you have your conversation, but I'd be happy to answer any other questions in the forensic session.

Chair Geschwindner: Remember after you are recognized, stand, give your name and the unit that you represent.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: I for one think this is an idea whose time has come for a lot of reasons, but I have four specific suggestions for you. First of all, I urge you to consider re-titling this and title it "Extended Tenure and Faculty Development Review". I think this more clearly conveys the purpose and goals of this review. The second point is, I urge you to develop a common set and not a unit-specific set of procedures for the entire university. As a former member of the Senate Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, it is my conclusion that to do otherwise is to invite procedural irregularities and inequalities and this I can tell you is the essential stuff of litigation. My third point would be that you explicitly, explicitly tie tenure, extended tenure and faculty development and reviews to the yearly administrative reviews that are already in place at Penn State. President Spanier mentioned this as a strength; you dismiss it largely in this report. My own suggestion would be that you would have a trigger criteria for initiating these extended tenure and faculty reviews, such a trigger procedure might be successive years where negative performance concerns were raised on the administrative reviews, and this triggers an evaluation by a college level committee or the department. As I understand it even some other Big Ten institutions are considering this particular triggering so that the burdensome load is reduced. My fourth point would be, if this trigger criteria or some other similar criteria is not adopted, I urge you to greatly reduce the non-productive and burdensome time costs to faculty who are involved on both sides of this review. I have two suggestions here, one to extend the time frame from five to seven years, that corresponds with the current pre-tenure cycle, and/or two, by utilizing a fast-track dossier, perhaps one that contains the multiple years of administrative contact reports, with more extensive dossiers only for a subset where a more detailed review is being warranted by college level committees. There are approximately 15 hundred advanced ranked faculty members at Penn State, minus Hershey and Dickinson. 15 hundred. Do the math yourself, times five. To argue that reviewing this number of faculty has no additional implementation costs is only valid if you assume that the faculty write no grant proposals and do not publish regularly. Thank you.

Jamie M. Myers: I'd like to have an opportunity to add to Senator De Jong's four points. I think that the current yearly reviews is a strength and I support having some type of a trigger that you describe where an extended review happens as a result of a collection of unsatisfactory yearly reviews that we already go through. I think its really unessential to have every faculty member involved in reviews. I believe that there are a lot of faculty members that are truly productive, and the original version would take away from that productivity. I think that the extended review--by the way I'm not against it--I think that you know that we live in a system where we have a promotion and tenure and I don't think that its out of the ordinary to add an extended review. Mentally, we can't handle it at first, but I think we can handle it later as long as it's not something that everyone has to subscribe to. I think that the review once it's triggered, as I think was well described from the yearly review, that a faculty member should have an additional year to prepare their extended review dossier and then the review should be part of the responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. I don't think we should have another layer of committees or separate extended review committees conducting reviews. It would be extremely valuable for the current Promotion and Tenure Review Committee to participate in an extended review, because then they have the picture of the whole idea of scholarships across the range of faculty being reviewed. I guess my biggest fear is that we will adopt an extended review process that becomes more invasive, or more from the feeling we are being watched rather than a supportive one, and so I'm really advocating that you adopt what was suggested about university-wide guidelines not unit-specific ones which would provide equity in the process.

Jonathan Phillips, College of Engineering: I thought I'd start with a story for our Provost because apropos of his impending visit to China. I went to China with my wife. We were concerned that upon our arrival no one would understand English and thus we would not know how to get to our destination at Tsingua University. And I think the organizers of the meeting I attended were also concerned about this because they sent us detailed maps in Chinese. To our surprise, when we got to the airport a guy rushed up to us and said in English, "Where are you going?" I named the university and he said, "I'll take you there: 1,000 renminbi." I said, "Well how about 100 renminbi?" I had no notion of the value of a renminbi. He said, "Well its you and your wife so although 100 just for you, for you and your wife 250." I said, "Well 100 and 100 is 200." So he goes, "Okay, 210". Well, it turns out by a little arguing I saved $150.

I'm afraid that what we have here is a document that gives the taxi driver the whole 1,000 renminbi right off the bat.

I believe that tenure is very important for protecting our rights as faculty members and distinguishing our careers from those of our colleagues in industry, where money is all that counts. I believe in academic freedom and I believe that faculty must be protected in the event they write or say things that are unpopular with the administration. I also understand that tenure is a very important responsibility, and it implies a host of responsibilities for all of us to live up to. I think we do a remarkably good job of living up to them. So, my problem is that basically when I read this document it can be read as the end of tenure. Indeed, according to this document, from now on we are going to be faculty that is reviewed every five years. There will be nothing special about our position. Our rights will be even less than those of senior faculty, including full professors, who are not tenure track. In my college and department there are many faculty in this category and they are never reviewed by faculty peers. They are reviewed only by the administrators. So, I'm asking: If we have this document what rights and advantages does a tenured faculty possess relative to a faculty member appointed by a department chairman to the position of full professor? My answer is NONE. Actually the tenured people will have a harder time. They'll be reviewed more often and more scrupulously then those people who are actually not tenured. My understanding, and perhaps this is actually a question, is that people who are on multi-year contracts cannot be terminated without the same due cause as folks with tenure. The administration must show cause; either economic hardship or incompetence, before they terminate a faculty member on multi-year contract. These are the same reasons which can be employed to terminate a tenured faculty member at the present time. So, in sum, tenure under the proposed document will have NO VALUE. In fact, one will be better off with a multi-year contract, already a common procedure here. YES: Multiyear contracts insure far less oversight!

Finally I'd just like to add I'm a little disappointed in the argument expressed for adopting this 1,000 renminbi plan. The argument is entirely based on responding to a couple of demagogues out there who are screaming about things being bad. I don't want the university making policy that is based on responding to every demagogue. I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh. We should only do this if it is really demonstrated that its good and really improves this university. That's the only reason we should do it.

Jacob De Rooy: I am speaking for my colleagues at Capital College, who held a faculty forum on this subject. They wish to point out that we have a very effective annual review process at Capital, which allows, as one of the specific questions, a look forward and a look backward regarding long term faculty performance. Our annual review form specifically asks for references to past performance over the last few years and the direction for future professional activities. So we feel that the proposal procedure (extended tenure review) would be redundant.

The next point relating to this is that it is naïve for us to say that we can adopt a new procedure at low or no cost. We have a three-page document on HR-23, and a 15-page document on the administration of HR-23. I expect that if we adopt an extended tenure review there will be some administrator in Old Main, perhaps a senior deputy associate vice provost for extended tenure review, who will come up with lengthy administrative guidelines for HR-40 and multi-colored divider sheets for organizing all the material it will call for!

The last point I wish to make is a personal one. I'm an economist who has chaired faculty search committees. I know that prospective faculty members who want to teach here want to know about the availability of tenure. From the standpoint of the job market, tenure is part of the compensation package and if we weaken or eliminate tenure we are going to have to substitute money for it in the form of higher salaries. I do not think Penn State's budget can afford to pay the highly productive faculty we have here if we had to substitute cash for a weakened tenure component of the compensation package.

Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions?

Amy Glasmeier, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: One of the issues that was raised at our discussion in preparation for meeting with you was the fact that there's an enormous variety of reviews by members of the Penn State faculty. At some of the commonwealth schools it’s a very explicit program and quite elaborate and well developed. In other domains it's not quite so specific. One possible recommendation that was part of the discussion is to develop some kind of uniform standard where we all have that record that looks forward and looks back on an annual basis. At this point there's so much variety we would at least have to raise this issue and examine carefully, if we were going to say that that standard rule this kind of post tenure review. I will also say as a member of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences that we as a faculty adopted post-tenure review in the fall of 1997.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: I think Gordon made a number of points that were very useful and I think maybe something needs to be done for cosmetic purposes, but I think we ought to be very clear about where the problem is that the public does not understand tenure, or do we think that some of the charges that these people make are true.

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: First I'd just like to endorse Gordon's last remarks and Phil's remarks as well as the remarks about tenure made by the Senator from Penn State Harrisburg. But most important we send President Spanier to Harrisburg to face our critics with the notion that we have this nifty new plan to be developed by our committees in the Senate. Some seven years down the road, we will have succeeded in reviewing this and you may as well send him empty-handed. I think it just has to count as your post-tenure review on what your annual review, however embellished, by some further peer review. There are a lot of people who retired early rather than face some of the processes in the course of the one year review. I'm sure we will decide not to schedule one for next year. Post-tenure review is there. I think we need to open up and say so, loud and clear.

James G. Brasseur, College of Engineering: We had a lot of discussion in our department (Mechanical Engineering) on this issue. However, rather than summarize this discussion, I wish to make comments from my own heart.

The issue that concerns me the most about the "extended review" proposal is not post tenure review per se. Personally, I don't mind being reviewed. In the College of Engineering we are reviewed every year, and it is a major review. I feel that I am very productive, I work very hard, and so do all my colleagues. What bothers me is what this proposal is supposed to be addressing that has not been addressed. I brought this up at the last Senate meeting: Why did this proposal come up? My own conclusions are drawn from discussions surrounding this word "accountability". I think this issue is about politics. We have lawmakers like Mr. Lawless who are trying to convince the rest of the population in Pennsylvania, in fact in the country, that tenured professors don't work very hard, and that this is because we are not "accountable". This is wrong on both counts: we work very hard, and we are accountable.

The perception is that once we get tenure we are living the easy life. We all know that this is not true. (How often I've said that if I only had more time, I would write a letter to the editor about this.) Typically, I come home in the evening, I spend a couple hours with my children, and then I work: grading, preparing lectures, writing papers,… On weekends if my wife can get a few hours out of me to work on the yard, she feels like she's accomplished something. And I know from observing my colleagues in engineering that I am the rule, not the exception. It bothers me a great deal when I am told that I am not working hard enough and it bothers me even more when I have a university that is implicitly supporting this notion by sponsoring a post tenure review initiative rather than dealing with the political issue head on. I feel that the university is attempting to put a band aid over words and perceptions of others that are simply not true.

Robert Secor: I think I should point out that nobody has said anything about the proposal yet. I am concerned about the sense that the proposal is there to try and find ways to terminate faculty or to undermine tenure. There is nothing in the proposal that does that. The context is national debate about post-tenure review. The proposal is in terms of faculty development, and what it suggests is that every five years faculty get together with a group of peers or the department head, if that's the option taken, with the opportunity to say, "This is what I'm doing, this is what I've achieved, let me tell you about it, and let me suggest what I project for the near future. That is, help me do my work better." It is not a way of finding ways for termination. If there are ways of bettering this proposal, you should suggest them to Faculty Affairs so that they can look at them. There are systems where such reviews are triggered only when someone is doing a bad job, bad annual reviews then you have a post tenure review. The Faculty Affairs Committee does not see this as a way of uncovering people who are not doing their job. Rather, every five years the annual review would look forwards and backwards. It's not a way of undermining tenure; that was never even suggested in the Faculty Affairs Committee.

C. Michael Comiskey, Fayette Campus: Another Senator and I were trying to find out were there any other state colleges or universities in Pennsylvania that are taking action on this issue. Supposedly, if it is coming from the state legislature, then we suspect our colleges and other universities have, and so far we haven't heard anything from the administration on that. So I'd like to know if Vice Provost Secor or anyone else here who represents the administration knows what the other state schools in Pennsylvania are doing.

Chair Geschwindner: Bob, do you want to comment?

Robert Secor: I don't know what Pitt and Temple are doing. Again, I don't know it. I would like to try and talk about the proposal and discuss any specific language in it that Senators might find threatening.

Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: My issue is as a Senator from capital is a variant of this product of our annual reviews. At Harrisburg we have this really extensive program where I have a dossier together like this every year. I get back this three or four page single-spaced letter from the person who evaluated me. Why do we need to be doing this again every five years doesn't make sense. If we need to go through a long range proposal, why can't we just take this, putting it together takes you five years? We are doing it now, and here you come and do it again. There is nothing in this proposal that scares me, because I know myself and a number of people here know. We are very busy, know that we are doing things and personally I'm at that stage in my career where I know that this won't particularly impact on me. But the point is, why another set of things? It's for five years where we said we are doing well, and the administrators are saying, "Hey, you are doing well." There are five years of this, why automatically…if that period isn't the true test of where you've been and where you're going.

Robert Secor: If only individual units do that…

Irwin Richman: It is being done now…

Robert Secor: Yes, the revised proposal from the Faculty Affairs Committee, which you now have, says that individual units can decide how to do this. Those colleges can say, "Look, we have done this every year very extensively, and the fifth-year review is going to be a review of what we have done thoroughly the previous five years." The proposal allows units to choose their own procedures.

Irwin Richman: Even if it's clear that this is not done at all, why not ride on these units? Just because we've been good, and a lot of other people have been good, and those few who have not been doing this should be held up and said, "Do it." We have as a college voted for this to be done, but to say that because a few places are not doing it that you have to institute a whole other level, university wide, goes beyond me.

Elizabeth A. Hanley, Health and Human Development: Two points. We had a debate in our faculty and I think one of the key things is, what we brought up earlier and that is really the change in the title of the document, including faculty development instead of the words "review". I think this is a positive point first of all, and that is really essentially what we're trying to do. And yet we can accommodate the annual review and if you look at and have read through the document you'll know that the wording is such that we really can take into account almost every idea and agenda being but forth today. I think, if we look closely at the document, this is one thing that should be done right now.

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: I'm on Faculty Affairs. We tried to follow up on what Bet's was just talking about. If you go to section II and notice that that entire section is brand new allowing unit flexibility. That's in response to comments that Faculty Affairs heard that indeed at a number of locations everything that you find listed on page four, section "E" of the materials we submitted is already being done. But in discussions over the last few months what there was an awareness of is after the Senate vote or requirement last year that there be annual reviews, we can not say that as a university that type of annual review occurred university wide. Now, what a number of us from the committee were inviting more comments on, is indeed how do we best word this to ensure that such thorough reviews that we now have are recognized and address that internal concerns exist. To go back to Gordon De Jong's concern with the trigger mechanism. Again, to call for comments on specifics here, on page four, the middle paragraph in capitals begins with phrasing that the review will only occur when the administrative review is less than satisfactory. I haven't heard specific comments yet as to whether that's an inadequate or inappropriate trigger or not. It remains a concern. But that might help us all to continue the discussion to get comments on it.

Chair Geschwindner: We're going to take about five more minutes and try to bring this to a conclusion.

Anthony J. Baratta, College of Engineering: From what I've gleaned from this discussion, it appears that we do have a requirement for annual reviews and that it is not being done consistently throughout. I do like to think that in the proposal that was backed by my tenured administrator annual review and somebody gets an unsatisfactory then you go into some sort of development program, which is basically what the proposal suggests, One, two, three or four, whatever the number is gets satisfactories, then you would go to the latter requirement. The idea though of making these faculty five-year reviews, putting together every five years, I think personally is inadequate. I think we need to be placing emphasis on an annual review, get those done properly and as soon as possible. If somebody doesn't do well on an annual review two years in a row then I think its probable to have one the next year; not every five years as we have here. That's what I have a problem with.

Edward W. Bittner, McKeesport Campus: I'm concerned about doing this only for faculty development reasons. There was one time when the university--I've been around too long--that SRTE's were solely for faculty development. This development led to a primary way of evaluating teaching and it scares me that these evaluations are being done this way.

Charles H. Strauss, College of Agricultural Sciences: We had a faculty meeting of our college in mid-February to review this same policy. The only item that was not included in the review was the option of having the college decide that the units and leaders could conduct the five-year reviews as we see them here. The response to that meeting was much as we have heard in this meeting. Our faculty was largely concerned about the redundancy of the existing annual review system that is implemented within the College of Ag. Science. We saw limited need for a five-year post-tenure review system. The results of that meeting suggested that we ought to canvass a larger group, and the chair of our faculty group did that and secured over 110 responses, ninety percent of which were also opposed to this particular proposal as we are today. The one item that continues to come forward particularly today is this one item that says, page three the extended review requirement, "Penn State Policy HR-40 mandates that all faculty members be reviewed each year, and that the results of that review be communicated in writing to the faculty member". Now, apparently it is not being followed uniformly throughout our university system. I would suggest this is not a faculty problem. This is an administrative problem. Then why does the faculty have to organize a second review that is not being covered by the one that is suggested in HR-40? This indicates a problem, and our annual review is treated as unimportant and taken very lightly within this proposal. The annual review within our particular college does look back, does look forward, on an annual basis and also on a five year basis. So I feel the college has a good review system in place, as do most of our faculty within our college. Thank you.

S. Diane Brannon, College of Health and Human Development: I want to argue on behalf of the proposal. I think some faculty are reluctant to support this because the arguments for it all seem to be driven by external accountability. I think that this is probably distasteful and I understand that. I think the larger issue is our internal accountability as a profession. Somebody more literate than I can tell me which Marx brother said, "Why would I want to belong to an organization that would have me for a member?" Credible professions monitor themselves and to say that an administrative review is an adequate substitute for peer review, then you're giving up what other professions are fighting very hard to maintain.

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Has the committee given serious thought to the suggestions of Dr. De Jong's? I think his observations are very important. Has the committee any comments on this?

Murry R. Nelson: We've entertained some of the things that Gordon said, yes. The trigger mechanism that Tram mentioned is something that we've already considered and talked about. The notion of having things all the same, the universality, was something that we altered because of the universal responses of negativity from faculty throughout the university saying that they did not want to have that. They wanted to have some different ways that they could do different things. The notion of extending it from five to seven years, we did not consider another number. We certainly are amenable to that. That's up to you folks to give us your feelings.

Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture: What I wanted to say has already been said.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: On a slightly different perspective: what I don't want to see happen, in the fall of next year, is the newspaper on my door step--and all of my neighbors door steps--is the headline that "Penn State faculty reject post tenure review". And I want to comment directly to the committee. In bringing this forward, we're essentially bringing more than a small possibility that its going to essentially backfire on us. So I think one of the most important decisions that's going to made here is the decision to bring this forward. They may want to even consider a 'straw vote' ahead of time. Rejecting the proposal would be a very negative message and it's going to have a very negative impact that we do NOT want as we take this thing forward.

Actually, after taking one last re-read, the proposal is not a very stringent…Senators would have to take this forward and sell it as individual faculty members. I look at it and say, "I am going to be doing this post tenure review in my 25 year chair," because it doesn't kick in until 8 years after your final promotion. So this is really far in the future for many faculty. I don't think that people have looked at it in terms of trying to sell it for how little a change that it is.

James M. Donovan, Mont Alto Campus: I would feel a little bit better about this proposal if the size of the review committee was increased from a minimum of three to a minimum of five. I think that a committee as small as three carries a little too much risk of an evaluation that's biased or arbitrary or capricious. I think a larger number would come out a more balanced number.

Chair Geschwindner: Although we're going to have to bring this discussion to an end, that's not to indicate that the committee is not willing to hear more from you, and I encourage you all, if you have additional comments to make or want to reiterate what one of your colleagues has said, to please communicate to the committee. Murry reads his email and I'm sure he would be happy to hear from you.

Murry R. Nelson: Just to follow up on what Lou said, the committee will be meeting this summer to address this series of commentary that we had here today. So, indeed do as Lou said, because we will be working on this through the summer. It's not an enviable task. It will be something that we'll be working on, and finally I want to thank you all for your thoughtful commentary.

Chair Geschwindner: We next move on to…

Paul L. Rose, College of the Liberal Arts: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. This does not have to go forward at all. Someone suggested a forum…

Chair Geschwindner: Excuse me, are you a Senator?

Paul L. Rose: This is a motion…

Chair Geschwindner: Excuse me, are you a Senator?

Paul L. Rose: Yes I am. Just a motion…

Chair Geschwindner: Since this is a forensic session, a motion is out of order, and a motion could be made under new legislative business at the end of the session. But keep in mind that this is a forensic session to provide input to the committee. The committee may choose based on the information they've gathered here not to come forward with something, or to come forward with something totally different or exactly what they've had here. So the real value of the forensic session is that we have provided input to the committee. So I would encourage you not to propose a motion at the end that would short circuit the value of the forensic session that we've just had. We will move on to the next item, which is a forensic session on the libraries, Collection of Faculty and Staff Library Fees and Felix Lukezic will present the report. Now don't everybody leave. We've got a lot to do this afternoon.


Collection of Faculty and Staff Library Fees and Fines

Felix L. Lukezic, Chair

Felix L. Lukezic, College of Agricultural Sciences: The Senate Committee on Libraries has been asked to make a recommendation on a policy change allowing university libraries to collect library fines/fees by payroll deduction, by the new Penn State ID+ card. This change is being brought about because of concern of outstanding money by the accounting department. As this will effect all users of the library, the committee wants your input before making a recommendation, and may I remind you that signing up on this is voluntary. There's no one going to coerce you to sign up for this. The proposal has been on the Senate web for comment, and we have had at least 15 comments from the site users. Most of the people are in favor or not overly-concerned. The main concern has been when there's been a dispute between the users and the library. The original proposal is not clear on this, on how it could be resolved. Thus the policy has been changed to allow disputes to be resolved before requesting payroll deduction. Nancy Eaton, Dean of the Libraries is here to answer your concerns and questions.

Chair Geschwindner: Any comments or questions?

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine: Just a couple of clarity questions. First of all, the current system that you have with the collection agency, how is that financed? Who pays for this?

Nancy Eaton, University Libraries: It's a university process. It's always been available to us.

Dwight Davis: Do they charge us?

Nancy Eaton: Other parts of the university also have access to that as a mechanism. I would also say that we seldom use it.

Dwight Davis: And what is the ultimate consequence for a fee dispute where the libraries feel that a fee should be paid then the individual feels that a fee should come back?

Nancy Eaton: There is an internal committee that handles such disputes, and it in fact has a representative from the faculty, and as of this morning the Senate Committee on Libraries has agreed to be a venue of last resort. What this policy says is that any action would be suspended until such a concern was addressed.

David Kayal: I think this is excellent, because what happens right now when faculty/staff pick up books and don’t return them is that money to pay for new books?

Nancy Eaton: Well, the current policy is, if after a certain amount of time following notification, we can suspend privileges and do. But the money stays on the books as an outstanding uncollectable, and that's an accounting issue with…where in any auditing process you get criticized for that. Any degree that we can reduce that problem would be to the good.

David Kayal: Faculty have to be held accountable just as students. You won't let a student graduate from the university without paying library fines.

Nancy Eaton: That's correct.

David Kayal: I think that's a substantial added penalty for something like that and to let faculty members get away with this $30,000 it's ridiculous.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Why is this option not for everybody? There are people who are delinquent. Why would they want to sign off on this?

Nancy Eaton: There are people who, clearly, as Dr. Lukezic indicated, see it as a benefit to them of being able to have it done automatically. To the extent that people are willing to do that, we want to make it available. If people object, we will have an alternative. We'll continue with current policy. We're not saying that we won't do anything. We'll just revert to the current policy.

Nancy J. Wyatt, Delaware Campus: Who owes this other $270,000?

