Penn State University Home




Volume 31-----SEPTEMBER 9, 1997-----Number 1

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 September 9, 1997 Pages ii-iii

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to September 15, 1998 Appendix I

B. Attached

III. Tentative Agenda for October 21, 1997 Appendix VI


Minutes of the April 22, 1997, Meeting in The Senate Record 30:7 Page 1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of August 22, 1997 Page 1

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meetings of August 26, 1997 Page 1





Committees and Rules

Proposal to Rescind Delegation of Authority to Penn State Harrisburg - The Capital College Pages 10 - 14


Policy HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and
Other Members of the University Staff Page 15

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Awards and Scholarships Page 15

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten Credit Limit for Nondegree Conditional Students Page 16

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation

An Analysis of the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness Pages 16 - 23

Student Life

Challenging the Norm; Changing the Environment - 1996 - 97 Activity Review Pages 24 - 27

Undergraduate Education

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location Page 27

University Planning

Status of the University's Compliance with Disability Act Regulations Pages 27 - 35

University Planning

ID Card Update Pages 35 - 43



M. ADJOURNMENT - Pages 43 - 44


The Senate passed one Legislative Report under Unfinished Legislative Business:

Committee on Committees and Rules - "Proposal to Rescind Delegation of Authority to Penn State Harrisburg-The Capital College." This report eliminates the special provisions the Capital College had under Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3, of the Senate Constitution because it was an upper-division school. This was necessitated because of the inclusion of Schuylkill Campus into the College, which is lower-division in nature. (See Record, page(s) 10-14, Agenda Appendix "C," Door Handout Record Appendix H and Corrected Copy Record Appendix III.)

There were no Advisory and Consultative Reports.

The Senate received seven Informational Reports:

Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Awards and Scholarships." This report compares the monetary amounts and number of awards and scholarships granted in 1996-97 and 1997-98. These scholarships are under the jurisdiction of the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 15 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten Credit Limit for Nondegree Conditional Students (Senate Policy 14 -00)." This report summarizes the submissions, success and denial of the petitions filed by Nondegree Conditional Students for exceptions to the 10-credit limit as dictated by Policy 14-00. (See Record, page(s) 16 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

Special Committee on Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - "An Analysis of the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness." This report examines the Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE) with regard to the ratings of the quality if instructions, in the context of the research literature. (See Record, page(s) 16-23 and Agenda Appendix'T.")

Committee on Student Life - "Challenging the Norm; Changing the Environment." This is the fourth in a series of reports that examine the effects of excessive alcohol consumption and its impact on the academic environment at the University. (See Record, page(s) 24-27, Agenda Appendix "G," and Door Handout Record Appendix IV.)

Committee on Undergraduate Education - "Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location." This report gives a summary of student petitions by types and also by units of the University for Drop/Add, Withdrawal, Corrected Grades, etc., actions. (See Record, page(s) 27 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Committee on University Planning - "Status of the University's Compliance with Disability Act Regulations." This report included information on the applicable legislation, Penn State's obligations under ADA, and a summary on how faculty and students can work together to comply with the federal legislation. (See Record, page(s) 27-35 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

"ID Card Update." This report explained the need for a change in the ID Card system, gave an update regarding the accomplishments to date and invited faculty input into the process. (See Record, page(s) 35 -43 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 9, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Louis Geschwindner. Chair, presiding. One-hundred-sixty-nine Senators signed the roster.

Chair Geschwindner: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call this meeting of the University Faculty Senate for Tuesday, September 9, 1997 to order.


You have received The Senate Digest for the meetings of March 25 and April 22, 1997. May I have a motion to approve these Digests? Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you. The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings, was sent to all University libraries. Are there any corrections or additions to these documents? Seeing none, we will accept the motion to approve. May I have a motion? Second? All those in favor, signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you very much. I don't know if any one noticed, but we approved two Digests. The Senate Digest for March 25 was not available prior to our last meeting. Keep you on your toes.


The Senate Curriculum Report, or the Blue Sheet, of August 22, 1997 was published. You should have received a copy of the report in the mail. In addition, the seating chart for this year's Senate is provided in Appendix "B" in your agenda.


Meeting of Senate Council for August 26 was held for the establishment of the agenda and the report of that meeting, the minutes, are also in your agenda.


I will now move on to announcements by the Chair, and I refer you to my remarks in the Senate Council minutes. In addition, I have some comments I would like to make before we get started today.