Nancy Eaton: That would be the students.

Senators: Laughter.

Nancy Eaton: You have to understand it's the current three years of students who are currently enrolled or who have never graduated. It is true that they can't graduate without paying. So it's basically the current outstanding balance.

Thomas N. Jackson, College of Engineering: I just wonder if this is straining at gnats. There's $300,000 in fines outstanding, $30,000 that's from faculty, most likely predominantly from a few individuals, and I agree that those individuals should pay their fines. But overall, it seems like a letter of commendation saying you're doing pretty well might be more appropriate for most faculty than a new method to collect fines. I wondered what the cost of implementing this is? Would it be similar to the funds you hope to recover?

Nancy Eaton: No actually it will save us money in that the most expensive part of this is the labor that goes into billing, and it will save us that labor. So it benefits the library on that side as well.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I find the fact that we are discussing this to be something of an embarrassment as a faculty member. The real issue, it seems to me, is the irresponsibility of members of the faculty. In fact, what we are talking about is properly viewed as shared resources. I have some question about whether or not automatic deduction will simply perpetuate a pattern of irresponsible behavior.

Nancy Eaton: Please note that this only goes into effect after 90 days, after we've already tried those things.

Dennis S. Gouran: I still think you are encouraging people to be irresponsible.

David Kayal: Was there any discussion of making this mandatory for everybody, or is that not even being discussed?

Nancy Eaton: My understanding of it is that it's required that faculty sign off on our ability to do this.

Amy K. Glasmeier: Does that mean that if you have a choice you wouldn't have us all sign up?

Nancy Eaton: It would be our preference, but we're not going to force it.

Richard B. Englund, Penn State Erie - The Behrend College: I'm curious, I've been so long in industry, I guess, what percentage of the faculty or a total of how many people account for the upper half of that 30,000?

Nancy Eaton: I can't answer that. There's no way for me to answer that.

Richard B. Englund: My suspicions would be that if someone would do some counting it would be fairly obvious that ninety percent of the problem is ten percent of the offenders.

Nancy Eaton: There is no way for us to collect that data because under the policies that we follow we once…well, never mind. I'm trying to remember how the system works, and I'm incorrect on what I was about to say.

James T. Elder, Shenango Campus: Are library fines and fees part of the annual review?

Chair Geschwindner: I think it depends on what unit you're in. Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you very much, and I would encourage you again, if you have not responded or if something comes up or any of your colleagues identify something, the committee would be more than happy to hear from you. We now move to unfinished legislative business. We have the Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Report which is in your Agenda as Appendix "D." Terry Engelder will present the report.



Final Report

Terry Engelder, Chair

Terry Engelder, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Accountability appears the buzz word of the day, and in my view the best type of accountability leads to an institution getting better at what it does. Of course, you all know that we in the Penn State community engage in three endeavors for which we are accountable. Those are roughly called teaching, research and creative accomplishments and service. Now in effect the committee that I chaired, the Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Committee, was charged with recommending ways in which Penn State could get better at its teaching endeavor. We would roughly call this teaching development, and you'll note in our recommendations, as I indicated last time, we make some recommendations for teaching development but hand in hand with that there are recommendations for evaluation. We really have to know whether we're getting better at what we do, among other things and we'd like to encourage teacher development. That's found in the rewards section, and you can see these on the first page, the executive summary. Now we would like to offer one friendly amendment prior to starting and this deals with recommendation number four. We'd like to add three words to recommendation number four. We'd like to have it read, "each academic unit or cluster of units rather than individuals." We want to add the words "rather than individuals" right after "related units shall take the steps required to achieve a multi-dimensional excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishments and service." With that, what I'd like to do is point out many of you read the Penn State alumni magazine called The Penn Stater, and often in the last couple of years there was an editorial entitled, "My thoughts exactly". A couple of years ago, John Moore, one of our colleagues, actually had an article in here. Its title is "What Universities Owe Their Students." I think that part of what we're trying to accomplish with this particular piece of legislation is, we're trying to answer that question. But John actually has a couple comments that I'd like to have him make before we open the floor up.

John W. Moore, College of the Liberal Arts: That's a nice introduction. I'm a member of this committee so therefore I'm going to speak on behalf of the report. The direction I'd like to take is to say why I was committed to serving on this committee. We met for over two years and it was a very stormy time sometimes because it was a room filled with people who have strong convictions of how best to perform the teaching service and how best to go about this. But I think for me, one of the things that pushed me on was the realization that I've been here for more than 30 years and I don't think a week has gone by in all those years that somebody hasn't said to me that Penn State undervalues teaching or Penn State doesn't take its teaching seriously or Penn State cares nothing about their students. But this is a committee that was put together by two types of leadership. On one hand, the Senate leadership at that time wanted this committee to be formed and wanted to bring about improvements. Secondly, the Provost's Office wanted it also. So it was a partnership that had two types of leadership saying, "look into improving the situation of teaching at Penn State." The committee itself was made up of a lot of non-Senators with powerful teaching credentials and I just want to mention their names--Fern Willits in Agriculture, Patrick Terenzini from the College of Education, John Lowe from Science and Jim Eisenstein from the Liberal Arts. What we basically came up with was four sets' of recommendations. One, as Terry has already pointed out, is that we understood that good teaching can only take place in an environment that values it. Which means that the academic units themselves must take responsibility for, to use Presidents Spanier's remarks, "overseeing and fostering the development of teachers." And that's exactly what we wanted to have happen. We all knew that in order to do that units themselves must set forth recommendations for teaching. Units themselves must develop the teacher who is going to be evaluated and who has the opportunity to develop. How do we do this evaluation? What the report also does is to address the issue of doing this evaluation in a variety of ways such as a teaching portfolio where each of us can present evidence that we've done the job well. In other words this proposal allows us to assert that teaching matters at Penn State and teaching matters a lot and here's how you develop those teachers. This is how we can prove that they've done a good job and these are the ways in which good teaching can be rewarded. So we're hoping that you will like the report and that you will support it.

Chair Geschwindner: Let me remind you that this is an advisory/consultative report, and we will be voting on it, and we will be voting on the recommendations which are summarized on page one of Appendix "D" as well as the rest of the information in the report that supports those recommendations. Any further comments or questions?

Jamie M. Myers: I realize that the timing of the review process of the construction of portfolios is not that detailed in the report because the report asks for each unit and then the college as a collection unit to formulate that decision themselves. What I wondered was, what discussions the committee might have had about that timing aspect. I know that you do after your numbers have a paragraph that directs the activity in certain ways. For example, on page six, under number one "Information from Faculty Members," there's a sentence that suggests that the peer review faxing or mailing this type of information that it might be viewed by faculty other than yourself, and they might be gathering information, making a report. What did the committee say about how often the portfolio would be constructed and the peer review take place?

Terry Engelder: Well, I think it's understood that a portfolio is a document that you produce, presumably when you teach a course. A portfolio consists of a number of things that include such things as a syllabus. It can include a set of goals. In fact, it even can include a post course statement about whether these goals were accomplished or not. So at least implicitly our assumption was that portfolios could accompany every course that you taught.

Jamie M. Myers: I think you did an excellent job in your committee on coming up with a lot of ways to support teaching and the environment of teaching. The reason that question came up is, just at the end, there's a lot unsaid here and the people that present these things to a special review committee, the Vice Provost. What's the composition of the review committee, and what the review committee will consider and whether or not we're going to look at portfolios every 10 to 15 years.

Terry Engelder: Well, we were concerned about the degree to which we wanted to make this document prescriptive, and we wanted to move away from that and hence the statement about allowing the individual units to arrive at some sort of guidelines. In fact I was struck that there's a number of parallels between this and the document that the Faculty Affairs Committee presented. They also wanted to back away from prescription, and it is important that we recognize that each unit may well have different criteria by which they teach, by which they evaluate teaching and a different set of expectations for excellence in teaching.

Dwight Davis: Obviously, I can't imagine this body not giving its full support. I'd like to just make a point about your last comment with respect to accountability, if you will. I would hope that several years from now, and in light of a very important aspect of what the university ought to do, and that is fostering regard for teaching. That every time some administrator or leader in this university talks about activities that in addition to, how many dollars are raised, how many football games attended, how many sporting activities we have, that in all of that commentary will be some important lead-in about how good we as a university are doing with the job of education. Although I agree with the concept that this should be open, I hope that in fact we take it seriously enough that it becomes really a great part of what we talk about and on a regular basis it becomes an activity. I'm totally supportive and I think the onus sits on us and on the leadership of the university, but we ought to talk a little bit more about this path.

Terry Engelder: We certainly would hope that by adopting this document we make a number of jobs easier. We make it easier for the president of the university to stand up and say, "We really are attempting to make ourselves better as teachers," for example.

James G. Brasseur: I want to support this proposal. The document is obviously a very positive one. It is saying to the rest of the state that we do take teaching seriously. I would encourage that we actually translate our seriousness into improvement. My comment is to ask the question what is it that this proposal is ultimately attempting to improve with better teaching? I argue that ultimately we are trying to improve the quality of the student who graduates from Penn State. With that in mind I would like to propose that some language be added to the document that makes this ultimate goal explicit. The one place where I can see that this language could be added is on page nine, the last bullet item, where it reads, "the quality of the university's teaching should be evaluated in five years to determine whether any difference has resulted from these efforts". I would like to propose that be made a little bit more specific with the words "whether any difference in the academic quality of graduating seniors has resulted from these efforts." That is really what we're trying to do.

Terry Engelder: Now is that offered as a friendly amendment? I'm not sure.

Chair Geschwindner: I was just going to ask you if you want to accept that as a friendly amendment or whether you wanted Jim to make it as a motion to amend?

Terry Engelder: I don't see why that can't be a friendly amendment? It sounds very nice to me.

Chair Geschwindner: If you'll accept that on behalf of the committee, then we'll have that.

Terry Engelder: Yes.

Chair Geschwindner: So that we're adding on page 9, the last bullet before conclusion, "The quality of the university's teaching should be evaluated in five years to determine whether any difference in the academic quality of graduating seniors has resulted from these efforts." Everybody got that?

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: I would like to second Dwight's comments earlier about providing additional support for the message that the university needs to put forward, both internally and externally, in terms of not only encouraging teaching but also post tenure review that we have in place at the present time. I would like to encourage the Senate leadership for next year, perhaps in particular in the context of excellent teaching, direct the Committee on Undergraduate Education to look into and explore mechanisms that might be shared with the entire university administrations to more effectively provide that message--the need to be accountable. I know John Cahir would be very happy to receive that kind of information.

Terry Engelder: I'm sure that will be passed on.

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington: I must support this proposal. But the report we have before us now is not the end of the story. To use one of Penn State's latest "buzz" words, it is only the latest "iteration" of the story. For a long time many of us have been talking about good teaching at Penn State. Professors Moore, Lowe, Eisenstein and others who sat around in the old society of teaching award recipients talked about recognizing good teaching at Penn State. When Bob Secor was not Vice Provost and was a Senate officer we were talking about good teaching at Penn State. This report is the latest phase of that conversation, but it shouldn't be the end of the story. Although I support this document, I have to recognize that some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about certain limitations in this report. I am less bothered by those concerns because I do see this as a continuing story. I think this is something that we have to make sure stays in the mind of the Senate and in the mind of the university for a long time to come. After all, I thought we had HR-40 clarified last year.

Felix L. Lukezic: One thing that bothers me on page 9 is we are getting set up to evaluate five years after starting. What is going to be our base line? What are we going to evaluate? And then you say that after that time an appropriate university group will be asked to develop an evaluation plan. Isn't that too late? We should get a base line first then measure what changes occurred. It seems to me the way the wording now read that it could be up to seven years before we know if we are effective.

M. Susan Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: First, a point of order. If we vote to approve the four recommendations. Does that mean we also vote for all of the explanations the committee makes?

Chair Geschwindner: An advisory/consultative report--we're passing the whole report on to the administration. So, there's not an implementation issue here, this is the general advice of the Senate.

M. Susan Richman: First of all, I do want to applaud the goals in this report. I also want to propose the statement that I'm trying…possibly contradictory to say that establishing a fair system for assessing evaluation to be mandated to the data gained from the SRTE. Secondly, I would like to bring up an earlier issue that it’s a matter of cost. One cost I foresee is the already non-quantified issue of faculty time. The other is in recommendation three "institute a system for adequately rewarding demonstrated excellence." I believe one of the primary sources for the cynicism about all the discussions on the importance of teaching excellence is the fact that it rarely shows up in the reward system and I would like you to shed some idea on what it would cost to implement this plan in the new system and whether or not that is going to be accepted as well as the recommendations?

Terry Engelder: Well, you asked three different questions. I'd like to answer the middle one by again pointing you to John Moore's article in the Alumni magazine, December of 1996. The answer to the question, "What universities owe their students?"--is time. Now you've already heard that time is a quantity that can't be evaluated in terms of money. I think that we are more or less going to have to deal with that, because it is a fact that we're not going to be able duck with this. To do it right will take time.

M. Susan Richman: I'd like to respond to that, and then go on to the other two. It's not that I begrudge the students time. Like our colleagues in Chemical Engineering, many of my colleagues have run out of time. To give time takes it away from something else, and I'm not saying that this isn't worthy of it, but there are many other things that are worthy also, and perhaps this should be analyzed at some time.

Erica B. Michael, Graduate Student, College of the Liberal Arts: Can I just propose a friendly amendment to the proposal? It's really a tiny little thing, but it should say, under quality of graduating students, you don't have graduate students.

Terry Engelder: I accept that.

Chair Geschwindner: You're in charge as far as that goes.

Terry Engelder: Yes, on behalf of the committee.

Peter Deines: I think this is a very nice report. I do think that you raised a very important point, that is, if you like a measure of your success and do not proceed at a base line. We cannot wait five years to establish a base line. How do you suppose we address that?

Terry Engelder: The only way that I can respond is to say obviously we have to move up the first review in some way or another. However, I'm not sure that we would get an effective base line in much less than five years time. Basically we're looking at this as a plan that is going to be in place for a number of years, and it's not clear to me that we'd gain much with a base line measure in much less than five years time.

John J. Cahir, Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education: I don't know whether it’s a good idea to give administrative support to this (laughter). But I'd just like to say that actually there already are some base lines to the system both in terms of faculty activity and students and the process is being carried out under the auspices of the assessment effort in a number of departments, and so, while we don't necessarily have university wide base lines, we have some good base lines in which to get started. I'm sure that there will be administrative support in carrying this out. I just can't resist, while I'm on my feet praising the Senate and I'm sure you are going to approve this. The Carnegie Institution for Teaching just released a report just a couple of weeks ago, which was widely reported in the newspapers as though these universities weren't paying any attention to teaching undergraduates and so forth. If you read the report you'll see that there were many reports carried in it in sidebars which cite many of the good things that are happening at research universities today. But I think our statement here will help a great deal.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: Back to the friendly amendment location on page nine, I think maybe we could solve the problem of getting a base line and so forth just by striking the three words "at that time." Let the second sentence say, "an appropriate university group will be asked to develop an evaluation plan." And that group will get started now thinking of how to develop an evaluation plan and figure it out later.

Terry Engelder: That sounds fine.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Just a point of information. Do you feel that the administration will embrace this particularly when you say that the rewards will be $5,000 per year and that the awards will amount to an increase in salary which means that in the first year it will cost the administration $5,000 times say 10 awards, the second year $5,000 times 10 old awards plus $5,000 times 10 new awards?

Terry Engelder: I'm a scientist, and so I believe in doing things empirically, and this will be that type of experiment. Let me just say, though, that the reason we put that number down was that we really wanted to make a significant impact on these people that raise to that level in their teaching. While that number can be viewed as arbitrary, I think that you would all agree that there is not a person in this room where that won't significantly impact their salary.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Do you really believe that this point in the report is going to be embraced by the administration?

Chair Geschwindner: If we pass this, this is our recommendation to the administration. We don't have to worry about whether they're going to approve everything we have recommended. I think we've had sufficient discussion and the questions have been answered. I believe it's time for a vote. Would all those in favor of the report signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All those opposed, same sign. Thank you very much.

Peter C. Jurs, College of Science: Along with Scott several years ago we appointed this committee and I think there are two task forces that labored for two years on an issue that's more central to the university progress into the future. So I'd just like to publicly thank Terry and the other members of the committee on behalf of those two of us who appointed it, and I guess on behalf of the rest of the faculty.

Senators: Applause.

Chair Geschwindner: As you all knew from looking at the Agenda, it was a long one and we've managed to take enough time that Murry Nelson has gone to his class, taught his class, and come back from his class, and so we're now ready for the next advisory and consultative report from Faculty Affairs on Procedures for Terminating Tenure-Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause, and Murry will present the report along with Bob Richards.



Procedures for Terminating Tenure-Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause

Murry R. Nelson, Chair

Murry R. Nelson: Thank you, Lou. Let me say that the class was disturbed that I returned. They enjoyed having my graduate assistant there more then having me there. We have before us a report titled "Procedures for Terminating Tenure-Protected Faculty for Adequate Cause." The bulk of the report and commentary will be offered by Bob Richards. I do want to make a couple of comments about this before hand. First of all, let me note that this entire report is essentially a recommendation. That's why you don't have just recommendations bolded, because this is not replacing anything, this is providing procedures for something that has not been given procedures before in an adequate form. This was originally put forth by John Nichols when he chaired this committee a number of years ago, and it never come to fruition. There are some things that must go on were this to be passed today, and were the president to accept it in a reasonable facsimile of what we pass today. There will have to be some alterations to PS-23, and to "What are the Guidelines for the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure." The committee recognizes that, and were these things to go on--these contingencies that I mentioned earlier--were they to come about, then one of the first things that the committee will have in its charge for the fall will be to address those two alterations which must be made. With that I will defer to Bob Richards, who did yeoman's work on this subcommittee and the committee, and I formally thank you.

Robert D. Richards, College of Communications: I'd like to direct your attention to the door handout. This is a fairly easy report in a sense to put together, because if you look at what is in HR-23 right now, there isn't very much. So we were sort of starting from ground zero. But we really weren't starting from ground zero in the committee, because as Murry mentioned John Nichols and a committee about four or five years ago put together a great deal of this. What we simply did this time around was sit down with the administration--Provost Brighton, Vice Provost Secor--and hammer out what it is that we're looking for to protect faculty interests and also to protect the university interest. Then we sat down with the university attorney and also tried to make sure that all the "i"s were dotted and "t"s were crossed. The result is what you have before you today. A couple things I'd like to point out, because I think it’s a fairly short report but an explicit one, so I want to leave in the interest of time as much time for questions as possible. The one point I do want to make, because this came out in Senate Council, this proposal does not create a new power to terminate faculty members. Quite to the contrary, what this proposal is designed to do is protect tenure. We've talked a lot today in the earlier debates about protecting the institution of tenure. That is precisely what this report is designed to do, and it does it in a number of ways. The ways that it does it are, first of all, it requires notice and a timely hearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Presently under HR-23 any one of you who has tenure could be terminated today and the university would be required to hold a hearing. That's what Pennsylvania law requires. They could hold that hearing 11 months down the line if they would like and you would be off the payroll as of today. That's why we have put in a provision here that the hearing will take place prior to termination. Now, if there is a need because of harm to the individual or harm to others or harm to the university, to take a faculty member out of the classroom or out of the university, suspension is allowed under this proposal. It also allows that employee to remain on the payroll until the hearing which disposes of the case. It also requires a timely hearing within 60 days of the notice. So what we do is we take Pennsylvania law and we build on it, and we build on it protections that will protect the institution of tenure here at Penn State. I think it's a ratification by the university, since we sat down with the administration here and ironed this out, that this really is a ratification of tenure here at the university. The other thing that this proposal requires is full faculty participation in the process, and also puts the burden of proof on the university and separates the adversarial and judicatory functions of the process. In other words, somebody who is accusing an administrator, perhaps who is accusing a faculty member, is not going to be the one who actually fires the faculty member--there's a separation of that. So, those are the things, and I think if you look at the door handout we've tried to spell out exactly the differences between what we have in place today and what this proposal will do, and I'd like to open it up to questions at this point.

Jamie M. Myers: I think its an important proposal, and I would like to suggest a revision or an amendment, I hope it will be taken as friendly, but I think it's an important amendment that has to do with evidence presented at such hearing. I think that it would help protect both parties the administration and the faculty member if evidence was available to both parties before the hearing. It said you may enter into a hearing and have either party present evidence and I think that is the problem. Therefore, I suggest the following amendment that could be added to item number three. The burden of proof for dismissing a faculty member for adequate cause shall at all times be on the university. Evidence to be presented at the hearing should be submitted at least 10 days before the scheduled date of the hearing with copies distributed to all parties. Additional evidence is not permissible at the hearing nor can it be referenced in the case by recommendation.

Robert D. Richards: If you look at section "C" of the proposal, the Faculty Affairs Committee put in a reference there that the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure shall be authorized to establish its own operating procedures consistent with this document. One of the hang-ups with the prior proposals that have come through the Senate has been that they have gotten fairly cumbersome and complicated. What we're trying to do today is develop a difference between statutory provisions and constitutional provisions. These are the constitutional provisions. What we're trying to do is put some protections in for faculty, and there may be things later on down the line to help ease the hearing, to enable the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure to function properly or more efficiently and that we believe should be--including rules with respect to evidence--should be left to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure to decide in its work how best to require the admission or exclusion of evidence. So that's why we deliberately left that out of the proposal.

Chair Geschwindner: Jamie, that means that they are not accepting it as a friendly amendment. Do you want to make it a motion?

Jamie M. Myers: I think it's very important…

Chair Geschwindner: Do you want to make it a motion?

Jamie M. Myers: Yes.

Chair Geschwindner: Is there a second? Would you read it again, Jamie?

Jamie M. Myers: Yes. "The burden of proof for dismissing a faculty member for adequate cause shall at all times be on the university. Evidence to be presented at the hearing should be submitted at least 10 days before the scheduled date of the hearing with copies distributed to all parties. Additional evidence is not permissible at the hearing nor can it be referenced in the case by recommendation."

Chair Geschwindner: Is there a second to the amendment? I have a second. Discussion on the amendment?

R. Scott Kretchmar, College of Health and Human Development: It seems to me very difficult to deal with amendments like this not knowing the law, not knowing all the ramifications. My second concern about the amendment--I speak against the amendment--is that it seems to me there could be other details too that I can imagine with this coming up that could be added. It seems to me that we're heading down a path here that doesn't give us good returns. So, I'm willing to look at the proposal as a general framework to be voted up or down on that basis.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments on the proposed amendment?

C. Michael Comiskey: I understand that the amendment is intended to protect the faculty members. But if there was some evidence that the faculty member wanted to bring up then he/she wouldn't be able to bring it up unless it was submitted 10 days in advance. So in some instances it could work against a faculty member.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments? Are you ready for a vote on the amendment? Do you want the amendment read again? All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: The amendment has been defeated. We're back to the original proposal. Any comments?

Brian B. Tormey: I'm concerned that 60 calendar days may not be adequate time, so I would suggest a friendly amendment. Perhaps you will accept it to 90 days.

Robert D. Richards: We came up with the original 60/30 rule as a negotiation with the administration. That if the hearing time were protracted, that this would be in certain instances keeping someone who may have engaged in grave misconduct on the payroll for a longer period of time than is necessary. The university attorney participated in the negotiation of the document and did not seem concerned--at least did not express those concerns--that this would be an inordinately short time. I think that the university could get its ducks in order and I think a faculty member could as well, particularly when it’s the faculty member's career that's on the line.

Brian B. Tormey: I'm certain the university attorney can prepare his case being aware of the circumstances/procedures on how the university works. What I'm thinking about is the fact that we may have a faculty member that needs to go out and get an attorney, and that attorney has to become familiarized with the various intricacies of how the university works, how the promotion and tenure process works, how the review systems works. There's a time there, plus assembling what they may feel is appropriate within 90 days.

Robert D. Richards: One other point to remember is that the 60 day rule begins upon the written notification. That is when the dean, under this system, the dean sends the letter to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Presumably if you look at the earlier provisions of this proposal there will be some discussion between the department head, dean, whomever, prior to that official notification, because that official notification is not simply a statement that "we would like to revoke the tenure of this individual." That official notification has to set forward the reasons and comes after a discussion between the dean and the central administration. I don't think it is such that an individual on a given day is going to get notice. That's the first indication that that person will have of the problem, and then therefore has only 60 days. It probably will turn out to be more like 90 or more days that they will actually have some type of constructive notice of the problems.

Chair Geschwindner: Brian, the committee does not appear willing to accept the 90 days as a friendly amendment. Do you want to make a motion to amend?

Brian B. Tormey: I make the motion.

Chair Geschwindner: Motion has been made to amend the 60 days in number two, page two and make it 90 days. Is there a second?

Senator: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: Any discussion on the motion?

Dennis S. Gouran: The language, as I read it, unless I am looking at a different document states that every effort shall be made to hold the hearing within 60 days. If that is not possible, then there will be a longer period?

Robert D. Richards: That is correct.

Dennis S. Gouran: This is a completely unnecessary amendment.

Tramble T. Turner: The 60 day limit was discussed in Faculty Affairs. Bob the question would seem to be whether this is putting something in place that we don’t' have. The question I would have now is with the Standing Joint Committee procedures and is there something already in place that would allow the committee to extend that period? Is that in section two the result of negotiations with the administration or is there an option to revise the time period?

Robert D. Richards: The committee procedures have to be consistent with the rest of the document, which spells out a time period. But as Dennis Gouran pointed out, ordinarily the hearing will take place within that time period.

Robert Secor: Let me respond to the question that Tram asked. The current procedures give no time table for a hearing. In fact, these proceedings protect faculty from protracted resolution of their case. At the same time, the timetable addresses administrative concerns about benefits to a faculty member caught red-handed with six stolen computers in his office giving pay and benefits over a long period of time. So the limited timetable protects both sides.

Robert D. Richards: One quick follow-up to that. This was an extensive negotiation with the university attorney, the administration, and the Faculty Affairs Committee.

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus: I guess I just want to reiterate that point. Since this was a negotiating process and the university has been willing to accept this as it is today, I would really hesitate to try and build in language that might jeopardize the willingness of the university to accept this. So, I really argue against the amendment.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other discussion of the 60 day, 90 day? Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion to amend the 60 calendar days in item two on page two and make it 90 days, signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Motion has been rejected. We're back to the original.

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: A point of clarification, page two, item "C". The very last line where it says the faculty member shall be permitted to have present an adviser of his or her own choosing. Does this mean that this person can be legal counsel?

Robert D. Richards: Then it's exactly as it's stated. So if it's legal counsel it would be legal counsel.

Shelton S. Alexander: In that context, then, does this whole business amount to a trial where the faculty member (or counsel) can cross-examine those making the allegations, or what is it?

Robert D. Richards: It’s a hearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, and the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure has control over that hearing and how that takes place. So, if they want to permit cross-examination, if they want to permit witnesses, it's in their purview to do so.

Shelton S. Alexander: And then presumably the faculty member, outside the university, could use this official hearing record in court proceedings where witnesses could be called and evidence presented in a normal court of law. Is that right?

Robert D. Richards: If it goes outside the university after you have exhausted your administrative remedies within the university, if it moves outside the university, then the rules of civil procedure take over. Whatever is discoverable under those is discoverable.

John M. Lilley, Penn State Erie - The Behrend College: I have a question that I don't think you're answering. On page two, number two, fourth line. "Suspension of the faculty member, etc… only if there are compelling reasons to believe that harm." I want to know what your definition of harm is? "The university, it's faculty, staff or students will occur or be threatened by the faculty member's continued active status..." What is your definition of harm and threat?

Robert D. Richards: Well, we don’t have and we purposely left out definitions, some of the definitions in this document. It's impossible in legal terms to spell out certain definitions. There are times when the university will feel that an individual, because they are harmful to themselves or harmful to their students, or perhaps they're going to harm equipment, take equipment, then they will put this forward. The importance of this document, however, is that regardless of the charge from the administration, the faculty member will be protected because during the hearing they remain as faculty members here. They get full pay and benefits through that, and it's only once it's finally adjudicated that the president of the university may terminate after the recommendation of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. It's impossible to sit down and create a document that handles every possible ramification or possibility that might come up. So we use words that are inclusive enough that a number of things can be folded into them, but the importance again is that the faculty member is protected here.

John M. Lilley: I have experience in terminating a tenured person and I have sat on this committee. These situations are very complicated. I have no problem with full pay and benefits, but the need to suspend, in my experience is a very important need. These are very grave situations. I hope we're not suggesting to the administration that they adopt something that would wind up not serving other colleagues and students.

Donald E. Fahnline, Penn State Altoona: What kinds of circumstances do you anticipate that led you to begin with the word "ordinarily" in the first sentence of part "A" of the recommendation?

Robert D. Richards: There may be simply a matter--for example a faculty member not being in the country, or there is a death in the family or something like that. This just protects all parties--the faculty and the university. That in the ordinary course of events the hearing will take place at this time, but there may be extraordinary circumstances which will require a deviation from that. That's fairly standard. You don't want to lock yourself in, either as the university or as the faculty, lock yourself into an absolute that at some point there may be a very good reason to get out of a hearing at a particular point. So this just leaves that possibility open, but it means exactly what it says: ordinarily, in the ordinary course of events, this proceeding will take place in this timely manner.

Donald E. Fahnline: My second question is why is there no mention of the role of an ombudsman in this recommendation? I can think of reasons, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

Robert D. Richards: Well we didn't really deal with the University Ombudsman in this process because a number of things will take place prior to this. This is a last resort obviously. If we're dealing with somebody to have his/her tenure revoked, that's not something that the university takes lightly, clearly not something that the faculty would take lightly. It's presumed that a number of things will take place prior to getting to this point. That there will be discussions with department heads and deans, that there will be the university or departmental and college ombudsman process used prior to this happening. This is the last resort, and what we're trying to do here is have some protection, some safeguards for the faculty member and for the university when you have to reach that last resort. And it doesn't happen often, thankfully, but when it has to happen, I think there needs to be some procedures in place, and right now there are not.

Peter Deines: May I come back with a question about what "ordinarily" means. I understand your point about the meeting but the word "ordinarily" also modifies the section that says, "The faculty member will be provided written notice of the alleged misconduct and the impression of misconduct." I certainly would not want to say that there should be any circumstances where the faculty member should not have written notification. So, I understand what you say about the meeting but I certainly would want to have the wording in such a way that the faculty member is always entitled to a written notification. So, how can you assure that?

Robert D. Richards: Well, if you look at section B1, the dean's letter to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure shall set forth the reasons for seeking termination of the faculty member, and the faculty member shall be provided a copy of that letter. So B1 clearly provides that that written notification will go to the faculty member.

Peter Deines: However, not early in the process?

Robert D. Richards: Well, that's the official notice provision. That's what we're trying to ensure happens, that there is some type of official notification.

Peter Deines: So, it could be, that a faculty members termination could be suggested without informing him/her in writing?

Robert D. Richards: There could be discussions with the department heads, and the deans or dean or associate deans or some administrator that may or may not advise a termination proceeding. In order to put forth a termination proceeding, the dean would have to consult with the executive vice president and provost, who would have to agree to this before it moves forward. At such time the dean then writes the letter to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. That serves as the official notice triggering for the faculty member. Presumably the faculty member will have some idea of this happening prior to the official notice. Again, all of the other provisions we've talked about--the ombudsman, just discussions within the department--this stuff will go on prior to the last resort of trying to terminate somebody's tenure.

Peter Deines: I'm troubled by this. I would like to say, that if a case is to be made against a faculty member then he/she needs to have notice in writing early in the process. So, whatever needs to be changed here will probably have to be discussed with a lawyer. In my mind it would be important to have the right wording here which says, "Whenever, the faculty member is accused of something that it be put in writing." I think, maybe this will have to go back to the lawyer because of this as well as another word in the report that has to do with alleged misconduct. On page three the report states that these proceedings are also applicable in the case of incompetence; and incompetence is certainly not misconduct. Item "A" applies to the very last line of the report. So I think there needs to be some other wording here--whatever is the appropriate wording you could check with a lawyer--but I would not say that incompetence is misconduct.

Robert D. Richards: I think that's a good point well taken. This provision, if you read it in tandem with HR-23, deals with adequate cause. All of the definitions of adequate cause, all of the examples of the definition of adequate cause, are spelled out in HR-23, and you're right, this is designed to handle not only the misconduct but also the competency, so we would. I don't know what the official process would be, but we could add in a line or two, or maybe just another word.

Chair Geschwindner: Now, do you want to see if it flies the way it is, or do you want to make a change? It's up to the committee.

Robert D. Richards: I could suggest--and maybe this would handle your response--that "he/she will be provided an explanation of the alleged misconduct or incompetence charge."

Senator: I think it should be "charges."

Robert D. Richards: "The alleged charges." Okay, that would work.

Peter Deines: I could make a motion.

Chair Geschwindner: We need to leave it to the committee.

Robert D. Richards: I think what we could do is accept these as friendly amendments, and then if there's some problem with it…

Chair Geschwindner: So you've accepted changing "misconduct" on the third line of "A" to "charges." What about the "ordinarily"?

Robert D. Richards: Correct. Take out the "ordinarily" and move it to the hearing line.

Robert Zelis, College of Medicine: Point of order: if a faculty member who is on this committee objects, can that be still accepted as a friendly amendment?

Chair Geschwindner: It should not be, no.

Robert Zelis: Then I object.

Chair Geschwindner: To which?

Robert Zelis: To "ordinarily".

Chair Geschwindner: To moving ordinarily or to striking it. Okay, then we either leave ordinarily or we have a motion to change it. Is there a motion to change it?

Peter Deines: I make that motion.

Chair Geschwindner: Is it seconded? Okay it's been moved and seconded that we drop "ordinarily" from the first word in "A" and move it to where?

Senator: Second line, second word.

Chair Geschwindner: "And ordinarily the faculty member will be provided an opportunity." Is that it? Okay so it's been moved that "ordinarily" be taken from the first word, first line, moved to the second word second line so it would read, "the faculty member will be provided written notice of the alleged charges, and ordinarily the faculty member will be provided an opportunity to meet with the appropriate administrator(s) having knowledge of the alleged charges." The "charges" change was accepted as a friendly amendment, so the motion is to move the "ordinarily." That's what we're discussing.

Wayne R. Curtis: I was involved in a termination involving staff. I think what they're trying to retain here is the ability to have evidence that indicates a potentially dangerous situation that will indicate a need to show up there with the police and not give them a written notice and be able to take necessary precautions. This is likely the reason or rationale for having the "ordinarily" in its original position in the sentence. Now it could be that this introduces an unjust termination situation such as the one I was involved in where the termination decision was reversed where they actually withheld pay during the hearing process for removing someone and only receiving back pay after bringing them back. But I think the rest of the proposal provides for the issue of still providing pay, it takes care of a lot of that. The legal people probably have considered potential difficulties involved in terminations, that's why "ordinarily" should stay where it was.

Gregory R. Ziegler, College of Agricultural Sciences: I think the question here is, we have legal language. "Ordinarily" is there for a purpose. Whoever is accused could leave the country to avoid being served this notice, and thereby, if we make it mandated that they have to be served something, they then have a case to appeal later on. I think that the "ordinarily" is there for a very good reason.

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: The word "ordinarily" meaning is very vague. I would rather see words such as "whenever possible". That indicates that exactly…

Chair Geschwindner: The motion is to move the ordinarily, not to change the word.

Dennis S. Gouran: This is an advisory/consultative report. It is not a policy statement. If the president accepts it, I am sure that he will have the university attorney go over the wording to minimize any possible legal complications. Every time this body tampers with the language in documents by changing the wording, every change raises other changes and introduces unintended implications for other parts of the documents.

Chair Geschwindner: Are you ready for the vote on the amendment? The amendment was to move "ordinarily" from the first word in the first line to the second word in the second line. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Amendment has been defeated. We are back to the original, and unless there is new discussion, I'd like to call for the question.

Richard B. Englund: The word "charges." Are you using "alleged charges" or is it "charges"?

Chair Geschwindner: All we have done is replace "misconduct" with "charges". So where it was alleged, no, I guess you're right.

Robert D. Richards: Charge is an allegation. You can allege something affirmatively in a legal document. Allege a charge.

Chair Geschwindner: So is it charges?

Robert D. Richards: I would just recommend leaving it as is. If it needs to be changed, it can be. We all know what it says now.

Chair Geschwindner: Well, now I don't.

Robert D. Richards: In a legal complaint, you have allegations. You allege certain things.

Chair Geschwindner: So do you want alleged charges or do you want charges?

Robert D. Richards: If you want to change it… Is there a motion to change?

Chair Geschwindner: Wait a minute. It was a friendly amendment to change "misconduct" to "charges". All I need to know is whether the committee is accepting or suggesting that the alleged be changed or not?

Robert D. Richards: It can be accepted as a friendly amendment, yes.

Chair Geschwindner: That you change it?

Robert D. Richards: Yes.

Chair Geschwindner: So the changes that the committee has accepted are "alleged misconduct" in those two locations in "A" have been changed to "charges".

Senators: There's a third location.

Robert D. Richards: Yes, there's three in "A," and they'll be changed in all three.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, it will be changed in all three locations?

Robert D. Richards: Right, to "charges".

Chair Geschwindner: Unless there is substantive discussion, I'd like to call for a vote?

Ernest W. Johnson, College of Medicine: A slight change also of….

Chair Geschwindner: Yes, apparently the change of "alleged misconduct" to "charges" will have to go throughout the entire document. We don't need to know how many it's going to be throughout the document. Substantive discussion?

Dennis S. Gouran: Did you change that from "alleged misconduct" to "alleged charges"?

Chair Geschwindner: No, we changed it to "charges". All those in favor of the motion as it now stands signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. We now move on to Faculty Benefits, and Diane Brannon has two reports to present.


College of Medicine Addendum: 1997 Report on Faculty Salary Equity by Gender

S. Diane Brannon, Chair

S. Diane Brannon: The first report, which is Appendix "F," is basically an addendum to the report on salary comparisons by gender within the university's major units that was done in the fall. As you may recall, we did not include the College of Medicine's comparisons at that point because there was such transition going on as to who would be included in the College of Medicine faculty and who would be in the Penn State Geisinger Health System, so we delayed this report. As it turns out, there's still tremendous change and flux going on in the College of Medicine faculty, although it would appear that the numbers have settled down in terms of who was actually on the faculty. There is being put into place beginning very shortly a new compensation system which will change all the salaries. So, we offer this as very much a cross-sectional glimpse of what was observed as of a certain data point. The two recommendations which--and its basically in the exact same format as the previous report was--the two recommendations that we made are on the first page of the report. One is that the Offices of Human Resources and Affirmative Action should pick up where we left off, in that we were not able to do the kind of fine-grained analyses which would involve actually looking at individual faculty salaries in order to see whether or not remaining differences within rank by gender are explained by legitimate factors other than gender. Since the Office of Human Resources will be working with the administration of the College of Medicine on the new salary administration system, this process is more or less ongoing and naturally occurring anyway. I did want to point out that the reference to the Office of Affirmative Action there was basically because those two offices, in working together, deal with any complaint situations that may arise, and that also is an ongoing situation not only in that unit but in any other unit. So we did not mean to raise any particular issues that there were wide spread investigations going on. I didn't want anybody to assume that. The second recommendation from the committee was that the Joint Committee on Faculty Compensation Data that was formed last year, help out Faculty Benefits by trying to figure out some way of reporting data in more meaningful units without violating confidentiality. Any questions?

Dwight Davis: Two points of clarity. On page two I'm just asking about the accuracy of the data. Am I to understand that the second line going across that at Hershey there are 16 male clinical people who hold the rank of professor?

S. Diane Brannon: Who are full-time in the College of Medicine. Their appointments.

Dwight Davis: It's hard to believe that that's the case. We have four males in cardiology. That by itself is….

S. Diane Brannon: That are full-time in the College of Medicine?

Dwight Davis: You mean 100 percent? You're saying a 100 percent salary in the College of Medicine?

S. Diane Brannon: I don't know that it means 100 percent salary. Billie Willits is here. I think she might be able to clarify that. What it means is that they are full-time Penn State faculty for purposes of benefits determination. Is that right?

Billie S. Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: I didn't pull this data, but what I understand is that it's either full-time or their salary was extended to be full-time. Full-time meaning nine-month salary. I'm assuming that they're given 100 percent salary, whether its all paid for by the university or not, I do not know.

Dwight Davis: I'm not sure about the numbers. Second question is, under salaries are you combining the salaries of those individuals who are all categories--male and female, clinical and basic science--who you've given us the means and the medians?

S. Diane Brannon: There was no real definitive way to separate people's clinical and basic science salaries. The way this was done, to my understanding from the Office of Quality and Planning, was that determination was made by department as to whether or not it was a basic science department versus a clinical department, and people were assigned. If you see the column that says clinical, what that means is the number of people…

Dwight Davis: …for the salaries, are you combining clinical people with basic science people to get these averages?

Billie S. Willits: Again, I didn't bring the data up. I didn't analyze the data. My understanding is to view that portion of the salary--the College of Medicine salary--so that some of that could be basic science. Some of it I'm assuming could be clinical paid for if assigned to the College of Medicine.

Dwight Davis: The reason I raise this is clearly there are big discrepancies there, and I think if you combined those it’s a problem with the data.

S. Diane Brannon: If you combine their clinical incomes, right? It was my understanding that was not done. This is their nine-month equivalent. These are clearly not their total incomes. These are nine-month equivalents, but it is their Penn State salary, not their Penn State Geisinger system.

Dwight Davis: These are pretty big numbers…

Ernest W. Johnson: I am trying to understand what these numbers actually represent. There is one column in the table that is titled "Number" and another column titled "Clinical". Is the column titled "Number" supposed to represent the total number of full time faculty in both basic science and clinical departments?

S. Diane Brannon: Yes. So in the first row there are 14 female with professor rank, five of whom are in clinical departments as defined below.

Ernest W. Johnson: Then if I have added this correctly, the table suggests that there are a total of only 134 full time faculty who have standing appointments in the College of Medicine.

S. Diane Brannon: Which is too small, right?

Ernest W. Johnson: Yes, I think this may represent roughly 25 percent of the total number of full time faculty at Hershey.

S. Diane Brannon: Right. We asked the Office of Quality and Planning about this, and this is just by their definition the cut that they gave us of people who at that point in time came out of the system as being full-time Penn State employees.

Robert Zelis: I think the concerns that we're raising here is that it really looks like there are major gender inequities here at Hershey. I mean, when you look at this, somebody going to the Harrisburg Patriot News would have a field day saying we're picking on women down here--when the data are inaccurate. I think that there may be a problem; but if there is a problem we should go at it in a more systematic, organized way and find out what the true situation is. I'd like to have our minutes reflect that there are objections to the data. For example, if you're including women's salaries in clinical departments--and I think it's appropriate to do that--it should be normalized to the fact that women are underrepresented in some very high paying specialties. In surgery, for example, there are no women neurosurgeons, no women cardiac surgeons. There's one woman vascular surgeon, and that can't be normalized. So before acting on this, if we're interested in the problem, we should go about seeing that there really is a problem. If there is let's quantify it, if it is significant, then correct it.

Chair Geschwindner: I'd like to point out to the Senate that normally this kind of a report comes as an informational report. This particular report, because it has recommendations, is an advisory/consultative report, which means we will be voting on it, and if you feel that the argument is that the data is insufficiently inaccurate, you can vote it down.

S. Diane Brannon: I would point out that point was made in the report. That we are not forming any conclusions about whether or not there are problems, and clearly one of the unresolved variables would be specialties.

David Kayal: I want a motion to table this until we get better data. I know this is the last meeting of the year, but I think we need more significant time and data before voting on this.

Chair Geschwindner: You're going to move it to the next meeting or are you going to move to return it to committee? Dave is moving to return it to committee. Is there a second?

Senators: Second.

Chair Geschwindner: Is there any discussion on that motion?

Robert G. Price: I'd like to see this tabled before we…

Chair Geschwindner: We're not tabling it, we're just returning it to the committee.

Robert G. Price: I'm against returning it to the committee, because what we would be voting on is the recommendation to conduct a case-by-case review, and I simply don't want to postpone that.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: Returning to the committee would not accomplish anything since that data is the best that could be obtained. These recommendations should act as notice to Hershey as they work on a new system. The problems illustrated by the report have existed for a long, long time and when I chaired the committee we had similar problems with getting reliable data. It seems that this is the best the committee could do after working on it a long time.

Charles F. Gunderman, DuBois Campus: As a member of this committee, I would like to support Diane here and we went through a great deal of anguish in trying to get this data. We have here a report and I think that the administration tries to follow up on the recommendations and evaluate those differences because of the changes in the Hershey setting. So I would vote against the motion to send it back to committee for the facts we can't address.

Dwight Davis: Let me speak out against accepting this and for returning it to committee. I think for us to accept this as-is indicates that we believe that they thought these numbers were making the right decision about discrepancies that are noted. And it seems to me that if you have 25 percent of faculty represented in this data, and a way it's compiled is obviously inaccurate and anybody that's at the medical center, seems to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have someone go off and investigate and some people knowing there's a problem. And so I'd like to speak for returning that to committee.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: I'd like to speak for returning it to committee with a bit of a compromise. I think it should be returned because we keep hearing from our colleagues at Hershey that the data are simply not accurate enough to draw conclusions from, and therefore it should be returned. I think we could also end formally as soon as the administration will have heard our message today, that they can certainly start looking into potential problems without waiting for a whole new stack of data to come forth to the Senate in the fall.