The time since our last Senate meeting has been a busy one as we bring to a conclusion some of the work accomplished by last year's Senate and we begin to formulate the agendas for the coming, year. Senate Officers have met with all committee leaders and jointly have established the framework for each committee's agenda. There will undoubtedly be new issues raised and new opportunities to pursue. We should all expect to approach this coming year's agenda in a flexible way that will permit us to accomplish the most and advance the interests of The Pennsylvania State University. As reported in the minutes of Senate Council, President Spanier responded to thirteen separate action items from our spring 1997 agenda. All but one of these were approved and directed toward the appropriate office for implementation. The complete report is included in the minutes of Senate Council on pages 2 and 3, attached to The Senate Agenda. The recommendation on the revision of HR-60, dealing with the official file, was not approved. Dr. Spanier will work with the Senate leadership to address the complete revision of HR-60. Certainly, if you recall the discussion here, there was some concern about what that file really was. So, our goal would be to address the complete record.

Senate Officers have begun their fall visits to non-University Park locations, with visits last week to New Kensington, McKeesport and Fayette Campuses. They ask that all Senators from the other campuses to be visited this fall make special note of the days that we will be visiting your campus. This will give you an opportunity to plan ahead, to have a high level of participation of the faculty at those meetings, and hopefully, to encourage students to also come in good numbers. These visits will be to Berks-Lehigh Valley College, the Allentown Campus, on September 16; the Abington College and Delaware Campus on September 17; the DuBois Campus on September 23; the Beaver Campus on September 24; the Capital College, Schuylkill Campus on October 7; and Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Berks Campus, and the College of Medicine on October 8.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on July 2 and September 4. Topics addressed included a budget update and a 1997-98 planning report. On both of these we anticipate informational reports coming to the full Senate for our next meeting. CES reorganization and, among other issues, the need to develop methods to assure disciplinary coherence and compliance with Provost Brighton's fall 1996 memo regarding support by University Park colleges and departments of faculty at other locations were discussed. The Pennsylvania College of Technology and its relation to the University Faculty Senate and Penn State was an item for discussion. The salary equity report approved by the Senate last year and how that report was implemented throughout the Penn State system was discussed. A report from Provost Brighton has been provided and passed along to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Hershey-Geisinger merger and its impact on faculty was also addressed. Senate leadership is continuing to work to address issues raised by Hershey faculty and issues raised from within the Senate committees and individual faculties as they relate to Hershey.

Finally, we addressed the President's State of the University Address and the key announcements and initiatives he will be presenting. I encourage all of you who can be available to attend President Spanier's address on Friday, September 12--that's this coming Friday--at 4:00 p.m. at Eisenhower Auditorium, or at a broadcast site on your campus.

Before we move alone, with today's agenda, I want to tell you of an initiative that we have begun to bring the University Faculty Senate more fully into the electronic age. Murry Nelson suggested that I remind you all that I have a set of push buttons up here, and that if you fall asleep we push the button and the electronic age wakes you up.

First, we will no longer publish The Senate Digest. I know that will be reading material sorely missed. The Senate Record will continue to be the official record of the actions of the Senate and it will be available on the World Wide Web and in paper form for archival purposes at selected locations. Individual Senators will not receive a printed copy of the record. Along with this, The Senate Agenda will also be published on the Web. At least initially, each Senator will continue to receive a printed agenda as you receive it now. To accomplish these moves, we are asking that all committee reports to be placed on The Senate Agenda be submitted to the Senate Office in electronic form. Although there may be some slight difficulties along the way, with everyone's help we will be able to make this transition, save significantly on the budget of the Senate Office, and hopefully improve communications with all Senators and the entire University community. The Senate Web Page continues to be located at the same address on the university server. It may be accessed from the Penn State home page through the link to "Faculty and Staff Services," and then by clicking the link to the Faculty Senate. Currently, this page provides links to the Policies and Rules, the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate and the unofficial Degree Program Bulletins. In the future, we will have links to all official publications of the Senate, including official Bulletins. We have also provided e-mail links to the Senate Officers. All faculty are encouraged to contact the Officers if they have any questions or concerns that we may help with. I want to thank you all for your willingness to serve the University through your commitments to the Senate and look forward to a productive and interesting Senate year.


And now we move to Comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is here and will make some comments.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much. I would like to begin by thanking, the Faculty Advisory Committee, which is these folks up here plus about three others of you, for agreeing to some extra meetings during the summer, as Lou reported. That has been very helpful to us in the Administration because work just continues and there are a lot of things that we think are important to have faculty input on, and they've been very good about attending these extra meetings. We do appreciate it very much, and there are a lot of things that may be at a stage where they are not quite ready to bring forward to a larger audience, and we value the input that we get early on from the Faculty Advisory Committee. I would also like to extend an invitation to you all to attend the State of the University Address on Friday at 4:00 p.m. or to listen electronically. I think it will be communicated in a variety of ways to all of our campuses. We had a great move-in weekend at the University Park campus and as near as I can tell at all the other campuses around the State. This comes at a time when we have a record overall enrollment at Penn State; I'll comment on that in a little more detail later. What is especially noteworthy is, as we had our largest enrollment and extra burdens in the classroom and outside of the classroom, how smooth everything functioned. I am really very grateful to our deans and department heads, people in our academic and student support offices, and our faculty for stepping up to the plate and helping us with those needs. I am really pleased with the progress that we have seen very early on with this new program to put newspapers into all of our residence halls. It has been quite remarkable. Our experiment in the spring we thought went very well and gave us confidence that we ought to go ahead with the program. But what has really surprised us is, based on the estimates from the spring, we assumed that on any given day across our 17,000 residential students that we would have maybe 4,000 or 5,000 students who would read one of the three newspapers that we have, which at each location consists of a local paper, USA Today, and the New York Times. We are, after two weeks into this term, at almost 10,000 students per day who are picking up one of those newspapers in addition to The Collegian. So it's working very well. And the other thing about this that is a real pleasure to note is how many faculty members have integrated this into their classes, especially those who are teaching freshmen, and since all freshmen live in the residence halls on our residential campuses they, therefore, have automatic access to the paper. We have many faculty members who are building newspaper reading into their courses. We had, I think, last spring, just in the normal course of events, 48 faculty members who were already doing this as part of their instruction, and now that number has increased. So, it is a pretty exciting thing for us to have pulled off. Bill Asbury and others working with him in Student Affairs have had quite a remarkable challenge logistically trying to distribute all of these papers, and each day we try to make adjustments to get the right papers at the right time to the right places. It's also been kind of an interesting phenomenon in terms of recycling. Imagine 50,000 newspapers a week, that would be like a whole big city, you know, and all those papers being recycled and we are doing it. That recycling program has been so successful that we will soon be announcing some of the great successes we had creating scholarship funds from the paper that is being recycled into a PennMulch product. There is progress.

One of the things that we are going to be emphasizing this year, and this should be of relevance to all of you, whether you are at one of our campuses away from University Park or here at University Park. When we started the transition to the new Commonwealth College with other new colleges that are created, we said that it would be very important to maintain a concept of Penn State having one faculty. And with the new administrative arrangements, which by all reports are going along very positively, there is always the danger of losing those connections. And I am absolutely determined to do everything I can to encourage them being maintained, regardless of tenure home, regardless of who's deciding on pay increases or where one's location is. I would like faculty members who are sociologists to still consider themselves to be part of a larger family of sociologists at Penn State. Or historians, or engineers, or English professors, or whatever it might be. So, you can be sure that we are going to be giving that message on a repeated basis to deans and department heads to take some leadership to make this happen. But I can't emphasize at the same time how important it is for especially faculty at the University Park campus to be supportive of that. So that if we are asking, let's say a department head here at University Park- to take some leadership for providing some program across all of Penn State, that's not going to be a very exciting thing for that department head to do if that department head doesn't have the support of the faculty members within that discipline. So, if you believe that's important, and I hope you do, you will be encouraging your department head to provide some leadership in that area, and that you will all participate in such activities. I think we can push this first year and really encourage it to happen, see how it goes, but if they throw a party and nobody comes, it will diminish their interest in doing it again in the future. I believe that that's extremely important, and I hope you would support that as well.

I am very pleased with the progress that has taken place in the development of the new general education curriculum, and I know that will be coming to you in due course and I am very much looking forward to that report and the Senate action. When does that take place? That's not today, is it?

Chair Geschwindner: No, not today. It will probably be the second meeting after today.

President Spanier: November?

Chair Geschwindner: Not November, December.

President Spanier: December. That long? (Laughter) OK, I guess the wheels of progress turn slowly.

Chair Geschwindner: We want to do it right.

President Spanier: But, I am looking forward to that.