Dennis S. Gouran: It's precisely because the data are problematic that the committee reached the recommendations that it did. For the document to be returned to the committee in light of what gave rise to the recommendations would be silly.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, are you ready for a vote on the motion to return it to committee?

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm on the committee, and I have to say we of course also had a number of discussions of the data and we have Hershey representatives on the committee. All agreed that this was not the type of figures that we wanted. We also had Dr. Willits coming to committee to talk about it. Unless you provide us with clout or contacts which we do not have, we are going to arrive at the same interpretations, and we would probably let the matter die in committee. I agree with you, they were fishy from the very beginning or unpleasant and we knew it and that's where the recommendation comes from that there is a problem. Our recommendations are taken based on the figures that we were able to obtain from Hershey.

S. Diane Brannon: When we did look at the larger number of faculty, I don't remember if it was three or four hundred back in the fall, the reason we did not come forward with the report at time is that the same kinds of trends were there at that time. Now there has been a reorganization, and the reason we did not come forward with the report last fall is that there were the same kinds of trends of discrepancies of means at that time, and we did not want to irresponsibly report something that we couldn't explain. So we waited for updated data. These are the best data available at this time. Billie, is there going to be any better data?

Billie S. Willits: If I might explain? The administration at the College of Medicine is already embarking on a new compensation plan, and I was able to verify again this week that indeed each and every one of those salaries is going to be looked at in accordance with the plan that's been distributed and discussed among the faculty at the College of Medicine. If I were to make to make a suggestion, it would be to let that process go forward so that the salaries will be in place in about the July time-frame, and the Senate's planned compensation study that will go into place more or less in the fall of 1998. I would let that happen and relieve the committee of the responsibility of dealing with data that's really a mix of what has occurred historically in the past and begin anew in another academic year where you've got data that is basic science data, and I think that's what you want are basic science data. Then again, as Dwight said, the clinical salaries are different from the basic science salaries. So my suggestion would be to let that compensation plan go forward in this next academic year as it is intended, and then look at the data a new year out.

Chair Geschwindner: The motion before us is to send this back to committee.

R. Scott Kretchmar: Question, point of information. If we return it to committee, they are under no obligation to bring it back to us. Is that correct?

Chair Geschwindner: Right.

R. Scott Kretchmar: They could kill it themselves?

Chair Geschwindner: Yes they could, if we return it. Keep in mind, we've got two things here. We've got the recommendations on the first page and we've got the data on the second page.

Melvin Blumberg, Penn State Harrisburg: Perhaps a statistician would correct me, but these figures look a little bit to me like appointing Bill Gates, President of the University of Washington and then saying that the average salary of university presidents is $6 million a year. Statistically speaking, when the mean and the median are so far apart, doesn't it suggest that the distribution is skewed…or at least non-normal? Doesn't this situation suggest that there is one or two or three people with very high salaries?

Chair Geschwindner: The motion is to send it back to committee. All those in favor of sending it back to the committee signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign?

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Division of the house. All those in favor of sending it back to the committee, please raise your hand. All opposed raise your hand. It's not sent back to committee. The "no's" have it. We're back to the original. Is there anything new to add to the discussion? Are you ready for a vote on the advisory and consultative report? All those in favor of the report, signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: I think the aye's have it the first time, report passes. We move on to the second report from Faculty Benefits.

Faculty Salary Comparisons within Penn State and Other Universities

S. Diane Brannon: On this one I have some editorial changes. If you would turn to page two of Appendix "G," the first one is in the last column where it says "percentage change," and this is comparing Behrend, Capital and Great Valley--they have the one marked by them--and the other Commonwealth Education System. Because this was last's years data is why that's referred to. If you'll look under "Assistant Professor," it’s a minor change, but there was a miscalculation. Where it says 2.9 per year it actually should be 3.2, which I'm sure will make everybody feel better in terms of their increases. The other editorial change was just the words "Recommendation One" and "Recommendation Two" should be added at the bottom, where the two sentences say "one" and "two," and if you would also strike the last two words in the first recommendation and put the period after CES, that sentence will be the way it was intended.

Chair Geschwindner: Any comments or questions on this report?

Edward W. Bittner: Are we talking Appendix "G"?

Chair Geschwindner: Yes.

Edward W. Bittner: Table 4 please. "Table for average salaries of instructional faculty," under "Professor" there's two columns 1993-94 and '96-97. There's also "associate professor" on the back page, it's "assistant" and "instructor". Additionally, I do believe the report said particularly--I notice the difference in the current professor salary between Penn State University Park, Penn State Behrend, Capital and Great Valley, Penn State Commonwealth Campuses--there is a great disparity there, but the more important thing is the disparity as far as numbers go. If you look at the total in table 4 in the 1996-97 table, if you sum up the number of Penn State University Park faculty in 1523 with 636 being full professors, that's 41 percent. At Behrend, Capital and Great Valley it's 15 percent, and at the Commonwealth Campuses that percentage of professors is 10.6 percent. I only point this out because, if you go back and look at 1993-94 those percentages are within one percentage point, and what I'm trying to say is that the numbers are disproportionate in the professor levels across the system and there are reasons for that. At some time the administrators can hear these and maybe attempt to do something about it and improve the ranks at locations other than University Park.

Charles D. Ghilani, Wilkes-Barre Campus: Your recommendations are asking that we look at both full professors and assistant professors at the commonwealth campuses. When looking at the table 4, it appears that raising the assistant professors and full professors will create a problem with the associate professors salaries. I recommend that item 1 be changed to consider for enhanced salaries in the commonwealth system.

S. Diane Brannon: Yes, the first phrase does say, "while all ranks should be considered," but I understand the compression problem.

Chair Geschwindner: All those in favor of the report signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. The report passes. Thank you very much. Moving right along, we next move to the Outreach Committee. I promised Craig that he could go to his class and he certainly had the opportunity. Craig Bernecker is here to present the outreach report.



Faculty Involvement in the World Campus

Jacob De Rooy, Chair

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair

Craig A. Bernecker, College of Engineering: I was expecting to be late, but obviously that's not the case. This is an advisory/consultative report being brought to you by two committees. The Senate Committee on Outreach Activities and the Senate Committee on University Planning. It was prepared by a joint subcommittee of those two committees, and then presented to each of the committees and approved by them individually to be brought to the Senate. At the beginning of this academic year, the officers of the Senate charged the Outreach Activities Committee with monitoring the World Campus activities particularly from the perspective of faculty involvement, and this report is an outgrowth of that monitoring. It is specifically a follow-up report to the March 3 informational report. I trust that you've read that, and hopefully you've read the recommendations here. They come out to some degree from that particular report. We have in our monitoring looked at a wealth of information about the World Campus. We've been connected to several committees--the World Campus Steering Committee and other committees--we've reviewed a number of reports that have come out over the last two years, and our purpose in this particular report is not to revisit the discussions that are behind those reports but to pick out in particular the principles and concepts that we believe are important to be reinforced from a faculty perspective. There are seven recommendations, if I can try to categorize them for you. The first is an endorsement of the overall concept of the World Campus. We believe it is an important enough initiative to the university community that the faculty lend their weight to that initiative. Secondly, another grouping is to endorse certain principles--recommendations two, three and seven basically address those--one of those is on-load and revenue sharing. Another is that responsibility for courses and programs reside with the academic units, and the final one is promoting the notion that we continue to foster through our World Campus activities an identity of the students belonging to a campus like Penn State, and also that we avoid competition with our World Campus programs with respect to our resident programs. And finally, the third grouping of the recommendations is a series of suggestions for implementation addressing issues such as non-credit courses and programs and the processing and review of those, coming up with more formal definitions or consistent definitions of programs, and thirdly the classification of students. The Outreach Activities Committee will continue to monitor the World Campus activities and bring status reports back to you, and with that as an introduction I'll take any questions that you might have.

Chair Geschwindner: Any comments or questions? All those in favor of the report, signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you very much. We next move to Student Life Committee. Jean Landa Pytel will present the report Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol Abuse, Appendix "I".


Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol Abuse

Jean Landa Pytel, Chair

Jean Landa Pytel: Thanks, Lou. This report brings to an end the series of reports presented by the Senate Committee on Student Life on the extent of problems related to alcohol abuse. In spite of our increased awareness and sensitivity to the problem, the latest Pulse Survey indicates that the problems associated with excessive consumption of alcohol are still very much with us. We hope that by adopting the suggestions presented in the report, the university community will make clear its commitment to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the educational environment of the students and to hold individuals accountable for the consequences of their behavior. As indicated in the report, these suggestions are not intended to be final but part of an ongoing search for improving ways of delivering the message and affecting behavior. Now, in front of you is the report, and I made some slight modifications in the wording that you were given in the door handout in terms of making clear that this is one recommendation, and the points that are made below are part of the one recommendation. they are not separate recommendations.

Chair Geschwindner: You had a door handout, and the recommendation that's being made is, "we recommend the following actions be taken by the faculty and appropriate university units". Followed by "A: Faculty Actions" and "B: General Actions." Any comments or questions on the report?

David Kayal: As was said earlier today, accountability and responsibility are really given more meaning. If you recall, I believe it was almost a year ago when we were discussing the original resolution, which took at least a couple of meetings to pass and a lot of tampering with to get one simple paragraph to say that the faculty should play a role in influencing student behavior by eliminating practices that the committee certainly does not condone. A lot of what I've learned in the past couple years being here is that being a student, it is your responsibility to be responsible for your actions. It's said again by the faculty, and I think some of you may support me on this that this advisory/consultative report is saying that students aren't being responsible for their actions, generalizing that all of the students at Penn State aren't being responsible for their actions when really there's only a small group of students that may have trouble with alcohol abuse. Now there are some excellent recommendations here, but there are three that I have major problems with, such as number two, "Work is to be expected from students on a regular basis". Now this would change the way many classes that I take are given. Most of my classes are made up of just three or four exams, not homework to be given every single week like in high school. Number three I also have a problem with, "Every weekday is to be used as a potential test day for in-class tests as well as evening exams." Well, on another subject I don't like getting exams to begin with, but to say that it would be possible for us to have exams on Friday--and I don't think either faculty or students would want that--even though we may be going out to certain bars in the area, I don't think we need to recommend to the administration that there should be some type of action taken to have tests on every day of the week. Under general actions, "Make sanctions significant and meaningful when alcohol is a factor in violations of policies and standards". I think whenever a law is broken or a person is disobedient, whether they're angry and emotional or whether they're under the influence of some type of substance, under every circumstance they should be held to significant and equal sanctions, and to say that there should be higher sanctions or greater sanctions imposed on people who disobey the law or bad citizens in general, I don't know if we should be saying that. I think we should be saying that everybody should be accountable at all times. Would it be right to say I would like to make a motion to amend these three?

Chair Geschwindner: You certainly can, but I don't know whether it would be right to do it or not, but that's what we're going to find out.

David Kayal: Well, it’s a pretty large change. It would eliminate a few of these lines that will not take away from the overall spirit of what we are sending the administration. We will still be sending a report to our administration that clearly will say that students are expected to be accountable for their actions. I would like to eliminate number two, number three, and number two under "General Actions" on this report.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, it's been moved to remove under "A: Faculty Actions" number two and number three and under "B: General Actions," number two. Is there a second? It's been seconded.

R. Scott Kretchmar: I think the spirit of Recommendation two is that work is to be expected meaning that we not necessarily turn in work. Number three "every weekday is to be used as a potential test day…" I interpret that to mean that learning occurs and can occur through the normal week and accountability for learning i.e., testing can occur at normal kinds of times, not picking on Friday evening and so forth, so I think that's a misinterpretation. The spirit of it is that learning is important and testing can occur at prudent reasonable times. Then, the number two under "General" I think means to report about alcohol and wasn't meant to single that out for unusually harsh punishments, that other crimes don't matter. This is legislation about alcohol. If it were about other things, I think there might be similar comments to those.

Wayne R. Curtis: When I read the first set of Faculty Actions, my concern was I, certainly, as a faculty member, would not endorse saying I'm going to have pop quizzes because I don't want you to go out drinking on the weekends, if only because of the repercussions on SRTE, but that's not really my concern. My concern is really there are a lot of students on very tight schedules, students with families who work and so forth, and to imply that this, in the context it's bringing, I think it does categorize all students to a certain extent as not being responsible from that standpoint. Why, for instance, in this can't there be suggestions for discouraging alcohol abuse? I certainly go over my expectations of the course, that's a requirement already. Putting it in here specifically for alcohol abuse doesn't seem to mesh very well.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, we want to speak to the amendment which is to drop two, three and two. Any additional comments on that?

John W. Baer, Student Senator, York Campus: I have to agree with the last statement that number two and three especially under Faculty Actions, "work is to be expected from students on a regular basis." Work is already expected from us on a regular basis, so what this is trying to say is that you're not going to be expected to do some of your work. We are expected to work on a regular basis. What is this, now we'll be expected to do it… Two and three, I don't see them changing anything, especially every weekday as a potential test day? Every professor I have uses every day as a potential test day. Putting this in a report about alcohol, I don't see how that would change anything at all.

Jean Landa Pytel: This is sort of a follow up to that particular resolution. Where we resolved to avoid behaviors that seem to condone or encourage consumption at inappropriate times to inappropriate levels, here are just a couple of suggestions as to what faculty can do not to give the appearance of condoning inappropriate behavior at inappropriate times. I think that it's not meant to be the law, it’s a suggestion. Faculty will teach their courses and give their tests whenever, but this is a reminder that trying to adjust the academic schedule to students' partying patterns is not necessarily needed or encouraged. If they're looking for suggestions or ways that they could sort of follow through on the resolutions, here are a couple.

Peter Deines: I have a question for clarification. This will eventually go to the Provost's office for implementation?

Chair Geschwindner: This is advisory/consultative, yes, so it will be passed on to the administration, and they will decide whether to send it to John Cahir.

Peter Deines: So my questions concerns point number five. Are we, in essence, redefining, in part the first-year seminar?

Jean Landa Pytel: No, this is "as appropriate".

Senator: Point of order. That's not in the motion that's on the floor.

Chair Geschwindner: You're right. So let's concentrate on the amendment to remove those three items. Any further discussion on those?

Julie Cain, Student Senator, Penn State Erie - The Behrend College: I really would like to commend this committee. I can see that all their recommended actions are as well thought out as the general actions. I'd like to speak in favor of one, two and three in the recommended actions and number two in the general actions, and even the number one under faculty actions. I would really appreciate my faculty member at the beginning of the semester standing up and saying, "You are expected to be in class, a Friday morning 8:00 a.m. class, and it won't be tolerated because you have a hangover."

Chair Geschwindner: Are you ready for a vote on the amendment?

Robert G. Price: First, I have some worries about "B2". What this means is that is it one sanction if they are using alcohol the same sobriety test. Is there some way to separate them?

Jean Landa Pytel: No, that wasn't necessarily the intent. It was really not to use the fact that someone was under the influence of alcohol as an excuse for inappropriate activities.

Robert G. Price: You could say that. Will you accept that as a friendly amendment?

Jean Landa Pytel: Could you spell it out then, Bob?

Senator: Point of order, that's not in this motion.

Chair Geschwindner: Well he is talking about "B2" as to whether we keep it or we don't.

Robert G. Price: The use of alcohol is a factor when violations of policies and you shall not constitute an excuse for inappropriate behavior.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, so we can address that if we decide to keep it. I think we're ready for a vote on whether we keep "A2, 3" and "B2". All those in favor of the amendment, which is to remove A2, 3 and B2 from the report, signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay the amendment is defeated. We're back to the full advisory/consultative report. Do we have any additional comments?

Jean Landa Pytel: Bob had a friendly amendment I believe.

Chair Geschwindner: Do you want to tell us what that is?

Jean Landa Pytel: I think that it sounds reasonable.

Robert G. Price: Do you still need it?

Chair Geschwindner: Yes, we definitely need it.

Robert G. Price: Something like the words, "when alcohol is a factor…the use of alcohol in violating policies and standards shall not constitute an excuse."

Chair Geschwindner: Jean, do you want to determine what this is?

Jean Landa Pytel: As a friendly amendment?

Chair Geschwindner: Yes, we've got to know exactly.

Jean Landa Pytel: Yes, I'll take that as a friendly amendment.

Chair Geschwindner: "When the use of alcohol is a factor in violations of policies and standards it shall not be taken as an excuse." Does that say…?

Senator: That does not in fact say whether we intend or not.

Chair Geschwindner: That's right.

Jean Landa Pytel: It's getting a little too complicated. So I think I'd rather just leave it as it is and we'll vote it up or down.

Chair Geschwindner: Something new to add, Dave?

David Kayal: I just want to add, do not take this lightly as just…as you said, it is not law, but this will be sending a very strong message to the university community and the surrounding community and possibly other communities around the nation. All I'm saying is, this will be reported on and looked at, and if we're just taking this lightly…

Chair Geschwindner: Rest assured that if the Senate votes to pass it, it will not be taking it lightly. I think we're ready for the question. All those in favor signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Report passes. Thank you very much. We move on to the second report from Student Life.

Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State Locations

Jean Landa Pytel: This is a report on the Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State locations. The Committee on Student Life is bringing this report to the Faculty Senate in order to allow the Faculty Senate to affirm its commitment to the principles and philosophy of student affair programs. Through this affirmation the faculty recognizes the contribution of student affairs to the educational experience of students on any of the university campuses. It is important to emphasize that all students pay virtually the same tuition and have very similar expectations of the services and programs that should be made available to them by student affairs, regardless of location. In times of limited resources, it's important that the faculty acknowledge the role of student affairs and provide as much support as possible for their students out-of-class opportunities and services. Also, with the door handout a little modification in the way the wording is in terms of the recommendations. This is one recommendation that includes all the parts.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, does everybody understand from the door handout that it is one recommendation? We recommend that each campus allocate resources to meet the following basic student services followed by: A-Student Life, B-Counseling, C-Health Services, D-Special Programs, E-Administrative Functions and F-Other (Where Appropriate).

Dwight Davis: How far along are the major changes with respect to student services or is this in line with what most locations are already doing?

Jean Landa Pytel: Most locations have most of the programs but not all.

Dwight Davis: The impact would be minor?

Jean Landa Pytel: On some locations it may be a little bit more major. It depends on what they've got. In some places, they don't even have first aid kind of facilities or aren't known to the students that they are acceptable and that kind of stuff.

John W. Baer: I know some campuses complain that there is no mental health counseling. Some of the same campuses just say that they not only don't have that, they have no first aid, no nurse. Residence campuses usually seem to have a nurse on them, but campuses that don't have residence halls usually don't have a nurse. I'd like to actually ask a question speaking to that. Under "C-Health Services and Health Education," one of the bullets is "Emergency medical services on a 24-hour basis." Now that possibly should be moved down to Additional Health Service Requirements, because I know campuses such as mine and many of the other commuter campuses, there is nobody there 24-hours a day. Twenty-four hour help is not actually what it means. Something along the lines of, "when the campus is open," but like at York there's no one on campus from midnight to eight in the morning, so 24-hour set up wouldn't be needed. First, I'd like to commend the Committee on Student Life on this. CCSG and the commonwealth campuses have been fighting for something like this for a long time. Just some minor changes, along with the registered nurse, there are some campuses such as at York where a registered nurse would be nice. But there are other things such as in "Career Development and Placement," I'd love to see a line added about advising, because the number one complaint I get from students is about location testing and about opportunities. An actual advising center that they can get advising at any time would be something that they would certainly be interested in.

Jean Landa Pytel: We considered…advising we decided was an academic issue, and it was part of the undergraduate education mission and is recently in an advising report, and so we really didn't think that it fell under the student affairs part of the recommendation. It is an academic issue and it should be coming under undergraduate education, and it's not to say that it's not important or that we don't value it, but we didn't really think it was part of this particular report that sort of talked about the out of class experience and facilities and resources, where we consider really advising an extension of the classroom.

C. Michael Comiskey: I can't resist the opportunity to comment on say part of the report page three, C, number one. The first bullet is "Medical services provided by a Registered Nurse." At Fayette we used to have a registered nurse but don't any more because we don't have any way to pay her. Now, I don't know what to say maybe this is more of a protest than a question. We all have our share of the problems brought by budget cuts. But at the Fayette Campus and other campuses we don't have the money for a nurse any more. So I find fear that this will come down as a requirement, and we won't have the money to do it.

Jean Landa Pytel: If I may direct your attention to the sentence right above. It says, "At a minimum, the following services need to be provided by all locations either on site or through an established referral system." We recognize that sometimes it's just not possible, but then there ought to be a system that's well known to everyone. If you need attention, how to go about getting it, where is it, where do you get it.

C. Michael Comiskey: What good does it do you to get referral to a nurse if you're having a heart attack and you're referred to a nurse?

Susan C. Youtz, College of Health and Human Development: Jean, this is really a comprehensive report and your committee deserves a lot of credit for putting it together. I'm concerned that a lot of your recommendations have major financial implications, as the Senator from Fayette just noted. And so what have you or other members of your committee done to have the recommendations costed out?

Jean Landa Pytel: Well, we recognize that in many locations there's absolutely going to be no change and no need for a change because they will be in compliance, so to speak, with these recommendations. The others, if you notice the way we worded the recommendations is, we recommend that each campus allocate resources to meet the following basic services, and we also recognize that their allocations and the resources vary and the needs vary. In the preamble there we know that the resources vary. We thought about the costing, but it's impossible. It might cost some and it depends on what campus, what has to be done, where they are, what their needs are and whether or not they have to add any more or whatever. But there has to be some sort of commitment that this is what they want to do, and this is really what we're asking in this that there be some commitment. If reallocation of resources has to be made, that perhaps it is worthwhile, because we note also in this report that providing sufficient student services for students has a great deal of impact on the recruitment and retention ability of these locations, and so it really may not--it was pointed out in our meeting this morning that it may not really be that much of an additional expense, if the return for a little bit of extra expenditure may be quite a great increase in number of students. So it was really an impossible measure and value to come up with.

Susan C. Youtz: I'm concerned that if the Senate supports these recommendations and forwards them to the president for his acceptance, shouldn't we have some costing-out figures attached to demonstrate, for example, what the cost for a registered nurse at the Fayette Campus would be?

Jean Landa Pytel: Well, I'm not saying we ought to have…the other thing is that we didn't say we have to have a nurse at the Fayette campus. If you can't have a nurse on the campus, then you better have a way of referring someone to an appropriate resource.

Dennis S. Gouran: Legislative reports require costing. This is an advisory/consultative report. If we spend time considering the differential cost of delivering this service to each campus, we are going to be here until midnight.

David P. Christy, Smeal College of Business Administration: I believe that this recommendation is removing a lot of discretion from the campus CEO's. Each CEO has a budget and has to make decisions about how to allocate those monies at that particular campus to best meet the needs of the students it's trying to serve. While its plausible to provide this entire medical service at every location, if push came to shove and the decision has to be made between offering this complete menu of services at a location or ceasing all operations at that location, perhaps it could be possible that a relatively small campus would be better served by staying open and doing the best with what they have.