In terms of the move-in that I mentioned, let me just say that our official enrollment count, our official snapshot of what the true enrollment is at the University, doesn't take place until October 1. And it actually changes everyday as we're discovering that students we thought were here didn't actually show up, and some people who maybe didn't have their paperwork all in order, got it in order. So, thorough the month of September that all gets sorted out. So, we don't really know what the final enrollment will be. And I know that I see Vickie and a couple others who would like to run out and put a big headline in the paper what the enrollment is going to be. We don't know. But what I do want to say to all of you is that almost certainly we think that Penn State will have a total enrollment, across all of our campuses, of more than 80,000--which, as you know, we were at 78,000--something last year. That includes the Pennsylvania College of Technology and it includes the Dickinson School of Law of Penn State, which, as you know, is an add-on. And depending upon if you make an apples to oranges comparison, you couldn't really compare the two numbers, but overall it would probably put us over 80,000 students, and that is about where we would expect it to be. And also, we're almost certain that we will have a record enrollment at the University Park campus, which exceeds 40,000 students. This is all the more remarkable considering how smoothly things went and how quickly we were able to anticipate this, add sections, meet the instructional demand, get students properly housed. Yes, we had more than we expected in temporary housing, but that is falling into place pretty nicely. I should say that we have delivered on all of the promises we made in regard to enrollment. We actually admitted a smaller number of freshmen this year. So, there are a couple of reasons why enrollment goes up, and it is more than just admissions. It's retention. We are doing very well in retention, which is good news. We all ought to be celebrating that we're retaining as many students as we are. Secondly, our yield rate went up, that is also a very good news story. What that means is that even though we admitted fewer freshmen, of those we admitted, a higher proportion--in fact a record proportion-accepted our offer of admission. That's also very good news because it means among the best students, those who are receiving offers from other good universities, are choosing to accept Penn State's offer more then some other schools that are in the same ballpark, and that they are being admitted, too. And so we're very pleased with that as well. Also, we are beginning, and of course in the very early stages of this, to meet some of our goals of retaining more upper-division students on other campuses. So some of you are at a campus where you realize that you now have some juniors that you didn't have before. These might have been students who dropped out of school entirely who came to the University Park campus and, because they are place-bound now, decided to stay there or who went on and did something else. So, these are all explanations for why enrollments are up overall, and that higher yield rate, in particular, is part of what contributed to our higher enrollment at University Park. Also, you will remember that two years ago, in the fall of 1995, we had that exceptionally big surge in freshmen enrollments that we now have got a handle on and have controlled. But those folks are still in the pipeline, so we have that bulge of what are now beginning juniors, so that, of course even if you admit fewer people down the line, if a big bulge goes through you have a cohort effect that keeps those enrollments up. So, we are meeting all of our enrollment goals, and that means we will be kind of on the high end for the next couple of years, and I suspect we will stay somewhere up in the zone that we are, perhaps with some modest increase beyond that. But at most of our campuses we do expect to control our enrollments and maybe even set some limits that we haven't set before. Overall. I think that it is a very positive story for us. Well, those are some of the comments I wanted to make, and now I would be happy to take your questions.

Chair Geschwindner: Do we have questions for President Spanier? I remind you to please identify yourself.

David Kayal, Student, Division of Undergraduate Studies- This is not a question about academies. This started to concern me last spring, over Saint Patrick's Day, and continued over Arts Fest, and recently this weekend. My question is, do you, or any part of the University, have any involvement in, and if not, what is your opinion on, the efforts of the State College police, the Rockview State Police, and the Liquor Control Board to crack down on alcohol violations in the downtown area by use of tactics that I feel, and other students have felt, seem deceitful at least and are bordering on harassment. This is a concern of mine as a downtown area student. I don't know if you have anything to do with this.

President Spanier: No, actually the local police authorities, State College police, and any other state agencies that are involved in it do not consult with me ahead of time-probably just as well. So, it came as a surprise to me that there had been arrests that were made on Saturday night. I only learned about it like the rest of the world, afterwards, reading it in the papers. And really, what is in the papers is the extent of what I know about it at this point. I do not condone on University property or in any University affiliated organization serving alcohol to underage students who legally should not be doing that, and it is especially damaging to a student organization when it gets itself in that kind of situation. But I have always felt that my responsibility is on the education side, to talk about these issues, to get students to think them through. I spoke on this very issue at the Freshmen Convocation here at University Park when we welcomed our 5,000 freshmen here. I think it is a message that was fairly well received. My approach has been educational, working with our student affairs folks, to try to get people to voluntarily make decisions about their own lives to avoid binge drinking, but off campus we are not involved in the enforcement side. So, no, I did not have any knowledge of that.

Chair Geschwindner: Are there any other questions?

Peter A. Thrower, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Over the last year we have seen a merger with Hershey and Geisinger Medical Systems, which I know you were instrumental in. Is it too early to make any comments about how that will impact benefits as far as faculty and staff at Penn State are concerned?

President Spanier: No, it's not too early to talk about it in general terms. The occurrence of the merger is a little bit out of sync with the general offering of our benefits, so the next window for the faculty benefit selection, as you know will occur later this fall. I think probably we'd do it in November or so, and then it takes place during the calendar year. We will almost certainly continue to offer a range of health benefits as we have in the past. Right now we have the indemnity plan, which is known as Plan A, and a pretty high proportion of our retirees take advantage of that because people who move outside of the area obviously, for example, can't take advantage of a local preferred provider plan or a local HMO. They pay a little more for it, but that's a benefit that works for them. We also then have a preferred provider kind of plan where you can broadly choose your own providers, and there's a cost sharing between the University and the individual. And we have an HMO option. Now this varies slightly from campus to campus because some of the different types of providers available in one region of the state may differ from those in another region of the state. With the Penn State-Geisinger Health System we will almost certainly look at the possibility of providing yet an additional choice, which would be the Penn State-Geisinger system, probably in addition to the Health America plan that we have right now, certainly in the short term. So I would expect this fall, at the very least, we'll have the same array of programs that we have now. In fact, we may have an additional program to choose from. Down the road there will continue to be adjustments, I'm sure, from year to year. Remember, that the University has a stake in this from a number of different directions. One, is that we are affiliated with the Penn State-Geisinger Health System and we care very much about providing affordable, quality health care in this contiguous 40 county area across Pennsylvania. So we want to make sure that we are contributing to doing that right. Also, of course, we operate the College of Medicine and all its ancillary parts and want to make sure that that's appropriately tied in. Finally, as the largest employer in the region and one of the largest employers in the state, the University spends--I'm just going to give you a very- round number--something like $70 million of our budget on health care. So we are very interested in providing the funds for quality health care for employees but also keeping the costs of health care down, because the more that escalates up the more we have a budget problem at the University. The University, it's probably not well known, pays for all of your health care. This isn't some vague insurance thing when you get a form in the mail. How many of you are on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits? Whatever it is, you folks are experts on this. Some time during the year don't you give a report on these things? So maybe everyone here knows more than I am assuming, but I imagine there are some people here who just think you get these forms in the mail from Health America or Prudential or something and you think maybe that they are actually paying for it, that the University gives them a fee and however it turns out they cover it. That's not actually how it works, the University, out of our budget, is paying for all of your health care. What we are doing is paying a fee to those organizations for administering the processing of it. So we are paying them as well. And we are actually paying the final bill for the health care. So if health care goes up and you all go out tomorrow and have expensive operations, we will feel that in our budget. Of course, we are very committed to covering it. That's why you all look so healthy today. That's a very important question. It's a very significant issue for us. And we do keep an eve on those things.

Rajen Mookerjee, Beaver Campus: In the first round--and we are talking about the Commonwealth College--in the first round the Beaver, McKeesport, and New Kensington campuses were denied the opportunity to offer a four-year program. I understand that there is a plan in the works to resubmit. But there have been some rumors that universities in the area are still quite opposed to this resubmission. We are concerned. We want to know whether you are going to take a direct leadership role in this, and if for some reason the campus is allowed to offer four-year degrees, how do we fit into this new Commonwealth College?

President Spanier: Well, the answers are yes, yes, yes, and you absolutely fit in. We do expect to resubmit plans for those three campuses, and it is our expectation and certainly our hope that those plans will be approved. And what we are trying to do now is to dot every "i" and cross every "t 'and make sure that those plans are so compelling that of course they will be approved. We do expect that there will be some colleges in the region, as has been the case in the past, that don't like the idea that Penn State is trying to serve our communities better and provide greater educational services because they believe, I think, quite mistakenly that somehow it will affect their future. I don't think that is the case. I think when the enrollment figures come out we will see that everything we have said about the Commonwealth College and the other campuses is coming true, that we are providing more students an opportunity, more Penn State students an opportunity to complete a Penn State degree at their campus, and that's - what we can do in our Pittsburgh area campuses as well. So we are working with other colleges and universities. We would like their support; we're going to be asking for it; we want them to be with us rather than against us, but in the end, of course, we have to do what we think is in the best interests of the people of Pennsylvania and in the best interests of Penn State. Yes. I'm directly involved in that and will continue to try to champion it, but we have some very good people who have been working on it, so we just want to get it all right and then we will go ahead with it. Under any scenario, those three campuses will be part of the Commonwealth College, and you know we're moving along in the search for the dean of that college. I don't have any candidates who have been recommended yet, but I understand that they are making progress towards identifying some. The campuses of the College have been working, getting coordinated, getting organized, and I think that's moving along, and that wouldn't be affected by what happens on the three campuses.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other questions? Yes, stand up so we can all hear you, and have your name please.

John W. Baer, Student, CCSG Representative, York: Is there a tentative ballpark date, because since last year when they turned down Beaver, New Kensington, and McKeesport is there a tentative date? Sometime before the first of the year? Sometime before summer? Is there a tentative date when it will be resubmitted?

President Spanier: I haven't gotten a report lately. Sophia,are you still working on this project? I think it will be our goal to have something this academic year, isn't it?

Sophia Wisniewska, Associate Dean for Academic Programs, Commonwealth College: We anticipate having something hopefully at the end of the month and to do something within the six months that the secretary has to respond. January, maybe February?