Jean Landa Pytel: Let me talk about that. I think that's been the problem in the past. That the CEO's have had far to much discretion in controlling the resources and the services that are available to the students. And that's one of the reasons why we're presenting this report, precisely for that.

Charles F. Gunderman: I guess I'm just disagreeing with the process. I know that at DuBois you may remember years ago we had an enhancement fund. I gave a report on the use or misuse by CEO's and administration of that enhancement fund. This report is again coming back and hopefully going to stimulate the administration to provide adequate services for the students on commonwealth campuses. They make up about half of the student body I believe. That's a significant number and then to say we're going to close a campus--we're short changing those students. You've heard from the students that are directly involved in it. The real word is just advisory. It's there in a report saying these services are provided at some campuses, they should be available at all campuses. They're paying the same tuition, why aren't they there? Let the administration look at it, work out the problems and provide equal services for all locations, not just a few where a CEO may think it's great and another says, "we don't need a nurse here, we'd rather do this".

Chair Geschwindner: John do you have something new to add?

John W. Baer: I think that it should also be noted that this speaks farther than that. As for the CEO portion, there was a CEO about ten years ago a few of the students were saying was buying flowers for one of the campuses. I think that's exactly why I think we need these regulations. It goes even farther when it comes to retention and recruitment. Students around both my campus and other campuses--CCSG also did a study that showed that a student would be paying $1010 at a local community college, getting all of these services that are mentioned here, and their credits would all transfer to Penn State, whereas at a commonwealth campus you're paying 2 1/2 times what that student pays in tuition and not getting the services. As one other campus mentioned, yes, we are exactly split down the middle now: half the students are at the commonwealth campuses, half here at University Park.

Dennis S. Gouran: Is there anyone here that really thinks this is a bad idea to give the same kind of services?

Chair Geschwindner: I think we've had sufficient discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying, "aye".

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign.

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you very much. That is not an indication that you should all leave. We do now move on to some very important informational reports. John Bagby is here to present two reports from the General Education Implementation Committee.



Guidelines for General Education Reform 1998 Knowledge Domains

John W. Bagby, Chair

John W. Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration: Thank you for staying to this late hour. I am chair of the General Education Implementation Committee GEIC, or "geek," for short. As you know, chairs often cajole and organize and defuse, and today I'd like to be a messenger. I'd like to just be the messenger, and that messenger status is a dual directional one. We're very serious. There are several members of the implementation committee still seated here as well today. We're very interested in your comments about the interim guidance that has gone out to the university community so far, and please recognize that we have just started in that process and are trying to give you some early ideas of the direction we'd like to take.

A couple of changes and clarifications that were agreed upon by the Senate leadership just last night. If you would take a look at Appendix "K" please. On the first page of the Knowledge Domain document, a clarification seems in order somewhere around the bottom of the page, General Guideline #1, and that is that units should plan their general education course revisions and new general education course proposals and do that in any order that they see fit. The most important thing is that it best suits their overall plan. That was a clarification. I hope it served as such.

Take a look at Appendix "L." That's our second document today. On the first page, this is the First-Year Seminar document, and under Roman numeral II, sub three, the dashed parenthetical "other than skill courses". That is to be deleted. This is on Appendix "L," and we are under Roman numeral II, number three, the dashed, set-off parenthetical that reads "other than skills courses" should be deleted. Is that clear?

Finally, a third clarification on the second page of Appendix "L" under Roman numeral III, after the first sentence. The point here we're trying to make is that freshman seminars may be offered by departments or programs or colleges. We're not trying to say that they must be offered by any particular unit or sub unit, but only that each college has the responsibility to develop and integrate its plan for all of its courses including first-year seminars.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: So, what exactly do you add in there?

John W. Bagby: There was no addition on either of my clarifications. To restate, then, this latest one in "L" is simply to indicate that units may decide that their first-year seminars are offered at the department or the program or the college level. Some people had read this statement and thought that it meant that only colleges could offer them. I want to defuse that misimpression.

I realize there's not much time left today, and there's probably a lot of interest in making a lot of statements about this. Again, I would like for all of us, all the GEICs present, will be taking careful notes on the comments you have about the implementability of the interim and provisional guidelines that we're putting forth. Your comments are very important to us, and if we don't get to all of them today, please feel free to use email and snail mail and place your thoughts in a coherent and helpful fashion. Focus through the Senate Office only and direct them to the Implementation Committee. At this time I think we have some people who asked for the privilege of the floor.

Chair Geschwindner: These are two reports. We want to talk about them one at a time to the extent that we want to talk about them. Remember, they're informational reports and so the committee will be happy to hear from you either today in the limited time that we have available or by email, and they will be working on these over the summer, and these are interim guidelines. They will be coming back in September so that there will be time between now and then to have some input. So let's first concentrate on Appendix "K" which is the Guidelines for General Education in the Knowledge Domains. Do we have any comments on that?

Peter C. Jurs: John, as you know a number of faculty from the College of Science have been in touch with this committee individually and as a group. We agreed that one of us would stand up at the Senate meeting and put on the record formally that we in the College of Science have a number of problems with these preliminary recommendations as stated. We would like the opportunity to work out some compromises and negotiations with the committee so that these five active learning elements can be mapped onto our very successful general education courses in the College of Science. If these five active learning elements were applied to our courses exactly as written here, we would have a serious problem. So what I want to do now is formalize out intention to participate in the process, as I said I would.

John W. Bagby: Thank you, Peter, and my formal acknowledgement that we have started these discussions and that we are open to your input.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments or questions on Appendix "K"?

John M. Lilley: I'm assuming given the freshman seminars that all of the colleges-- at the university, University Park college, and campus colleges we will be allowed to propose seminars for our colleges which is not in the usual norm. Usually we use University Park courses to fulfill these freshman/sophomore years. Only for the freshman seminars will we be able to develop our own college courses and submit them to you like any other college. Is that a correct understanding?

John W. Bagby: I know no reason to suspect that you may not initiate course proposals on your own at the campuses.

Chair Geschwindner: Let me remind the Senators we’re talking about "K," which is the knowledge domains.

John M. Lilley: I thought I was?

Chair Geschwindner: No, that's "L," the freshman seminar. Back up a couple of pages.

Donald E. Fahnline: I would be more comfortable if you had called this an interim report within the report in the same way that the next report on the first-year seminar specifically indicates that it is an interim report.

John W. Bagby: And if this was legislation, I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

Chair Geschwindner: The chair of the Senate introduced these as interim. They are interim. It's on the record that they are interim, so we don't need to worry about that part of it. They are interim. The record will show that.

David P. Christy: I've got some concerns about the knowledge domains and its five active learning elements. I applaud this concept, but the reality of much of general education at University Park is that it is delivered in large lecture halls where we're going to have some serious difficulties incorporating these five knowledge domains. I think that it's imperative that we examine how some general education courses could possibly meet some but not all knowledge domains.

Chair Geschwindner: It's important to point out to all of you that you've already voted on those knowledge domains when you voted on the general education report. That was the time to discuss whether or not they could be included in the science courses or the business course or anything else. This part of this report is taken from the general education legislative report, and so the implementation is the general guidelines below that. It's very important to the consideration. Now, I know the committee has indicated a willingness to work with sciences, and I'm sure they'll work with business also. But we have to be careful that we look at what is the legislative report that we passed and what is up for discussion in terms of implementation.

John W. Bagby: As a further comment on that: CELT and several other groups are working as we speak on some kind of assistance to help those units who are proposing courses and re-certifications of existing courses where there are size or other subject matter difficulties in achieving many of the aspects of the general education requirements, including the knowledge domain and other aspects. So helps a-comin'.

Chair Geschwindner: I'd like to move on to "L" and see if there are any comments on "L". John, you already made that one. Are you going to talk about "K" now?

Implementation of the First-Year Seminar

John M. Lilley: There's been lots of talk about faculty being qualified to do the freshman seminars, and I'm very concerned about your current language, and what I would just like to tell you is what would be very helpful to us is a combination. Rather than saying being offered by tenure-line faculty, you could say they would be offered by full time faculty. We've had a lot of very talented faculty who've taught over the years who are senior lecturers who write papers and do all sorts of things--wonderful faculty--and to arbitrarily exclude them seems to me fiscally unwise, and it's not fair. We also have some affiliate faculty on our student affairs staff who have Ph.Ds, who are very talented people and do seminars of the sort that we have been talking about with the freshman seminar that should apply to healthy living, lots of things like that. So I would like for it to say full-time faculty and affiliate faculty with demonstrated competence.

Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus: I agree with that. I simply take the stance that we need to--in any version of this--make the language clear that indicates that the intent of the legislation was that faculty may not be hired off the street on a part-time or a full time basis simply to cover these freshman seminars. I think the original legislation said "regular full-time" faculty, and I would argue that could be strengthened to say "existing" regular full-time faculty.

Chair Geschwindner: We don't need to write it here. We can let the committee get the details…

Bill Ellis: I understand, but that is why campuses need to make their position clear to the committee.

Tramble T. Turner: Again, on that point, I support what was said about the impact on campus space resources. Part of the context when the Gen Ed committee was doing our work on that point was a very, very long discussion and an understanding from many of us on the committee by the end was that the wording was not to exclude continuing faculty. That happened and we'd like the implementation committee to be charged to reconsider that point. On another point that I would ask you to reconsider would be the timing for the First Year Seminar. Here I believe what the implementation committee received was a recommendation that the requirement be open for the first three semesters. Especially if we're going forward with new degree initiatives some possibilities for flexibility are needed and the last point would be that the implementation committee again consider the statement that the seminars be limited to twenty students. Not just at University Park but at other locations there may be options.

Chair Geschwindner: I'd like to take just two more comments.

Arthur C. Miller, College of Engineering: Is the 20 enrollment, is that actually set?

John W. Bagby: I take it to mean is it set in stone now, is it unmovable? I think you should recognize that we are getting a tremendous amount of pressure from a lot of places on moving that number. I think there's no question that we will continue to consider that number.

Arthur C. Miller: Would you ever move it to 30, 40, 50, 60?

John W. Bagby: I decline to answer that.

David Kayal: Real quickly, I just want to reiterate the point I'm making is that three semesters…or by changing the language currently there, you'd be changing the spirit that I believe we all thought it was going to be that tenure line faculty, if not senior faculty teaching these classes and I would definitely be against anything other than what's already written in this.

Mark H. Munn, College of the Liberal Arts: Well, I want to speak about the issue of tenure-line faculty as well, but to the opposite effect. I think that the issue of tenure-line is a code for high quality teaching, and all of the recommendations seem to be looking for other ways of expressing what constitutes high quality teaching. Is it full-time versus part-time, tenure-line or otherwise? I can think of part time teachers who are high quality, have demonstrated high quality, who teach courses that are ideally for small special freshman seminars and I would hate to see that category excluded simply based on the language that's chosen here. If we can be clear about what it is that we are seeking to provide students in the way of high-quality teaching, we should define that rather than use "tenure-line faculty" as a label that supposedly defines what constitutes high-quality teaching.

Chair Geschwindner: About three questions ago, I said I'd take one more. I think, if you will permit me, there will be plenty of opportunity through email and communication to this committee for you to get additional input. I'd like to suggest that we move forward with our next report. I encourage you and your colleagues to get your input to the committee, either through John directly or through the Senate Office, so that as that committee continues to work this summer, they will have the opportunity to react to your concerns. Thank you very much, John.

John W. Bagby: Thank you, Lou. I'll just underscore again, we would like to hear from you. Thank you.

Chair Geschwindner: We next move on to University Planning, Status of Construction Projects, and Shelton Alexander is here.


Status of Construction Projects

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair

Shelton S. Alexander: Next year we'll have an administrative/consultative report and change the name of our committee to the Advanced University Planning Committee so we can move up on the agenda. In any case, the construction report is presented in Appendix "M," and I think it's self explanatory. If you want more details, the Senate or Bill Anderson directly can supply those. It really is an update; it's one of the mandatory reports we do; it's an update on the status of construction. You know there's lots and lots going on, and we could be here yet longer if we went into those in detail. With that, I'll ask if there are any questions?

Chair Geschwindner: Are there any questions on the construction report? Seeing none, we'll move on to the Academic Calendar Changes Status Report.

Academic Calendar Changes--A Status Report

Shelton S. Alexander: Appendix "N" has the short description of the calendar activities, and these really come down to two categories--one is short-term things. About one year ago we came forward with a recommendation to change the schedule for the Thanksgiving break to recess at noon on the Wednesday before. That was ultimately put into place, and then at the same time our committee internally agreed that we would try to do some sort of assessment of that, and that was carried out after the break. What's written here is in part a summary of that digest from that report. Again, I think it speaks for itself, and I won't iterate through all of the conclusions there, but suffice to say that there was a little bit of an effect that students left earlier, some on Wednesday morning and some on Tuesday. Very few took the whole week off. One of the things, though, that I think is very significant coming out of that is the fact that faculty behavior is a contributor to this early departure, and we at least have anecdotal evidence that faculty members cancel their class. We don't know how many made it up some other way, but in any case whether they're made up or not the fact that a lot of faculty cancel classes sort of exacerbates the problem. We do have a concern about that and will make a recommendation to the Senate that--whether the classes are made up or not--that should be discouraged. The other issue short-term is to change the commencement from Sunday to Saturday at the end of the fall because there were a number of complaints that--this being so close to Christmas--that there were a lot of church activities and so forth on Sunday, and that should be moved to Saturday, and we know that technically that is not a problem. We recommended that be done, but so far the formal action to do that for this fall has not materialized, but we think it probably will. Third short-term is the petition received by the administration from a large number of students requesting a fall break be instituted, and we believe that should have serious consideration, but this came along in the spring, so it's not feasible really to try and even if approved to implement a fall break before 1999. That will be subject to further discussion and deliberations by the Ad-Hoc Calendar Committee as well as this committee, and that will come up through the Senate next year. In the long-term, again, the Ad-Hoc Calendar Committee has been looking at calendar issues, and some of them long-term, and it comes down to what sort of changes make sense, and in light of technological advances like Internet and the World Campus and other sort of learning paradigms that have come before and are coming before us. And the question is, ultimately, does the standard calendar as it's been implemented and followed make sense or should there be more flexibility. Not necessarily abandoning the calendar, but I think there's some sentiment for looking at additional flexibilities that can be introduced without disrupting the whole system. That ad-hoc committee will be continuing that deliberation, and I think one way or another the recommendations will come forward early next year concerning any significant long-term changes. So, that's about it…

Chair Geschwindner: Are there any questions?

David P. Christy: Are there likely to be exams on Saturday during fall semester, moving graduation to Saturday instead of Sunday?

Shelton S. Alexander: I checked with the Registrar, and he says that's not a problem.

John M. Lilley: It might be a problem here.

Shelton S. Alexander: But this is where complaints were arising. People had to travel significant distances to get to University Park.

David P. Christy: I understand, but I was wondering if it does indeed alter the examination schedules. The faculty were warned not to give exams early enough to move from last year's schedule. It's kind of contradictory. There are indeed a lot of complaints about a Sunday graduation if this is a sizeable number of people. Certainly that might take precedence, but if it's a small number of people I question whether or not the changes are worth it.

Chair Geschwindner: Keep in mind this is an informational report, that the recommendation has been made…

Shelton S. Alexander: I would be glad to verify that. I relied mainly on Jim Wager's assertion that that Saturday change was possible, and other things in terms of the university infrastructure that would be affected. Possibly…

Chair Geschwindner: I think John Romano has an answer for us, Shel.

John J. Romano, Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and Administration: The Registrar reviewed this and decided that it was possible to make this change so that it would not be in conflict with any scheduling of final exams on Saturday.

Shelton S. Alexander: Just so there isn't a logical inconsistency here, there may be one, but the fact is that it’s a commencement not a graduation. So a person takes an exam and then walks up on the podium to be recognized.

Chair Geschwindner: Okay, we're going to move on to the Report of the Senate Elections. Again, if there's additional information that needs to be transmitted to the University Planning Committee or questions, contact Shelton directly if you would. I'd like to call on Veronica Burns Lucas, Secretary to the Senate to report the results of the Senate elections.


Report of Senate Elections

Veronica Burns Lucas, Secretary, University Faculty Senate

Veronica Burns Lucas, College of Arts and Architecture: I'm reporting on the various elections that were conducted, and they're listed in order in the Agenda.

The first is the election for Senate Council. Charles H. Strauss, College of Agricultural Sciences; Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture; John Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration; Alan W. Scaroni, Earth and Mineral Sciences; Vincent N. Lunetta, College of Education; Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering; Deborah Kerstetter, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts; Peter C. Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Linda C. Friend, University Libraries, Combined Departments of Military Science, College of Communications, Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Great Valley Graduate Center; Brian B. Tormey, Altoona College; P. Peter Rebane, Abington College; Steven A. de Hart, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg; Alphonse Leure-duPree, Hershey Medical Center; Deidre E. Jago, The Commonwealth College; and Andrew B. Romberger, Berks-Lehigh Valley College. That will be the Senate Council for the new year.

Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules. Edward Bittner, Barton Browning, Caroline Eckhardt, Jamie Myers, and Nancy Wyatt are the five members elected to serve a two-year term. Diane Brannon and John Harwood were elected to serve a one-year term.

The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee: Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering, UP; Adam Sorkin, Liberal Arts, Commonwealth College, Delaware Campus; and Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine, Hershey Medical Center.

The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure: Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering, UP, Member; and Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP, Alternate.

For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we have three categories: Faculty from University Park: Gary Fosmire, College of Health and Human Development, Member; Edward Keynes, College of the Liberal Arts, Alternate.

Faculty Other than University Park: Linda Itzoe, Liberal Arts, Commonwealth College, York Campus, Member.

Deans: Nancy Eaton, University Libraries, Member; and Joseph Strasser, Commonwealth College, Alternate.

Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President: Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP.

For the office of Secretary of the Senate: Donald E. Fahnline, Science, Altoona College.

For Chair-Elect of the Senate: Murry R. Nelson, College of Education, UP.

Veronica Burns Lucas: Thank you, and I also want to make a personal note here and tell everyone I've very much been honored by serving you as secretary for two years. I have learned a great deal about the Senate and about the university, and I'm looking forward to joining you there.

Senators: Applause.


At this point, the script calls for comments by the outgoing chair. I have always wondered why the chair needed to make any particular comments at the end of the last meeting, especially one that has been as long as this one has, and I wrote this the other night. Some of you may know that one of my responsibilities at the university is the University Marshal with responsibility for the Graduate School commencements. I have attended many commencement ceremonies, and many of the commencement addresses presented at those ceremonies begin with the recognition that not much of what the speaker says will be remembered. Yet, they continue to attempt to make some comments that will be meaningful for the graduates and their friends and families in attendance. I'm going to skip all those pages, and where I tried to make all those important things--and I really did have some things there--and let me simply thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve you and all of Penn State. I appreciate that you have all stuck it out this long to deal with all of this information that we just didn't seem to get done before now.

Now, before I turn this podium over to Chair-elect Len Berkowitz, I would like to provide him with some advice that I have gained from one of this country's most famous philosophers. He says, and I quote, "I usually take a two hour nap, from 1 to 4," which of course leaves time for a one hour Senate meeting. He also suggests that you should "Never answer an anonymous letter," which of course is good advice for the Senate Chair. With all of the important issues that we have saved for consideration next year, this philosopher's admonition that, "The future ain’t what it used to be," is right on target for Len. His specific advice to Len is also quite on target, since Len will be doing a lot of traveling. Our philosopher suggests that, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it" and further asks, "Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel."

This brings us to the most famous of this philosopher's utterances, "It ain’t over till it’s over," and my term is over. So Len, let me present you with this recording of these and other sayings of the famous philosopher, Yogi Berra. My hope is that, as a fellow philosopher and expert with the one-liners, you may find some value in the advice he presents as you undertake the leadership of this body.

Senators: Applause.


Don't go away just yet. One good turn deserves another. It wasn't hard deciding what kind of a gift would be appropriate for Lou. You may open that now. Guess what it is?

Senators: A tie.

I don't know how you guessed that. It had to be a tie. The problem is finding a tie he didn't have. For a while I toyed with the idea of giving him a tie that was elegant and in good taste, then I said, "Nah, he'd never wear it." So I decided on a tie that would be an appropriate reminder of his tenure as Senate Chair, a tie with gavels on it! And the best thing about these gavels is they make no noise, no matter how hard he bangs them on a podium. So we can all keep on talking.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you very much. Your gavel's down there. I'm going to take mine.

You take yours. This is the place on the Agenda for remarks for the incoming Senate Chair; however, it has become traditional for the incoming Senate Chair to postpone those remarks until the next academic year. Since I've been threatened with grave bodily harm unless I follow that tradition, I shall do so. But before we adjourn the meeting I do have a couple things that do need to be done and do need to be said.

First I'm pleased and proud to be able to follow Lou into the office of Chair of the University Faculty Senate. This isn't the first time I've followed Lou into an office. Several years ago I followed him as Chair of the Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Last year I followed him to the office of Chair-Elect. In fact, before the meeting today Lou said if I followed him one more time he'd have me charged under Pennsylvania's anti-stalking laws. But Lou, I hope you'll forgive me if I make one more attempt to follow in your footsteps and use your leadership this year as a model for my year as Chair. Thank you for a job well done.

Senators: Applause.

Before we get to the part of the meeting you are all eagerly anticipating--adjournment--I have one more thing to add. Actually, first I'd like to call the new officers to the podium, Don Fahnline our new Secretary, and Murry Nelson our new Chair-Elect. While they are coming forward, I have one more thing I would like to do and that's to acknowledge the contributions over the past two years of our Senate Secretary, Veronica Burns Lucas.

Senators: Applause.

Veronica's perspectives and insights during her two terms as Secretary have represented the faculty very well. On a personal note, I don't know how many of you know this, but during the last year my wife and I built a house, and you don't know what fun it is traveling with an Architect and a Landscape Architect while you're building a house, and all the free advice you get after you've already made the decisions.

Veronica Burns Lucas: You just didn't get the bill yet.

As I recall hearing today, you can't put a price on faculty time, that's exactly what you will get. Thank you for all your help and advice. I'll miss you, and the Senate has been richer for your leadership.

Now, all I have left to do is get us out of here. On threat of bodily harm to you, is there any new legislative business?






May I have a motion to adjourn? The April 28, 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 5:52 PM.


 Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of April 17, 1998

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

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

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - Final Report (Legislative)

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

Faculty Benefits - College of Medicine Addendum: 1997 Report on Faculty Salary Equity by Gender (Advisory/Consultative)

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

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

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

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

General Education Implementation Committee - Implementation of the First-Year Seminar (Informational)

University Planning - Status of Construction Projects (Informational)

University Planning - Academic Calendar Changes--A Status Report (Informational)


The University Faculty Senate Calendar



August 11, 1998----------September 1, 1998----------September 15, 1998

September 22, 1998----------October 6, 1998----------October 27, 1998

November 3, 1998----------November 17, 1998----------December 8, 1998

December 15, 1998----------January 19, 1999----------February 2, 1999

February 5, 1999----------February 16, 1999----------March 2, 1999

March 5, 1999----------March 16, 1999----------March 30, 1999

April 2, 1999----------April 13, 1999----------April 27, 1999

The University Faculty Senate



Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Chair: Frank J. Kristine
Penn State Mont Alto
Vice-Chair: Renata S. Engel
245 Hammond Bldg.
Committees and Rules
Chair: Nancy J. Wyatt
Penn State Delaware
Vice-Chair: Caroline D. Eckhardt
N434 Burrowes Bldg.
Computing & Information Systems
Chair: David P. Christy
303 Beam Bldg.
Vice-Chair:Robert G. Crane
104 Deike Bldg.
Curricular Affairs
Chair: Peter Deines
207 Deike Bldg
Vice-Chair:Margaret M. Lyday
31 S Burrowes Bldg.
Faculty Affairs
Chair: Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Hershey Medical Center
Tramble T. Turner
Abington College
Faculty Benefits
Chair: Allen T. Phillips
208 South Frear
Vice-Chair: Jamie M. Myers
254 Chambers Bldg.
Intercollegiate Athletics
Chair: Charles E. Yesalis
114-G Henderson Bldg.
Vice-Chair: Harvey B. Manbeck

210 Ag. Engr. Bldg.
Intra-University Relations
Chair: James F. Smith
Abington College
Vice-Chair: Robert D. Ricketts
276 Rec Bldg.
Chair: Felix L. Lukezic
309 Buckhout Bldg.
Vice-Chair: Charles E. Bakis
227 Hammond Bldg.
Outreach Activities
Chair: Jacob De Rooy
Capital College - P. S. Harrisburg
Vice-Chair: Craig A. Bernecker
104 Engineering Unit A
Chair: Thomas N. Jackson
216 EEW
Vice-Chair: John F. Cardella
Hershey Medical Center
Student Life
Chair: Kenneth A. Thigpen
116 Burrowes Bldg.
Vice-Chair: Bill Ellis

Hazleton Campus
Undergraduate Education
Chair: Arthur C. Miller
220 Sackett Bldg
Vice-Chair: Steven F. Arnold
313 Thomas Bldg.
University Planning
Chair: Shelton S. Alexander
537 Deike Bldg.
Vice-Chair: Gordon F. De Jong
506 Oswald Tower


Standing Committee Assignments for the 1998/99 Senate Year

JoAnne Chirico 2000
Stephen E. Cyran 2000
Lynn E. Drafall 1999
Renata S. Engel, V-Chair 2000
Anna Griswold 1999
Geoffrey J. Harford 1999
Peter D. Georgopulos 1999
David J. Green 2000
William E. Haner 2000
Frank J. Kristine, Chair 1999
Robert B. Mitchell 2000
Helena Poch 1999
Barbara L. Power 2000
John J. Romano 1999
J. James Wager 1999
Adrian J. Wanner 2000
Ted Ziegenfus 2000
Thomas W. Abendroth 1999
Morad Askari 1999
J. Gary Augustson 1999
Jennifer A. Belzner 1999
David P. Christy, Chair 2000
Robert G. Crane, V-Chair 1999
Richard F. Dempsey 1999
Fred G. Fedok 2000
Terry P. Harrison 2000
George A. Lesieutre 1999
B. Tracy Nixon 2000
Terry J. Peavler 2000
Lawrence I. Sinoway 2000
Sam Slobounov 2000
John B. Urenko 1999
Jose A. Ventura 2000
Ronald Bettig 2000
Garry L. Burkle 1999
David Byman 2000
Peter Deines, Chair 1999
Richard B. Englund 2000
Gary J. Fosmire 2000
George W. Franz 1999
Gretchen Kline 1999
Donald E. Kunze 2000
Margaret M. Lyday, V-Chair 2000
J. Daniel Marshall 1999
Louisa J. Marshall 1999
Robert A. Novack 2000
Henry O. Patterson 2000
Judith Ozment Payne 2000
M. Susan Richman 1999
Howard Sachs 1999
Shelley M. Stoffels 2000
Jessica L. Stuart 1999
Roger P. Ware 2000
Diane Zabel 1999
Gregory R. Ziegler 1999
_________________ DAA Rep.
Syed Saad Andaleeb 2000
Albert A. Anderson 2000
James J. Beatty 2000
Christopher J. Bise 2000
Melvin Blumberg 2000
Veronica VannHala Burns2000
Wayne R. Curtis 2000
Rene D. Diehl 2000
James M. Donovan 1999
Dorothy H. Evensen 2000
Margaret B. Goldman 1999
Elizabeth A. Hanley 1999
Sabih I. Hayek 2000
Philip A. Klein 2000
Louis Milakofsky 1999
John S. Nichols 2000
Effy Oz 2000
Amy L. Paster 2000
Victor Romero 1999
Dennis C. Scanlon 2000
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair 2000
Robert Secor 1999
Valerie N. Stratton 1999
James B. Thomas 1999
Tramble T. Turner, V-Chair 1999
Keith K. Burkhart 2000
Thomas E. Daubert 1999
Gregory K. Farber 2000
Charles F. Gunderman 2000
Mehdi Khosrowpour 2000
Jamie M. Myers, V-Chair 2000
Mary E. Nicholson 1999
Timothy C. Ovaert 2000
Allen T. Phillips, Chair 2000
Gerhard F. Strasser 1999
Donna M. Testa 2000
William W. Asbury 1999
K. Robert Bridges 1999
John J. Cahir 1999
Lee D. Coraor 1999
John J. Coyle 1999
Timothy M. Curley 1999
Laurence M. Demers 1999
James T. Elder 1999
Tracy A. Frost 1999
Diana L. Kenepp 1999
Harvey B. Manbeck, V-Chair 2000
Ellen L. Perry 1999
John J. Romano 1999
Sandra R. Smith 2000
Christine A. White 2000
Thomas S. Whittam 2000
Jerry Wright 1999
Charles E. Yesalis, Chair 2000
_________________ Fac. Rep. all locations
2-year programs

Henry Abromson 1999
Deanna Barber 1999
J. Louis Campbell 2000
Dwight Davis 1999
Zachary T. Irwin 1999
M. Nabil Kallas 2000
John R. Lippert 1999
Salvatore A. Marsico 1999
Robert D. Minard 2000
Leslie A. Moller 2000
John W. Moore 1999
Michael Navin 1999
Robert N. Pangborn 1999
Robert G. Price 2000
David R. Richards 2000
Bob Ricketts, V-Chair 2000
Paula Romano 1999
Daniel J. Royse 2000
Karen W. Sandler 1999
Thomas A. Seybert 2000
James F. Smith, Chair 2000
Loanne L. Snavely 2000
Mark Wardell 1999
James S. Young 2000
John J. Zavodni 2000
___________________ Grad. Sch. Com. On
Programs & Courses
Arthur B. Abt 2000
James B. Anderson 2000
Elizabeth Billingsley 2000
Ralph H. Colby (R) 1999
Nancy Eaton 1999
Emily K. Freeman 2000
Bernie Hattjar 1999
Frieda M. Holt 2000
Felix L. Lukezic, Chair 1999
Bonnie J. MacEwan (R) 1999
Winston A. Richards 1999

Beno Weiss, V-Chair 1999
Theodore R. Alter 1999
Craig A. Bernecker, V-Chair 2000
John W. Black 1999
Cristin Conrad 1999
Jacob De Rooy, Chair 1999
John A. Ferriss 2000
Charles W. Hill 2000
Michael R. Laubscher 1999
Allen C. Meadors 1999
Dennis J. Murphy 1999
David E. Roth 2000
Gregory W. Roth 2000
James H. Ryan 1999
Joseph W. Sassani III 2000
Claudia N. Swan 2000
Richard N. Arteca 1999
Charles E. Bakis 1999
Guy F. Barbato 2000
Wenwu Cao 2000
John F. Cardella, V-Chair 1999
Rodney A. Erickson 1999
Thomas N. Jackson, Chair 2000
Ernest W. Johnson 1999
David K. Kelley 2000
John D. Kissick 2000
Robert LaPorte 2000
Mark H. Munn 1999
Lucia Rohrer-Murphy 1999
Jonathan Phillips 1999
Brady P. Smith 1999
Jane S. Sutton 1999
Arkady Tempelman 2000
Kristi L. Watterberg 2000
Susan Welch 1999
Lisa R. Williams 2000
__________________ Ch., Grad. Sch. Com.
on Programs & Courses
William W. Asbury 1999
Linda L. Caldwell 2000
Nathan Cline 1999
Josie Duckett 1999
Bill Ellis, V-Chair 1999
Joanna Floros 1999
Arthur E. Goldschmidt, Jr.2000
Catherine M. Harmonosky2000
Ronald L. McCarty 2000
Annette K. McGregor 2000
Joseph Puzycki 1999
Stephane A. Roy 1999
Kenneth A. Thigpen, Chair2000
Steven F. Arnold, V-Chair1999
James G. Brasseur 2000
Quincealea Brunk 2000
George J. Bugyi 1999
John J. Cahir 1999
Dennis D. Calvin 2000
Santa Casciani 2000
C. Michael Comiskey 2000
Terry Engelder 1999
Thomas A. Frank 2000
M. Margaret Galligan 2000
Gary L. Hile 1999
William C. Lasher 1999
Janet A. May 2000
Arthur C. Miller, Chair 1999
David J. Myers 2000
Deanna Puryear 1999
Eric R. White 1999
Ugur Yucelt 2000
Robert Zelis 2000
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair 2000
P. Richard Althouse 1999
Anthony J. Baratta 1999
William J. Anderson, Jr. 1999
Gordon F. De Jong, V-Chair 2000
William M. Frank 2000
Rodney Kirsch 1999
Larry Kuhns 2000
Kevin Gleeson 2000
Philip Masters 2000
Jeffrey S. Mayer 2000
Rajen Mookerjee 2000
Richard C. Pees 2000
Deborah Preston 2000
Robert D. Richards 2000
Louise E. Sandmeyer 1999
Michael C. Saunders 2000
Donald Schneider 1999
John Swisher 1999
Jeffrey R. Tranell 1999
Linda K. Trevino 2000
Richard A. Wilson 2000
R. P. Withington 1999


Term Expires 1999

Miller, Linda P.

Turner, Tramble T.

Term Expires 2000

Smith, James F.

Term Expires 2001

Ozment, Judy P.

Term Expires 2002

Rebane, P. Peter

Representative on the Senate Council: P. Peter Rebane



Term Expires 1999

Arteca, Richard N.

Murphy, Dennis J.

Royse, Daniel J.

Strauss, Charles H.

Term Expires 2000

Calvin, Dennis D.

Lukezic, Felix L.

Roth, Gregory W.

Wilson, Richard A.

Term Expires 2001

Kuhns, Larry J.

Scanlon, Dennis C.

Term Expires 2002

Barbato, Guy F.

Manbeck, Harvey B.

Saunders, Michael C.

Ziegler, Gregory R.

Representative to the Senate Council: Charles H. Strauss



Term Expires 1999

Stratton, Valerie N.

Term Expires 2000

Fahnline, Donald E.

Term Expires 2001

Marshall, Louisa J.

Term Expires 2002

Campbell, J. Louis III

Tormey, Brian B.

Representative on the Senate Council: Brian B. Tormey



Term Expires 1999

Kunze, Donald E.

McGregor, Annie K.

Term Expires 2000

Broyles, Michael E.

Kissick, John D.

Term Expires 2001

Burns, Veronica VannHala

Drafall, Lynn E.

Term Expires 2002

Anderson, Albert A.

Swan, Claudia N.

Representative on the Senate Council: Michael E. Broyles



Term Expires 1999

Andeleeb, Syed Saad

Term Expires 2000

Englund, Richard B.

Lasher, William C.

Roth, David E.

Term Expires 2001

Irwin, Zachary T.

Term Expires 2002

de Hart, Steven A.

McCarty, Ronald L.

Power, Barbara L.

Representative on the Senate Council: Steven A. de Hart




Term Expires 1999

Young, James S.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: Andrew B. Romberger




Term Expires 1999

Romberger, Andrew B.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Milakofsky, Louis

Term Expires 2002

Patterson, Henry

Representative on the Senate Council: Andrew B. Romberger



Term Expires 1999

Bagby, John W.

Novack, Robert A.

Term Expires 2000

Thomas, James B.

Trevino, Linda Klebe

Term Expires 2001

Christy, David P.

Term Expires 2002

Harrison, Terry P.

Williams, Lisa R.

Representative to the Senate Council: John Bagby



Term Expires 1999

Blumberg, Melvin

Richman, Irwin

Term Expires 2000

Khosrowpour, Mehdi

Richman, M. Susan

Yucelt, Ugur

Term Expires 2001

Richards, Winston A.

Term Expires 2002

De Rooy, Jacob

Representative on the Senate Council: Irwin Richman



Term Expires 1999

Lippert, John R.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Urenko, John B.

Representative on the Senate Council: Irwin Richman



Term Expires 1999


Term Expires 2000

Richards, Robert D.

Term Expires 2001

Bettig, Ronald V.

Term Expires 2002

Nichols, John S.

Representative on the Senate Council: Linda C. Friend



Term Expires 1999

Engelder, Terry

Frank, William M.

Term Expires 2000

Deines, Peter

Green, David J.

Term Expires 2001

Alexander, Shelton S.

Bise, Christopher J.

Term Expires 2002

Crane, Robert G.

Scaroni, Alan W.

Representative on the Senate Council: Alan W. Scaroni



Term Expires 1999

Lunetta, Vincent N.

Myers, Jamie M.

Term Expires 2000

Marshall, J. Daniel

Term Expires 2001

Swisher, John D.

Term Expires 2002

Evensen, Dorothy H.

Nelson, Murry R.

Representative on the Senate Council: Vincent N. Lunetta



Term Expires 1999

Bakis, Charles E.

Baratta, Anthony J.

Daubert, Thomas E.

Kallas, M. Nabil

Miller, Arthur C.

Phillips, Jonathan

Pytel, Jean Landa

Term Expires 2000

Brasseur, James G.

Carpenter, Lynn A.

Engel, Renata S.

Geschwindner, Louis F.

Harmonosky, Catherine M.

Term Expires 2001

Bernecker, Craig A.

Coraor, Lee D.

Curtis, Wayne R.

Jackson, Thomas N.

Lesieutre, George A.

Pauley, Laura L.

Term Expires 2002

Hayek, Sabih I.

Mayer, Jeffrey S.

Ovaert, Timothy C.

Pangborn, Robert N.

Stoffels, Shelley M.

Ventura, Jose

Representative on the Senate Council: Lynn A. Carpenter



Term Expires 1999

Brannon, S. Diane

Brunk, Quincealea

Kerstetter, Deborah L.

Term Expires 2000

Hanley, Elizabeth A.

Slobounov, Semyon

Yesalis, Charles E.

Term Expires 2001

Fosmire, Gary J.

Nicholson, Mary E.

Ricketts, Robert D.

Term Expires 2002

Caldwell, Linda

Frank, Thomas A.

Holt, Frieda

Preston, Deborah

Representative on the Senate Council: Deborah Kerstetter



Term Expires 1999

Casciani, Santa

Gouran, Dennis S.

Harwood, John T.

Moore, John W.

Thigpen, Kenneth A.

Welch, Susan

White, Christine A.

Term Expires 2000

De Jong, Gordon F.

Klein, Philip A.

Lyday, Margaret M.

Weiss, Beno

Term Expires 2001

LaPorte, Robert

Munn, Mark H.

Myers, David J.

Price, Robert G.

Strasser, Gerhard F.

Term Expires 2002

Browning, Barton W.

Eckhardt, Caroline D.

Goldschmidt, Arthur

Peavler, Terry J.

Wanner, Adrian J.

Representative on the Senate Council: Dennis S. Gouran



Term Expires 1999

Anderson, James B.

Arnold, Steven F.

Term Expires 2000

Nixon, B. Tracy

Phillips, Allen T.

Tempelman, Arkady

Ware, Roger P.

Whittam, Thomas S.

Term Expires 2001

Beatty, James J.

Cao, Wenwu.

Mitchell, Robert B.

Term Expires 2002

Diehl, Renee D.

Farber, Gregory K.

Jurs, Peter C.

Minard, Robert D.

Schneider, Donald

Representative on the Senate Council: Peter C. Jurs



Term Expires 1999

Demers, Laurence M.

Fedok, Fred G.

Gleeson, Kevin

Johnson, Ernest W.

Leure-duPree, Alphonse E.

Masters, Philip

Testa, Donna M.

Watterberg, Kristi L.

Term Expires 2000

Abt, Arthur

Billingsley, Elizabeth

Goldman, Margaret B.

Sinoway, Lawrence I.

Zelis, Robert

Term Expires 2001

Abendroth, Thomas W.

Cardella, John F.

Cyran, Stephen E.

Ferriss, John A.

Kelley, David K.

Pees, Richard C.

Romano, Paula J.

Sassani, Joseph W. III

Term Expires 2002

Burkhart, Keith

Davis, Dwight

Floros, Joanna

Hill, Charles

Schengrund, Cara-Lynne

Representative on the Senate Council: Alphonse E. Leure-duPree




Term Expires 1999


Term Expires 2000

Mookerjee, Rajen

Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Chirico, JoAnne

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Georgopulos, Peter D.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Wyatt, Nancy J.

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

May, Janet

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Gunderman, Charles F.

Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Smith, Sandra R.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Comiskey, C. Michael

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Ellis, Bill

Term Expires 2000

Richards, David R.

Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Jago, Deidre E.

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999


Term Expires 2000

Zavodni, John J.

Term Expires 2001

Bittner, Edward W.

Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Donovan, James M.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Kristine, Frank J.

Term Expires 2002

Galligan, M. Margaret

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Bridges, K. Robert

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Ziegenfus, Ted

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999


Term Expires 2000

Elder, James T.

Term Expires 2001

Hattjar, Bernie

Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999


Term Expires 2000

Marsico, Salvatore A.

Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Seybert, Thomas A.

Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Byman, David H.

Term Expires 2000

Dempsey, Richard F.

Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: None



Term Expires 1999

Berkowitz, Leonard J.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Sutton, Jane S.

Term Expires 2002

Casteel, Mark A.

Representative on the Senate Council: None




Term Expires 1999

Moller, Leslie A.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Oz, Effy

Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: Linda C. Friend



Term Expires 1999

Navin, Michael

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001

Romero, Victor

Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: Linda C. Friend



Term Expires 1999

Haner, William E.

Term Expires 2000


Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002


Representative on the Senate Council: Linda C. Friend



Term Expires 1999

Friend, Linda C.

Term Expires 2000

Paster, Amy L.

Term Expires 2001


Term Expires 2002

Snavely, Loanne

Representative on the Senate Council: Linda C. Friend


Ex Officio Senators: (7)

Brighton, John A., Executive Vice President/Provost of the University

Cahir, John J., Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education

Erickson, Rodney A., Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School

Spanier, Graham B., President of the University

Wager, J. James, University Registrar

Lilley, John M., Chair, Council of Academic Deans

White, Eric R., Director, Division of Undergraduate Studies

Appointed Senators: (12)

P. Richard Althouse

Patricia A. Book

Mary Beth Crowe

Rodney A. Erickson

W. Terrell Jones

John M. Lilley

A. Craig Millar

John J. Romano

Karen Wiley Sandler

Louise E. Sandmeyer

Robert Secor

Joseph C. Strasser



Brady Smith Altoona

Deanna Barber Berks-Lehigh Valley College

Cristin Conrad College of Agricultural Sciences

Deanna Puryear College of Arts and Architecture

Jennifer Belzner Smeal College of Business Administration

Jessica Stuart College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

Jeff Tranell College of Education

Tracy Frost College of Engineering

Helena Poch College of Health and Human Development

Emily Freeman College of the Liberal Arts

Morad Askari Eberly College of Science

Joellen Duckett College of Communications

Gretchen Kline Penn State Erie - The Behrend College

Mary Jo Meyer Penn State Harrisburg - The Capital College

Christopher B. Anderson Commonwealth College

Henry Abromson Division of Undergraduate Studies


Stephane A. Roy - College of Medicine

Lucia Rohrer-Murphy - Great Valley

R. P. Withington - University Park

Erica Michael - Dickinson


Report of Senate Elections

Veronica Burns Lucas, Chair, Elections Commission

Our next item on the Agenda is the "Report of Senate Elections." One of the duties of our Senate Secretary, Veronica Burns Lucas, is to conduct the elections and make this report to us at this time.

Veronica Burns Lucas, College of Arts & Architecture: I’ve got a number of elections to report the results of. They are listed in order on the Agenda.

The first is the election for Senate Council. Charles H. Strauss, College of Agricultural Sciences; Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture; John Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration; Alan W. Scaroni, Earth and Mineral Sciences; Vincent N. Lunetta, College of Education; Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering; Deborah Kerstetter, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts; Peter C. Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Linda C. Friend, University Libraries, Combined Departments of Military Science, College of Communications, Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Great Valley Graduate Center; Brian B. Tormey, Altoona College; P. Peter Rebane, Abington College; Steven A. de Hart, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg; Alphonse Leure-duPree, Hershey Medical Center; Deidre E. Jago, The Commonwealth College; and Andrew B. Romberger, Berks-Lehigh Valley College. That will be the Senate Council for the new year.

Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules. Edward Bittner, Barton Browning, Caroline Eckhardt, Jamie Myers, and Nancy Wyatt are the five members elected to serve a two-year term. Dianne Brannon and John Harwood were elected to serve a one-year term.

The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee: Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering, UP; Adam Sorkin, LA, Commonwealth College, Delaware Campus; and Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine, Hershey Medical Center.

The new members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure: Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering, UP, Member; and Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP, alternate.

For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities we have three categories: Faculty from University Park: Gary Fosmire, College of Health and Human Development, Member; Edward Keynes, College of the Liberal Arts, Alternate.

Faculty Other than University Park: Linda Itzoe, LA, Commonwealth College, York Campus, Member.

Deans: Nancy Eaton, University Libraries, Member and Joseph Strasser, Commonwealth College, Alternate.

Elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President: Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, UP.

For the office of Secretary of the Senate: Donald E. Fahnline, SCI, Altoona College.

For Chair-Elect of the Senate: Murry R. Nelson, College of Education, UP.

Thank you.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you, Veronica.


Proposed Revision of HR-40: Extended Reviews of Tenured Faculty



The proposal to include in HR-40 a policy for extended reviews is in keeping with what a number of other colleges and universities are instituting under the rubric of "post-tenure reviews." The term "extended-review" is being proposed as the Penn State term since the review is conceived of as an extension of the annual reviews mandated in HR-40, rather than as a review process that in some way is meant to mirror or recall the pre-tenure review.