President Spanier: It's a goal to have it done this academic year, but we've got some hoops to go through, so I don't want to have us commit to something we can't deliver on. But as soon as we can move it forward, as soon as we think the climate is right to move it forward, we will.

Chair Geschwindner: We have time for one final question. Thank you President Spanier, we all look forward to your address on Friday.





Proposal to Rescind -Delegation of Authority to
Penn State Harrisburg - The Capital College

Sabih I. Hayek, Chair

Chair Geschwindner: As we begin our discussion of our reports, let me remind you again please stand in order to record our conversations for the record. We've got a microphone up here, and it is going to pick you up better if you are standing. Please give your name and your affiliation so that this, too, can be recorded. We have no forensic business so we move to unfinished legislative business. This recommendation is a change in the Bylaws and it must be on the floor for two meetings before it is finally voted on. This is a recommendation coming from the Committee on Committees and Rules. There is a door handout to go along with it, and Sabih Hayek will present the report.

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: Senate Officers, fellow Senators, the first thing I would like to make is an editorial chance voted on by CC&R this morning. Under the title Proposal to Rescind Delegation of Authority, legislative implementation is where will be making , an editorial change. The first part stays the same, "Implementation upon passage by the Senate" then is followed by "Implementation of Rule 82-20 becomes effective by the fall semester of 1999." That's the editorial change.

The main objective of the proposed legislation basically was to have, to mainline the new Capital College, made up of two campuses, Harrisburg and Schuylkill, to have this new college be subject to the same policies and rules as any other college, University Park or non-Universitv Park. That's the main objective. However, we realize that we could have a problem with implementing this legislation as far as graduation is concerned. This is the main reason for extending the implementation for 82-20, which is graduation requirement, so that Capital College would have sufficient time to propose changes to their policies to agree with this policy. Basically, that's the main reason for proposing this section of the legislation. Before I ask for any questions from the floor, the Chair wants to make some comments.

Chair Geschwindner: Because of the complexity of the issues relating to general education and to Capital College, I will be charging the appropriate committees of the Senate to address that issue and to come forward, hopefully this academic year, with proposals as to how the general education program of The Pennsylvania State University will be applied to the Capital College programs. Keep in mind that they are predominantly two-year, third- and fourth-year programs, so it is appropriate that we address exactly how they are applied. The committees may come forward with a recommendation that we do it exactly the same as we do it now or do it differently. We will leave that to the committees. But that is the result of the modification that Sabih has made in terms of extending the application of general education. We will have on the floor before the Senate this issue down the road so that we can all address the specifies. And now are there any comments for discussion? Susan?

M. Susan Richman, Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg: First, I want to make my position clear that I do not oppose the rescinding of the delegation of authority to Penn State Harrisburg. This delegation has served us well in the years when we developed to meet the charge of the University to create innovative, interdisciplinary programs. But it is no longer necessary or even important that we have a curriculum review procedure that is different from other units of the University. When I addressed the Senate at the last meeting when this legislation was put on the floor, I expressed my concerns, not about the delegation of authority per se, but about the possible fallout from the legislation. Other Senators and I have different opinions on just exactly what 82-20 says. As a mathematician, when I read "the exceptions shall be in existence as long as the delegation," I read that as "at least as long." If it were to say "exactly as long" then it would be clear. But I am not a lawyer and the Committee on Committees and Rules has decided that this should be interpreted to read "exactly as long." Therefore, I have some concerns about the implementation of rescinding some of the exceptions. The most important one, but possibly not the only one, being the implementation of general education requirements at the Capital College. For the benefit of new Senators, I would like to explain again what some of my concerns are. As the Senate Chair has indicated, the Capital College--which is the merger of the Penn State Harrisburg Campus and the Schuylkill Campus--is technically a four-year college. In fact, the Capital College is essentially a fuzzy two-plus-two, not a four-year college. We do not offer the courses that are in the general education requirements, so if a student comes to Harrisburg, without them, for us to offer them would have possibly significant budgetary implications, and, therefore, before this is implemented it should be costed-out. I am not saying that the gen ed requirements should not be implemented at Penn State Harrisburg, just that it shouldn't come in automatically as fallout of this present legislation.

For students who come to Harrisburg from Schuylkill or from any other location of the University where the gen ed requirements are currently enforced, it is not a big problem because they probably will have met most of them before they come. However,. for students who come from institutions other than Penn State, it could be a major problem. And the majority of our students at Penn State Harrisburg who come in as juniors come from outside the University. With some of the schools that they come from, we have articulation agreements, and it can have legal implications for us to change the admission or graduation requirements. So it is a matter of some concern just exactly what the timetables for implementation of changes would be. As various committees consider these matters, it is important that they consult with the people who are involved--our registrar, etc.--at the Harrisburg campus so they know exactly what the problems are and how they can be resolved. Thank you.

Melvin Blumberg, Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg: If I may, I would like to provide some context for the discussion and tell members of the Senate and the Committee things about our campus you might not know unless you sit up nights reading our catalog. The campus was founded in the late spring of 1966 when the then Olmstead Air Force Base was closed down. President Walker and Governor Scranton thought that it might be a good idea to extend Penn State's graduate education in that region. Thoughts were that there wasn't enough of a student body to support that, so we became an upper-division campus, that is, had only junior-senior courses and graduate education. Currently, we are the only upper-division college in the State of Pennsylvania--the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The price of the campus, by the way, was $1 00,000. There are 200 acres of land. We are adjacent to Harrisburg International Airport, about 20 miles from downtown Harrisburg. We have approximately -'1500 students--2300 undergraduate, 1200 graduate students. About 600 students live on campus. Penn State Harrisburg has the second highest percentage of grad students within the University. And in absolute terms we consistently rank among the top two or three colleges in terms of master's students enrolled and number of master's degrees conferred. One hundred percent of our students have begun their education at another location. Fifty percent of our students come to us from other Penn State locations, twenty-five percent from a local community college (Harrisburg Area Community College) and twenty-five percent from 25 other colleges and universities. So, as Susan mentioned, over 50% of our students come to us from other universities and colleges. Harrisburg Area Community College, by the way, is a world class community college with strong support services and programs for minority students, mid-career adults, returning women, and a good percent of the University's minority enrollment comes to us by this path. We have 132 full-time faculty organized into 5 schools. 95% of the faculty have their doctorates and are involved in basic research. We offer the baccalaureate degree in 29 majors. We have 13 master's degree programs, and two doctorates--doctorates in Adult Education and a Ph.D. in Public Administration. The problem with the amendment, if I could reinforce what Susan pointed out, is because of its early history and the kind of college that we were and remember we are a degree-granting college and university, similar to the other colleges within the university--we've had to develop formal articulation agreements with our local community college. We have a dual admission program with Harrisburg Area Community College, and this program has won wide recognition. For example, we were asked to present at a meeting of the American Assembly of the Collegiate Schools of Business the mechanism through which we have developed these -articulation agreements. We also have formal articulation agreements with 14 other institutions and with our Dual Admissions Program. We have advisors that we provide to students who are admitted to Penn State Harrisburg at the same time they are admitted to Harrisburg Area Community College. If this change goes forth as amended--as we have pointed out, our courses will no longer articulate--we will have abrogated our Dual Admissions Program. We can transfer courses, but even if we transfer courses, it will no longer have the proper designations. For example, we may transfer an English Composition course, but it won't be a GWS course. We may transfer a Math course, but it won't be a GQ course. One might say, well, just send them off to the dean and have a few exceptions made, because deans can make all kinds of exceptions. Can you picture 50% of our student body lined up outside of the dean's office with petitions attempting to get a waiver of a general education course? So, to reinforce what Susan said, we do request a delay. One thing I would like to point out: that if you want to be a full-time student at the University and carry 12 credits, which works out to be two and a half years, many of our students who are working their way through different programs take much longer than that. So my request would be that we delay the changes to the Bylaws for at least three years as these and other requirements are worked through. In addition to the policy that we mentioned, 82-20, there are also problems with the number of "C" required courses. There are actually problems with Senate policies 39-20,39-50,39-80,and 82-44. So my request would be that we study this much more and take a more studied approach to this.

Sabih I. Hayek: Two things I want to answer here. One, I think what we're doing here is simply rescinding the delegation of authority. As Lou said every committee of the Senate will make every effort to accommodate you in any way they can between now and 1999. This is a full two years, and I think that there will be no problem fixing this as you go along. The second thing I think is that the articulation policies you have with other colleges, you probably can still carry those through. You just have to make sure that when these come for admission that those will be given the proper designation for Penn State courses. I honestly don't think it's a lot of problem, but something you have to work out for the next couple of years.

Melvin Blumberg: With the dual admission program, it is as though the students at their home campuses have also been admitted to Penn State Harrisburg, and they are entitled to graduate under the catalog that they entered. If we change this before students have a chance to progress through the system in an orderly fashion, we won't allow them to meet graduation requirements.

Sabih I. Hayek: That was the main reason we have filled out basically two years. That was the main reason.

Melvin Blumberg: Again, as Susan pointed out, however, the students, the full-time student taking, twelve semester hours would be more than two years.