Discussion of the need for post-tenure review policies is not new in higher education. In 1982, the National Commission on Higher Education Issues stated that "nothing will undermine the tenure system more completely than its being regarded as a system to protect faculty from evaluation," and said that some system of post-tenure reviews would be a priority of higher education in years to come. That has indeed been the case, and a recent survey of 680 institutions found that 61 percent of respondents had a post tenure review policy and another nine percent had a policy under development. A list of such schools would include state institutions in 30 states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

A 1997 publication by the American Association for Higher Education, entitled Post Tenure Review: Policies, Practices and Precautions, lists a number of factors behind the movement towards post-tenure reviews. Among them the following are relevant to the current proposal for Penn State:

Public and government concern about the public accountability of universities, leading to either mandated reviews or a desire on the part of institutions to forestall interference in faculty affairs by external forces and to mollify external critics who say that accountability and tenure are mutually exclusive.

The need to achieve faculty development and when desirable to promote different career emphases over time.

The desire to constantly improve program quality and the learning environment of students.

The elimination of mandatory retirement.

The necessity to protect the tenure system through a regularized process that can address poor faculty performance.

The AAHE study reports that "the two major outcomes usually sought are continuous improvement of faculty performance and continuous career growth."

Penn State has the most extensive review system for its provisional faculty on the tenure-track of any in its peer group. Only Penn State requires formal reviews in the second-, fourth-, and sixth-years before permanent tenure is awarded. These reviews allow faculty peers and administrators to give advice and support in developing tenure-line faculty in preparation for their tenure decisions. In each of their tenure review years, provisional faculty undergo an intensive review of their teaching abilities, scholarship, research and creative accomplishments, and service to the University, the public, and the profession. The University's expectations in all of these areas are high, and those who are awarded tenure have therefore undergone rigorous review procedures at campus/

department, college, and University levels, and have received developmental support and

advice throughout their provisionary period. When tenure is awarded, it is an expression of confidence in a faculty member's excellence and commitment towards continued growth and achievement.



In the following statements of procedure, the term "department head" may stand for division head, school director, director of academic affairs, etc., as is appropriate to the unit.


Penn State Policy HR-40 mandates that all faculty members be reviewed each year, and that the results of that review be communicated in writing to the faculty member. In addition, eight years after the most recent tenure or promotion decision at Penn State, and every five years thereafter, the annual review should be made in the context of the achievements of the previous five years, according to procedures determined by the unit under the guidelines that follow. The review might be delayed if the faculty member is on leave or is scheduled for a promotion review in the following

year (a promotion review is considered an extended review.) The review will

substitute for the annual review of that year.





A. Each college is expected to establish written criteria and

Procedures for this review. The review itself may be delegated

to the disciplinary unit, which might develop its own procedures

within the college's guidelines, but those procedures would need

the approval of the college dean, who will have responsibility for

oversight of the process. For faculty members at campus colleges

who have retained tenure in a college at University Park, the review

will be held by the campus college according to its procedures, but in consultation with the faculty member's department head. A copy of

the review should be shared with the faculty member's department

head in cases where the review is being conducted by another


B. The review should assess the faculty member's performance

in the areas of teaching; scholarship, research, and creative activity;

and service. The criteria for evaluation should be consistent with

that used for the faculty member's annual reviews, and may draw on statements of expectations in the department or division and college promotion guidelines. The review criteria should be flexible enough

to take into account the expectations or area of responsibility for

the faculty member being reviewed, with maximum weight given

to the area of major emphasis in the individual's assignment.

C. Unless the extended review is also a promotion review, no

unit should mandate assessments from external referees. (This

does not preclude the possibility of the unit head seeking external

assessments when requested to do so by the FACULTY MEMBER candidate.)

D. Each review shall be carried out by at least three tenured

Faculty members, as determined by the college and chosen by

procedures approved by both the faculty and the administration

of the unit. It is recommended that, when feasible, reviewers

should not be chosen who are of lower rank than the faculty

member being reviewed and should be of associate professor rank

or higher. (Procedures for choosing the reviewers may be delegated

to the department, but it would be the college's responsibility to

approve and oversee them.)


  1. Material submitted by faculty members being reviewed should

include the following:

1. A curricular vita;

2. Annual activity reports submitted since the

previous review;

3. Teaching evaluations and other evidence of

teaching effectiveness;

4. Other material giving evidence of the faculty

member's achievements and contributions that

the faculty member or the reviewers consider

relevant to the review;

5. A statement indicating future plans for

professional achievement.

Each unit, in defining its procedures, may be more specific in its expectations for submitted material and may mandate other items as well, such as a statement of achievement since the last extended review from the faculty member being reviewed.

F. Each review should include a discussion with the faculty

member about his or her achievements, contributions, or plans

if either the reviewers or the faculty member so desire.

G. Faculty members' contributions to other units should be

Appropriately considered, and units should ensure that

there is the opportunity for other departments that share

in budgetary responsibility for the faculty member being

reviewed to have the opportunity to contribute to the review.

H. Reviewers should be able to consult as necessary with

individuals who have knowledge of the faculty member's

work and to seek other information that they deem useful

in making a fair and informed judgment.

I. The reviewers shall prepare a written statement assessing

the faculty members' achievement and recommending as

necessary action for improving their performance or for

making it more possible for them to achieve their goals.

J. The faculty member will have the opportunity to respond to

the review in writing after it has been completed before it is

sent on to the dean.

K. The department head or other appropriate administrator

shall meet with the faculty member and discuss any actions

that might be an outcome of the review.


A. The dean will always receive a copy of the review and

discuss the results and possible outcomes with the

appropriate department head. The department head should

inform the dean of any actions that have resulted from the

review after discussions with the faculty member. Deans might

choose to give their own feedback in the form of a letter to

the department head to be shared with the faculty member who

has been reviewed.

B. The intended outcomes of these reviews are recognition of

Faculty achievement and continuous improvement in faculty

performance and career growth. Typical actions that may be

taken include plans for recognizing and rewarding top performers,

plans for helping mid-career faculty members to achieve their

goals, and plans for addressing areas of deficient performance.

Extended reviews provide an opportunity for creative consideration

of long-term career directions, revision of workload, AND

modification of areas of responsibility. and the opportunity to

insure that the faculty member's efforts coincide with

department priorities.

In some cases, development plans might be formulated by the faculty member

and the administrator in order to identify goals and expectations, including an understanding of resource support, a timeline for expected achievements, and specification of the consequences of inadequate progress. As is the case with annual reviews, if the extended review reveals serious problems that the faculty member is unwilling or unable to correct over time, termination may be recommended, according to the statements relevant to termination of tenure-protected faculty for adequate cause in HR-23 —"lack of competence or failure to perform in relation to the functions or

required by the appointment, excessive absenteeism, moral turpitude or grave misconduct"—and providing that the usual procedures for consideration of the

termination of tenure-protected faculty are observed.


A. The procedures of each college and department for the

extended review process shall be described in written form

and be made available in each college and disciplinary unit.

B. Departments or other comparable disciplinary units shall

maintain a record of reviews completed, including the name

of all reviewers.


THE ONLY There is no additional cost for this program, except in time and effort for the faculty members who will be involved in the reviews. To reduce those costs at the beginning of the program, all faculty who are eligible for review will not need to be reviewed at once. Rather, each unit will begin the extended-review process by reviewing at least 1/5 of their eligible faculty each year, depending on the size of the unit, and continue the process until all eligible faculty have received extended reviews. The dean

will determine the number of faculty to be reviewed each year, as well as the process for determining who will receive the initial reviews, during this phase-in period. Thereafter, every faculty member must receive an extended review according to the procedures and timetable stated above. Oversight for the extended review process University-wide rests with the Executive Vice President and Provost.


It is the recommendation of the Committee that the Senate approve Roman Numerals I through V in "Policy for Extended Reviews" of the report as advice to the President and Provost.


Special Committee on Faculty Teaching Development

and Evaluation

Final Report

(Advisory/Consultative Report)

[Implementation Date: Spring 2000]

executive summary

The University Faculty Senate Special Committee on Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation has investigated ways in which all academic units can further improve their methods of teaching development and evaluation. We make four specific recommendations which, if adopted, will lead to substantial improvement in both areas. These recommendations are:

1. Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall establish teaching development programs which are available for all its faculty members.

2. Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall establish review procedures which insure a comprehensive, fair, and rigorously applied system for assessing and evaluating teaching.

3. Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall clearly articulate its expectations for excellent teaching and institute a system for adequately rewarding demonstrated excellence.

4. Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall take the steps required to achieve a multi-dimensional excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service.


On May 17, 1996 Scott Kretchmar, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, and Peter Jurs, Immediate Past Chair of the University Faculty Senate, charged the Special Committee to achieve the following goals:

- The Committee should focus on the development of excellent teaching and give secondary attention to evaluation;

- Recommendations on both development and evaluation should apply to all faculty engaged in teaching;

- Process documentation should include a variety of alternative and complementary methods for both the development and evaluation of teaching. Five guidelines pertain to this charge:

1. The Committee should investigate different conceptions of teaching portfolios to determine if and how such methods might be useful at Penn State.

2. Specific strategies for peer mentoring and evaluation should be developed for possible implementation across the University.

3. Methods recommended should have high value for their respective purposes, while inconveniences and other costs should be minimized.

4. Methods recommended should be designed to encourage faculty to pay repeated and regular attention to teaching improvement and allow faculty to document their commitment and progress over time.

5. Recommendations should be useful across the entire University at both University Park and at all other locations.

- Guidelines for implementation of recommendations should be developed by the Committee.


For the past two years the Committee has met to discuss various ways of fulfilling its charge. During these discussions the Committee evolved the following principles:

1. Excellent teaching is a complex, demanding, and exacting scholarly activity that requires time, effort, and support.

2. Excellent teaching requires a commitment to and support for that goal from every level of the University.

3. Constructive peer review is integral to excellence in teaching.

4. Excellent teaching is best encouraged and acknowledged through a system of incentives and rewards.

5. Academic units, rather than individuals, must be held responsible for the integration of teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service. Academic units are typically departments. However, other types of units exist, and, as indicated in the recommendations below, in some cases units may wish to work together as clusters for the purpose of fostering excellence in teaching.


Reflecting on these five principles, the Committee developed the following set of recommendations which, if implemented, will achieve the goals set forth in the charge.

Recommendation One:

Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall establish teaching development programs which are available for all its faculty.

Teaching development programs help faculty in a particular unit to consider ways in which they can teach more effectively. Such activities serve as catalysts and inducements to further the cause of excellence in teaching and student learning throughout the entire University.

• Some programs are best done at the local level. The Committee recommends that local units, generally the departments, consider the following activities as methods for promoting and improving teaching:

1. Opportunities for teacher mentoring in which colleagues provide junior faculty with an opportunity to engage in an ongoing conversation about teaching.

Effective mentoring requires the establishment of a trust-based relationship where there is complete freedom to discuss all issues and concerns. Therefore, it is essential that a mentoring program focus on development rather than evaluation. For this reason, it is helpful when the faculty pairing is not within the same department. Teacher mentoring requires great sensitivity on the part of the local administrators and faculty to assure that it is neither intrusive nor burdensome.

2. Opportunities for sharing teaching portfolios in which faculty present information about their teaching practices and effectiveness.

The literature on the subject of teaching portfolios indicates that there are many ways of constructing a teaching portfolio. No one method suits the needs of every faculty member. However, all teaching portfolios consist of five basic components. The formation of a teaching portfolio allows the individual faculty member 1) to explain the nature of the various teaching tasks assigned and undertaken, 2) to describe the means chosen to achieve those goals, 3) to provide evidence that the goals have been achieved, 4) to state how one intends to teach more effectively in the future, and 5) to write a statement about one’s personal teaching practices. Faculty members are free to include whatever evidence they may choose that displays how they go about teaching and what philosophy of teaching motivates their pedagogical decisions.

3. Locally initiated seminars for faculty on issues related to teaching which will facilitate the dissemination of information about successful teaching and learning practices.

4. Formal arrangements for constructive assessment and evaluation of teaching as described in detail in Recommendation Two.

5. Support and encouragement of teaching by identifying those who have distinguished themselves as teachers and nominating them for awards.

6. Funding instructional projects by setting aside specific funds to support innovative teaching.

7. Creation of a listserv for exchanging ideas about teaching.

8. Pedagogical colloquia during the hiring process in which the candidates demonstrate their teaching ability through such activities as presentation of a syllabus, discussion of best teaching practices, and the teaching of a class.

• Some programs are best done at the University or college level. Examples of these kinds of activities include:

1. Centrally organized workshops/courses on teaching.

2. The development of colloquia or seminars to exchange ideas about teaching and learning as they relate to particular contexts or disciplines within the University or colleges.

3. The University-wide dissemination of information about successful practices in teaching and learning.

4. An expansion of University-wide awards for excellence in the various types of teaching.

5. Pedagogical sabbaticals which the university makes available to faculty who wish to explore best practices at other institutions or to develop new teaching methods or courses.

Recommendation Two:

Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall establish review procedures which insure a comprehensive, fair, and rigorously applied system for assessing and evaluating teaching.

Each unit responsible for the peer review of teaching shall review its current means of teaching evaluation and make whatever changes or adjustments are necessary to insure that the evaluation of teaching is rigorous, comprehensive, and fair. By peer review, we refer to a process in which an individual’s disciplinary peers can evaluate a full range of teaching activities. Such reviews can use many types of evidence to obtain a valid and reliable measurement of the quality of teaching. Further, peer review shall consider a range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of materials such as case studies and class assignments, advising, research collaboration, and graduate student mentoring. The specific means and methods employed by a particular unit shall be adopted by that unit to address its own unique standards and practices. Under such a system, peer review becomes not only an important source for information but also a process by which standards within an academic unit are shaped, defined, maintained, and communicated to faculty peers. Collectively, these standards speak to the university community’s high expectation for teaching and learning.

In order to insure that review is consistent as a process across the University, the guidelines for HR-23 shall be broadened to define a review process that calls for : 1) a wide range of data that includes input from students, peers, and the faculty member under review, 2) the incorporation of a variety of evidence from students, peers, and the faculty member under review that speaks to the quality and effectiveness of teaching. By the peer review of teaching, the committee views peers as faculty members at the departmental or divisional level who will conduct reviews based on several forms of evidence or data that shall include:

1. Information from faculty members. This category of information must include multiple sources of evidence. Examples can include impressions gained from classroom visitations and impressions gained from informal discussion with the individual under review about pedagogic techniques. However, each unit may wish to develop other sources of information depending on its local situation. In order to add breadth to the peer review, faculty who gather this type of information should not be limited to those who conduct the overall peer review.

2. Information from the individual under review. This category of information includes best practices and teaching portfolios that provide faculty with the forum to place their work in context, much as faculty share their programs of research and creative activity in a manner that captures the integration of what faculty are doing and the cohesiveness of the entire effort over time.

HR-23 currently states that candidates may include a narrative statement at the front of the dossier that indicates their sense of their teaching ability and effectiveness in order to place their work and activities in the context of their overall goals and agendas. An additional vehicle for expressing a sense of teaching achievement may be a teaching portfolio (see above, page 4).

3. Information from students. This category of information shall include multiple sources of evidence, some of which is suitable for comparative evaluations. 1) Required evidence shall include that data gained from the SRTE. 2) Besides the SRTEs, other methods for assessing teaching shall include one or more of the following: written student evaluations, formal interviews with students at the end of the semester, and/or exit surveys. 3) In addition to the preceding two categories, units may choose to add evidence from other evaluation instruments with known psychometric properties. Examples include the Instructional Assessment System (University of Washington), the Instructor and Course Evaluation System (University of Illinois), and the Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment (Kansas State University).

4. Information from other sources. The peer review process may also include information from such sources as alumni, former graduate students, national associations and professional groups.

Recommendation Three:

Each academic unit or cluster of related units shall clearly articulate its expectations for excellent teaching and institute a system for adequately rewarding demonstrated excellence.

To acknowledge the importance placed on teaching, each unit shall specifically recognize and reward demonstrated excellence in teaching at all levels of instruction during the annual salary increase distribution. Also, since there is no external agent for recognizing excellent teaching, the University must assume this responsibility. It may do so in three ways.

• Each unit shall explain to its faculty and dean its expectations for teaching performance.

• Each unit shall explain to its faculty and dean its particular system for rewarding both satisfactory and exceptional achievement. For example, at the current moment some colleges and departments base at least 40% of the salary increase on demonstrated excellence in teaching.

• We propose three additional methods for increasing the breadth and spectrum of strategies for recognizing excellence in teaching:

1. Increased incentives for promotion of excellence in teaching by individual faculty.

- A substantial increase in the number of University awards for teaching. Such an increase in the number of awards will create a reasonable goal for many members of the faculty and will make recognition for such achievement more accessible thereby encouraging more faculty to seek excellence in their teaching. To provide such encouragement the Committee recommends at least 25 awards per year.

- A significant increase in the nature and amount of these awards. These awards should become part of the base-line salary of the recipients, and they should be large enough to have a significant impact on their salaries. To provide the necessary impact, the Committee recommends awards of up to $5000.

2. Since the University recognizes certain faculty with distinction in research through such honors as Pugh Professor, so it should recognize distinction in teaching in a similar fashion. The Committee proposes the formation of an Academy of Distinguished Teachers which will give clear and public notice that such achievement is valued within the University. The Academy shall become the advocate for the cause of distinguished teaching.

3. The establishment of an annual reward for those academic units that have most effectively achieved unit-wide excellence in teaching.

Recommendation Four:

Each academic unit or cluster of related units RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALS shall take the steps required to achieve a multi-dimensional excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service.

All academic units shall be judged on how well they achieve multi-dimensional excellence. The basic structure of incentives and rewards for academic units shall be tied to evidence of achievement in all three areas of the University’s mission.

• The Provost shall instruct all academic units to develop suitable guidelines and procedures to attain excellence in the areas of teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service. These guidelines and procedures shall include 1) practical measures designed to support the development of teaching, 2) an implementation plan for comprehensive and professional peer review of teaching, 3) statements of expectations for excellent teaching, and 4) a plan for the distribution of incentives and rewards in a manner that further encourages excellent teaching.

• Each Dean shall present the above guidelines and procedures adopted by the various academic units within that college to a special review committee convened by the Provost no later than the end of Fall semester 1999. This review committee will consider these department and division plans and provide each unit with feedback and support to aid them in meeting the objectives of this recommendation.

• The quality of the University’s teaching should be evaluated in five years to determine whether any difference IN THE ACADEMIC QUALITY OF GRADUATING STUDENTS has resulted from these efforts. At that time, An appropriate University group will be asked to develop an evaluation plan.


The Special Committee on Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation received the charge in 1996 to focus on ways of developing excellent teaching at the Pennsylvania State University. We believe that our four specific recommendations: 1) the establishment of teaching development programs, 2) improved peer review procedures, 3) clearly articulated expectations and institution of a system for adequately rewarding teaching excellence, and 4) the strengthening of a culture based on multidimensional excellence, will significantly increase the commitment to excellence in teaching in each academic unit of the University. We believe the philosophical and theoretical bases of teaching development, evaluation, and reward are rooted in a public, collegial community in which peers work toward a common goal -- in the instance of a university, the discovery and sharing of knowledge. For that reason, we look forward to discussing our recommendations with the members of the University Faculty Senate and we call upon the members of the Senate to endorse those recommendations.

John Bagby
Jeremy Cohen
Michael Dooris
James Eisenstein
Diane Enerson
Terry Engelder, Chair
Elizabeth Hawthorne
Robert Heinsohn
William Kelly
John Lowe
John Moore
Judy Ozment Payne
Patrick Terenzini
Harry West
Fern K. Willits


BAckground principles

The Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Committee (FTDEC) was established to recommend a comprehensive approach to the promotion of excellent teaching beyond the high standards that the University presently maintains. We began by noting that "excellence in teaching" is a clearly stated goal of the University and is now widely achieved. As a consequence, our efforts were directed at exploring better ways to expand such excellence.

Any systematic effort to improve the quality of teaching—and hence student learning—shall lead teachers toward realizing the qualities required of an excellent teacher. This systematic effort shall occur at all levels of the system and those changes shall be consistent across the University. The goal of excellence in teaching will require the cooperation of all levels of the University—the central administration, colleges, divisions, and departments, in addition to the support and contribution of individual faculty members.

While excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service has been clearly identified as the central goal of the University’s mission, we need to understand better how to achieve the goal of excellence in teaching while preserving the integrity of the University’s three-part mission.

Our review of the literature, our self-assessment, and our exploration of best practices at Penn State and other universities and colleges have led us to identify five principles that will further advance excellence in teaching.

The Five Principles

Throughout our deliberations and review, we returned again and again to a central truth and understanding about the nature of teaching which informed all of our discussions and, eventually, came to be understood as the foundation upon which all of our decisions would rest. As a consequence, we have framed this understanding as a “master principle” and its acceptance as a necessary precondition for furthering the goal of excellence in teaching.

The Master Principle:

Excellent teaching is a complex, demanding, and exacting scholarly activity that requires time, effort, and support.

Excellent teaching is a disciplined scholarly activity that must be developed and refined throughout an individual’s career. It must be supported by knowledge and a mastery of content and be coupled with acquired competence and proficiency in the ability to encourage and advance learning in our students. Excellence in any context must involve systematic and purposeful activity as well as objective analysis, self-reflection, and determined effort. Scholarly teaching is no different. It requires an attitude of inquiry and contemplation, the refinement of materials and approaches, the development of methodologies, careful and considered work with students both in and out of class, and the deliberate and determined acquisition of knowledge—about the practice of teaching as well as the content that one teaches. Excellence also requires the development of skills which come only with time, discipline, hard work, informed and objective feedback, and critical self-reflection.

As a complex scholarly activity, teaching requires support, careful and constructive review, incentives to promote excellence, rewards for accomplishments, and an organization and structure that allows for the furtherance of excellent teaching as a normal and expected component in the University’s overall mission. Accordingly, we have identified four “guiding principles” that address the broad issues of support, review, incentives, rewards, and structure.

The First Guiding Principle:

Excellent teaching requires a commitment to and support for that goal from every level of the University.

Since we hold excellent teaching as a worthy and necessary goal for our faculty, we must also accept the fact that the pursuit of excellence will require those things that are necessary to support, encourage, and nurture that activity in addition to the requisite scholarship and mastery of subject matter that is necessary to inform the content of what is taught. Many useful efforts currently exist to support teaching development and help to foster and encourage excellent teaching. Many of these efforts are University-wide including events such as the Colloquy on Learning and Teaching, and units such as the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning, the IDP Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, the Schreyer Honors College, the Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education, the Center for the Study of Higher Education, the University Learning Resource Centers, and the Commonwealth College’s Jack P. Royer Center for Learning and Academic Technologies.

However, support for excellence in teaching must exist at every level of the University. In particular, the local level must develop strong and stable programs to further both those characteristics of good teaching that are unique to their area and foster the habits and activities that are common to teaching excellence as a general practice. Further, such programs should be instituted as a normal part of academic support. These programs should be made available to all faculty and become an expected component of scholarly growth for faculty. Finally, we acknowledge the profound intrinsic value of providing structured opportunities for faculty to talk with one another about teaching. Hence, our recommendations above focused on best practices at the local level that could significantly enhance the teaching culture at that level.

The Second Guiding Principle:

Constructive peer review is integral to excellence in teaching.

Peer review is the most useful means of insuring that excellence and the standards by which it is determined exist in a fair, equitable, and informed context. Peer review is a means both of establishing and maintaining scholarly standards in teaching and of aiding the process of discovery through collaboration and critique. When authority for teaching and its review are placed in the hands of the faculty, they assume responsibility in a context that is both informed and conditioned by their status as peers. This responsibility insures a high degree of fairness and equity and it encourages a responsible view not only of teaching evaluation but also of teaching development. Further, through peer review, faculty participate directly in the development of excellent teachers.

Peer review of the sort we are referring to also recognizes that while students rightfully should have input into the evaluation of faculty through mechanisms like the SRTE, the designation of teaching as a primary scholarly pursuit at a research university necessitates that the final synthesis of data be conducted by those with the academic, intellectual, and disciplinary authority to draw valid conclusions from the evidence—that is, by faculty peers. And, as is the case with research, scholarly peer review of teaching must also be collegial, involving the kinds of mutual and constructive comments that build community.

The results of our deliberations concur with the findings and conclusions of the recently released Carnegie Report (1997), Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, which proposes that teaching be evaluated by high standards. We further concur with that report that it is through constructive peer review that we are best able to define the standards of all scholarly work (including teaching), document scholarly accomplishment, and develop the most effective and professional processes for faculty evaluation.

As a consequence, we reaffirm the validity and effectiveness of peer review of teaching as mandated by HR-23 but see the context of review as needing significant expansion and elaboration. We believe that an effective and meaningful review of teaching must be based on a wide range of data that reflect input from students and peers as well as from the faculty member under review; that the documentation provided for review be diverse and comprehensive enough to obtain a valid and reliable measurement of teaching effectiveness; and that the process of review and evaluation be ongoing, regular, and applicable to all faculty throughout their careers in order to provide systematic feedback, an expectation of accountability, and a mechanism to guide professional development within the department and division setting.

While we see the broad principles of review and evaluation to be common across the University, we see the particular and specific policies and procedures for implementation to reside within the individual colleges, departments, and divisions that are responsible for the review of their own faculty peers. The means and methods of review need to be specific to individual colleges, departments, and divisions to reflect the particular dynamics and distinct factors that determine excellence in given settings. However, all units need to insure that the process and particulars of review are sufficient to insure that the evaluation of teaching is fair and reliable and to promote the development of teaching in the context of collegial commentary and critique.

The Third Guiding Principle:

Excellent teaching is best encouraged and acknowledged through a system of incentives and rewards.

Because skillful and scholarly teaching requires commitment and time and because there are competing demands for faculty time within the University, it is crucial that the University should provide reasonable incentives to spur conscientious attention to the pursuit of excellent teaching.

In examining the best practices here and elsewhere, we discovered that the best programs of incentives and rewards for teaching were tied to professional development—salary increases and advancement in rank—and provided formal and public recognition for demonstrable achievement and excellence. Further, the best programs have adopted a “developmental” approach in both the structure and size of awards to encourage continued growth in the development of faculty skills and ability in teaching as a life-long process.

For that reason, we recommended above that the structure of incentives and rewards—on the department, division, college, and university levels—be reconsidered. If the number of excellent teachers is to be increased, the University must further encourage such excellence through new strategies for recognizing and rewarding such accomplishment.

The Fourth Guiding Principle:

Academic units must be held responsible for the integration of teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service.

The University’s mission and goals are tied to the attainment of multi-dimensional excellence—in teaching, research/creative accomplishments, and service. The most effective locus for the integration and advancement of the University’s three-part mission lies at the level of the academic unit—the department, division, and college. It is a reasonable expectation for departments, divisions, and colleges to attain excellence in all three areas of scholarly accomplishment.

Units can strategically plan, organize their resources, and take advantage of the full range of individual talents and abilities that exist within their constituent faculties. Differences in faculty strengths can and should be recognized and utilized on the basis of their contribution to the excellence of the unit. The commitments and strengths of individual faculty members develop over time, change, and require support and reasonable intervals to mature. Academic units and their constituent faculty need to adjust to these changes, take strategic advantage of individual strengths, and devote the time and effort that is necessary to build excellence from individual potential. What is ultimately important—to the unit, the University, and our students—is that the contribution of the aggregate faculty within a unit produces excellence in teaching, research/creative accomplishment, and service and that the multi-dimensional goals of the University are met.



Procedures for Terminating Tenure-Protected Faculty

for Adequate Cause


Effective Date: Upon Approval By the President


The current procedures by which the University terminates tenured and tenure-eligible faculty for adequate cause afford the faculty member no greater safeguards than those available under Pennsylvania law to any other state employee. To reinforce the University’s commitment to tenure, this policy codifies additional protections for faculty members facing termination proceedings. This policy does not create a new power to terminate; rather, it provides additional procedural due process protections for faculty members and the tenure system itself.

The key provisions in this policy require (1) notice and a timely hearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure before termination; (2) assurance of faculty participation in the process; (3) the burden of proof to remain on the University at all times; and (4) separation of the adversarial and adjudicatory functions.


The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends that the following new policy be established:

When reasons arise to question whether a tenured faculty member may be dismissed for adequate cause, or whether a tenure-eligible faculty member may be terminated without adherence to the standards of notice specified in Section IV.8 of University Policy HR-23, the faculty member shall be afforded due process, as required by applicable law, and an opportunity for a hearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, prior to imposition of the disciplinary sanction of termination for adequate cause.

A. Ordinarily, The faculty member will be provided written notice of the CHARGES alleged misconduct, and, ordinarily, the faculty member will be provided an opportunity to meet with the appropriate administrator(s) having knowledge of the CHARGES alleged misconduct. If the faculty member elects to attend such a meeting, he or she will be provided an explanation of the alleged misconduct CHARGES, following which the faculty member will be given an opportunity to respond.

B. Based on the information available after the faculty member has been given the opportunity to meet with appropriate administrator(s) having knowledge of the alleged misconduct CHARGES, the matter may be resolved at this juncture. If the matter is not resolved and serious concerns remain regarding the faculty member’s alleged misconduct CHARGES, the cognizant Dean will consult with the Executive Vice President and Provost about the appropriateness of termination for adequate cause. If both the cognizant Dean and the Executive Vice President and Provost concur that the disciplinary sanction of termination for adequate cause is appropriate under the circumstances, the faculty member will be advised that the matter will be referred by letter from the cognizant Dean to the Chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, unless the faculty member requests the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination.

1. The Dean’s letter to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure shall set forth the reasons for seeking termination of the faculty member, and the faculty member shall be provided a copy of the letter.

2. The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure will hold a hearing to receive evidence and adjudicate the matter. Every effort shall be made to hold the hearing within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the Dean’s letter to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Suspension of the faculty member prior to a final decision by the President is justified only if there are compelling reasons to believe that harm to the University, its faculty, staff or students will occur or be threatened by the faculty member’s continued active status during the pendency of the proceedings. Any such suspension shall be with full pay and benefits.

3. The burden of proof for dismissing a faculty member for adequate cause shall at all times be on the University.

4. The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure will act in an advisory capacity to the President. The Committee shall issue a report to the President, with a copy to the faculty member, within 30 days from the date of completion of the hearing, unless extenuating circumstances require otherwise. The report shall set forth the Committee’s findings based on the evidence presented at the hearing and its recommendation with respect to termination for adequate cause.

The President shall be the final decision-maker in all cases considered by the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure pursuant to HR-23 IV. 10-12.

C. The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure shall consist of five members: two members representing the administration, and three tenured faculty members selected by the elected faculty members of the University Senate. The Chair will be chosen by the Committee from the elected tenured faculty members. The Standing Joint Committee shall be authorized to establish its own operating procedures consistent with this document. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to be heard by the Committee

in his or her own defense. In all cases before the Committee, the faculty members shall be permitted to have present an advisor of his or her own choosing, who may act as

counsel. There shall be a full stenographic record or tape recording of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In a hearing on charges of incompetence, the testimony shall include that of faculty members and other scholars from this or other institutions.

Albert A. Anderson
John C. Becker
Melvin Blumberg
Meredythe M. Burrows
Santa Casciani
James M. Donovan
Amy K. Glasmeier
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Catherine M. Harmonosky
Andrea Mastro

Louis Milakofsky
Murry R. Nelson, Chair
Amy L. Paster
Robert D. Richards
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair
Robert Zelis


Suggestions for Learning Environment Actions to Discourage Alcohol Abuse

(Advisory and Consultative)


During the past two years, the Committee on Student Life has presented a number of informational reports that have dealt with problems associated with alcohol abuse. The first report, "The Effect of Excessive Alcohol Consumption on the Learning Environment" presented information on alcohol consumption on national campuses and at Penn State. The impact of alcohol abuse on the learning environment at Penn State was also discussed.

Further reports dealt with specific aspects of student life. Information was presented on the number and type of cases related to excessive alcohol consumption that were managed by the Office of Judicial Affairs. Data were provided on the student alcohol-related incidents investigated by State College police and those treated by Centre Community Hospital. The manner in which alcohol abuse issues were managed and treated in organized student housing was also reported. In the final informational report, we heard from the Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Abuse about some of their activities and initiatives to address the problems associated with alcohol abuse.

Toward the beginning of the series of reports, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution that the faculty should play a role in influencing student behavior by eliminating practices that appear to encourage and condone the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. To this end and to complete the series, the Committee on Student Life would like to make some SUGGEST PROGRAMS recommendations about programs, expectations, and actions that it is hoped would result in a healthier and more productive learning environment for the students of Penn State.


  1. Faculty Actions
  1. Expectations about student responsibilities and behavior are to be made known to the students at the beginning of every course, each semester.
  2. Work is to be expected from students on a regular basis.
  3. Every weekday is to be used as a potential test day for in-class tests as well as evening exams.
  4. Develop modules on issues of alcohol and other drug abuse to be made available for use in freshman seminars at all Penn State locations. Topics may include alcohol awareness and responsible consumption.
  5. Incorporate education about responsible consumption of alcohol in first year seminars, as appropriate.
  6. Provide workshops for faculty on how to deal with students in distress and information about referral services at all locations.
  7. Provide orientation workshops on policies, procedures, expectations, and resources for all incoming faculty.
  1. General Actions
  1. Hold students accountable for behavior while under the influence of alcohol.
  2. Make sanctions significant and meaningful when alcohol is a factor in violations of policies and standards.
  3. Incorporate a message of responsible alcohol consumption and intolerance of abuse during the orientation activities and programs.
  4. Work with alumni to educate them about appropriate drinking behavior when they visit any Penn State location.
  5. Increase the number and frequency of non-alcoholic events and programs available to students outside of the classroom.
  6. Increase the availability of substance-free housing options.
  7. Ensure that appropriate campus resources are available at every location to provide education about responsible behavior to those who need it.
  8. Work with Greek organizations to help and encourage them to develop an increased number of alcohol-free programs and events.
  9. The Offices of Judicial Affairs and Residence Life Community Standards maintain records of the number and type of cases where alcohol contributed to the violation. Report to Faculty Senate every other year about violations related to alcohol abuse. At the same time, report on the availability of programs and resources that address the problems related to alcohol abuse and provide remedies.

These suggestions are not intended to be final. It is the wish of the Committee on Student Life that the university community regard this report as a beginning and continue to look for ways to encourage students to avoid actions and behaviors that interfere with their education. The Committee would like to receive further comments and suggestions and will act to disseminate such information to the university community.

Phyllis F. Adams
Christopher B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
George Crist
Bill Ellis
Joanna Floros
Robert K. Howard
Paul R. Howell
Annie McGregor
Joseph Puzycki
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair
John Sammler


Guidelines for Basic Student Services at all Penn State Locations

(Advisory and Consultative)


The recent reorganization of what was formerly called the Commonwealth Education System into single or multi-campus colleges has presented an opportunity for the Faculty Senate to make some recommendations about basic student services at each location.

Definition. Basic programs and services are those that need to be offered in some form at every Penn State location, in proportion to local student needs and availability of resources. Their purpose is to promote student learning and personal development. Also, unless students perceive local services as at least adequate, colleges or campuses will find it difficult to recruit or retain students.

Background. The recommendations in this report are derived from those made in June 1994 by the Penn State Council of Chief Student Affairs Officers in a report titled, "Standards for Student Affairs" for all campus locations. It was based on national professional standards for student affairs, in response to areas of concern identified by the Council.

Rationale. All Penn State students expect basic services that support them in their out-of-class experiences and enhance their educational opportunities. They should receive these services, regardless of location.

As a result of recent pressures to improve recruiting and admissions, resources have been diverted from student services. Inadequate staffing exists at some locations. Some personnel are asked to carry out multiple functions, leading to burn-out, and difficulties in retaining and recruiting qualified staff.

While sharing of resources has often been advocated, there is evidence that some locations have not given it serious consideration. The Council of Chief Student Affairs Officers therefore based their recommendations on these system-wide expectations for delivering student services.

  1. Core Services and Programs. Students deserve appropriate support services and programs which add value to their educational experiences and enhance their academic success.
  2. Residential Campuses. All locations must meet the needs of students commuting from their service area. A number of locations have the added challenge of meeting the needs of the students who have moved to the campus or the immediate surrounding area. Services and allocated financial resources must reflect the nature of the location, the ease of access to the campus, and whether students commute and/or are residents of the campus and its immediate surrounding area.
  3. Quality. Students expect comprehensive services and programs from a nationally ranked institution, such as Penn State, regardless of their campus location. These expectations are reinforced by the fact that tuition and fees are nearly the same at all locations.

The Committee on Student Life understands that resources and needs vary with campus colleges and locations. Some campus colleges already do all and more of what is recommended in this report. Nevertheless, we recommend that each campus allocate resources to meet the following basic student services. SOME CAMPUS COLLEGES ALREADY DO ALL AND MORE OF WHAT IS RECOMMENDED IN THIS REPORT.


A. Student Life Functions

  1. New Student Orientation/Pre-Transfer Services. Introduce students to the university and its programs. Support them at decision points and ensure the quality of student life. Help students feel they identify with and belong to the Penn State community. Students moving from another Penn State campus or another institution must also be provided with similar services.
  2. Residence Life. Create a positive living environment with learning opportunities. Live-in professional staff and Resident Assistants should ensure safety and help students develop life skills, including respect for others and conflict resolution.
  3. Intramural and Recreational Activities. Involve all interested students, staff, and faculty in a program of activities consistent with their personal interests. Both structured and unstructured activities should be designed to meet a variety of students’ wellness goals.
  4. Learning Enhancement Activities. Reinforce classroom instruction. Create opportunities for students to develop their leadership skills and explore their ethical and moral values. Develop appreciation for diversity and provide community service opportunities to encourage students to value volunteerism and social equity.
  5. Student Government. Oversee and fund student organizations; work with University officials and policy makers. Such organizations should be the primary means of advocating the needs and opinions of students.
  6. Judicial Programs. Develop, publicize, and enforce regulations that protect the rights of all citizens; discourage unethical behavior; address student behavioral problems effectively.

B. Counseling

  1. Career Development and Placement. Provide vocational testing and advertise job opportunities. Create contacts with potential employers. Outreach to local industries must be maintained continuously. Train students in job search strategies and make information about prospective employers available. Maintain a job referral system that houses and distributes students' credentials.
  2. Personal Counseling. Offer psychological counseling in a confidential and professional manner when personal problems impede the learning process. In cases of personal crisis, provide short-term counseling or referral to community resources if appropriate. In cases of sexual harassment, a designated resource person will attempt to resolve the complaint and protect the student from retaliation.
  3. Outreach. Invite professionals to give workshops and programs for students, faculty, and staff on personal growth and development concepts such as conflict management.

C. Health Services and Health Education

  1. Basic Health Services. Provide a health service program at every location that is based on American College Health Association guidelines. A clear definition of what health services are offered, when, and by whom, and what back-up or emergency services are available must be made known to the campus community. Adequate facilities, resources, and equipment to allow the relevant services to be met must also be provided. At a minimum, the following services need to be provided by all locations either on site or through an established referral system:

2. Additional Health Service Requirements. Provide additional health service at some locations in response to needs that are greater than the minimum listed above. Additional health services may be needed because of a large number of students living in residence halls or independently in student housing near campus, overall campus size, and relative lack of quality health services in the surrounding community. Such locations need to provide a broader level of health services, including:

3. Health Education. Campus administrators at all locations must provide a programmatic health education plan promoting the general health of the campus community.

D. Special Programs

  1. Veterans/Dependents of Veterans. Inform qualified students of available benefits, help them complete applications, and answer questions about benefits packages. Help with the transition to civilian and college life; organize on-campus events; advocate needs of off-campus veterans.
  2. Physical Disabilities. Coordinate counseling and rehabilitation efforts and ensure access to facilities and programs. Communicate with community agencies to meet student needs.
  3. Adult Students. Advocate and support non-traditional students by providing services such as special orientation, counseling, learning assistance, career-oriented activities, and child care.

E. Administrative Functions

  1. Managing Human/Fiscal Resources. Recruit, supervise, and evaluate staff at all levels. Provide professional development opportunities for all Student Affairs staff.
  2. Assessment. Evaluate Student Affairs functions and determine student needs. Stay informed about current demographics and theories, and check to see that local student services are producing the desired outcomes.
  3. Resource to Faculty and Policy Makers. Build relationships with faculty and staff, and also with community advisory boards.
  4. Campus Crises. Form a campus-wide plan for responding to student crises.
  5. Security/Safety. Protect University and personal property and enforce campus regulations and state and local laws. Make support available to crime victims.
  6. Student Advocacy. Be prepared to outline student needs based on theory and contact with students at their specific campus. Enable students to take their own case to University officials.
  7. Community Relations. Maintain good relations with other campus offices and external agencies.

F. Other (Where Appropriate):

The following are examples of services that may be required at some locations. The list is not complete, and the examples may not be relevant to all locations.

  1. Greek Life. Support and guide students in efforts that promote scholarship and service. Ensure that such organizations abide by University policies and rules.
  2. Athletics. Offer students the opportunity to compete at the collegiate level. Offer regional and/or state-wide sports competition. (See also "Intramural and Recreational Activities," above.)
  3. Child Care. Depending on local need, advocate and provide needed services, ranging from information on local resources to an on-campus child development program.
  4. Radio/Media Opportunities. Advise and oversee broadcast stations, literary magazines, and/or newspapers.
  5. International Student Services. Provide additional support to acclimate students to the campus environment.
  6. Off-Campus Housing. Assist students in finding housing and inform them about local services and transportation. Support their needs through special orientation programs and, if possible, through a student organization.
  7. Housing and Food. Maintain a collaborative relationship with campus Housing and Food Services to enhance students' learning and personal development.
  8. Grant Writing. Explore ways of supplementing budgets through identifying and applying to external sources of funding.
  9. Research. Remain current on student development theory and carry out research that expands the knowledge of the field.

Phyllis F. Adams
Christopher B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
George Crist
Bill Ellis
Joanna Floros
Robert K. Howard
Paul R. Howell
Annie McGregor
Joseph Puzycki
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair
John Sammler

Phyllis Adams
John Becker
Nathan Hartwig
Jane Ridley
Cary Libkin
Meredythe Burrows
Kenneth Fisher
Deena Morganti
Joseph Cavinato
Amy Glasmeier
David Gold
Paul Howell
Peter Thrower
Eunice Askov
Joe Kincheloe
Brian Dempsey
John Lamancusa
James Robinson
Robert Burgess
Virginia Fortney
Scott Kretchmar
Susan Youtz
Irwin Feller
Paul Rose
William Schmalstieg
Hamid Al-Mondhiry
Graham Jeffries
Andrea Mastro
Richard Robinett
Marc Goldberg
Robert Howard
Charles Ghilani
Katherine Clark
William Asbury
J. Gary Augustson
John Bruhn
Carol Herrmann
James Ryan
Gary Schultz
James Stewart
Rodney Reed
Kara Ballek
Timothy Blair
Timothy Creyts
Julie Laubach
Michael Platz
Carie Spampinato
David Lubkemann
Jayatri Das
Matthew Otstot
Julie Cain
Christopher Anderson
John Baer
David Kayal
George Crist
Irja Haapala
Lara Lomicka
Erica Michael


Abendroth, Thomas W.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Arnold, Steven F.
Asbury, William W.
Askov, Eunice N.
Augustson, J. Gary
Baer, John W.
Bagby, John W.
Bakis, Charles E.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Beatty, James J.
Becker, John C.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blumberg, Melvin
Brannon, S. Diane
Brasseur, James G.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brighton, John A.
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Burgess, Robert L.
Cahir, John J.
Cain, Julie
Calvin, Dennis D.
Cardella, John F.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casciani, Santa
Casteel, Mark A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Comiskey, C. Michael
Crist, George
Curtis, Wayne R.
Das, Jayatri
Davis, Dwight
de Hart, Steven A.
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
Dempsey, Richard F.
De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill C.
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Farber, Gregory K.
Fisher, Kenneth J.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Franz, George W.
Friend, Linda C.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Ghilani, Charles D.
Glasmeir, Amy K.
Goldberg, Marc D.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine
Hartwig, Nathan L.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Howard, Robert K.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jurs, Peter C.
Kayal, David
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Khosrowpour, Mehdi
Klein, Philip A.
Kretchmar, R. Scott
Kristine, Frank J.
Lamancusa, John S.
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M.
Lucas, Veronica Burns
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Mastro, Andrea M.
McGregor, Annette K.
Michael, Erica B.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Miller, Linda P.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moller, Leslie A.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Morganti, Deena J.
Munn, Mark H.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Oz, Effy
Ozment, Judy
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Pauley, Laura L.
Phillips, Allen T.
Phillips, Jonathan
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Reed, Rodney J.
Richards, Robert D.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Robinson, James W.
Romano, John J.
Romano, Paula
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor
Rose, Paul L.
Roth, David E.
Roth, Gregory W.
Royse, Daniel J.
Ryan, James H.
Sandler, Karen W.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schmalstieg, William R.
Secor, Robert
Smith, James F.
Smith, Richard M.
Smith, Sandra R.
Spanier, Graham B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, Charles H.
Sutton, Jane S.
Swisher, John
Testa, Donna M.
Thigpen, Kenneth A.
Thomas, James B.
Thrower, Peter A.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda K.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Wager, J. James
Ware, Roger P.
White, Eric R.
Whittam, Thomas S.
Wilson, Richard A.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Youtz, Susan C.
Yucelt, Ugur
Zelis, Robert
Bugyi, George J.
Clark, Helen F.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
149 Total Elected
6 Total Ex Officio
7 Total Appointed
162 Total Attending