Chair Geschwindner: One thing we need to keep in mind is that as long as a student remains in good standing, once they are admitted to the University the criteria under which they are admitted are the ones that they follow. And we get into requirements in the major, then when they are admitted to the major those are the requirements that they follow. So this, whatever happens here, would not be affecting the students currently in the system, nor the students who might graduate in the year 2000, even if some change in general education comes into play in 1999. So let's keep that in mind. Jean?

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: May I also suggest that there are lots of models that are working very well in other colleges that deal with students transferring from community colleges to articulation programs that perhaps Harrisburg could also look to other parts of the system, models and examples that have succeeded in the past few years.

Chair Geschwindner: Any other comments or questions? Let me remind you that because we are voting to change the Bylaws, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote. Are you ready for question? All those in favor of the recommendation, signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Geschwindner: All opposed, same sign. Thank you, motion passes. Thank you, Sabih. We have no legislative reports and we have no advisory or consultative reports.







Awards and Scholarships

Frank J. Kristine, Chair

Chair Geschwindner: We do have a number of important informational reports. The first set of reports are coming from the Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid Committee. Frank Kristine will present the report on the awards and scholarships, Appendix "D." And then we will follow that with a summary of petitions given in Appendix "E." Frank?

Frank J. Kristine, Mont Alto Campus: These will be the first two of the very important informational reports you're going to hear this afternoon. First, one is the Annual Report that Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid provides the Senate to let you folks see how the scholarship monies that are under Senate purview have been distributed. I'd be happy to answer questions that you have on that report. Peter?

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Do the students apply to these scholarships, or what is the process for the students to avail themselves of these scholarships?

Frank J. Kristine: Am I allowed to ask for help? Is there anyone from Student Aid or Admissions, Records, Scheduling that could help me out on that? Students apply for these, or if they--I understand from talking to my financial aid folks at Mont Alto you've got a general financial aid form.

Chair Geschwindner: Frank, can we give you some help? OK, we've got the two immediate past chairs of ARSSA sitting up here, and we just had a brief discussion, and basically they apply on the basis of GPA. And so we run a list of GPA, financial need if it's a requirement, and that's what's used to make the decisions. Now, Frank's the new chairman. Now did you actually get involved, Frank, in this determination?

Frank J. Kristine: No, not really.
Chair Geschwindner: OK, any other comments or questions?


Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten Credit Limit for
Nondegree Conditional Students

Frank J. Kristine, Chair

OK, if we move on to Appendix "E."

Frank J. Kristine: And the second report is similar, an annual report that the committee gives to provide a summary of the petitions that were looked at for waiver of the ten credit limit for non-degree conditional students.

Chair Geschwindner: Comments or questions on this report? OK, thank you very much, Frank.


An Analysis of the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness

Terry Engelder, Chair

Our next report comes from the Special Committee on Faculty Teaching, Development, and Evaluation. It's given in Appendix "F." entitled "An Analysis of the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness," and Mike Dooris, a member of that committee, is here to present that report.

Michael J. Dooris, Director of Planning Research and Assessment: You have before you an informational report on the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness. I would like to give you a five or six minute summary in two parts: first, how this report came to be written, and second, what the analysis found. I'll try to respond to questions as best I can in the time remaining. First, background on how this report came about. As Lou said, I am here as one member of a Special Committee on Faculty Teaching, Development, and Evaluation. The committee was formed in May 1996. The charge to the committee was to recommend a comprehensive approach to the development of excellent teaching and its development at Penn State. The charge included a statement that, "the committee should focus on the development of excellent teaching and give secondary attention to evaluation." The charge asked the committee , as for recommendations both for the enhancement of teaching through a variety of means and about instructional evaluation, again through a variety of means. A complete report from that committee will be coming to the Senate. That report will deal in total with the issues of incentives, development and evaluation. The report before you now is simply one piece of information that the committee requested and used. Because the SRTE has been the subject of a lot of discussion over the years, the committee members thought that it was appropriate to share this particular piece with all of you. Now, with that background I'll discuss the report before you. The analysis reviews the SRTE, especially with respect to the ratings on the quality of instructors in the context of the broader research literature. That literature is extensive, literally hundreds of studies that date back to the 1920s. The report provides some new Penn State specific information based on a statistical analysis of 186,000 SRTE responses from fall 1996. It also reviews some other information and analyses about the Penn State SRTE The emphasis, given the charge of the committee, is upon the use of the SRTE as one method to evaluate instructors. You have the report so I'll just give you the punch-line. The SRTE was developed in-house about 12 years ago. It is a unique instrument. However, it is similar to other widely used, professionally-developed instruments that are known to be reliable and valid. And, on the dimensions that this committee could efficiently examine, the properties of the SRTE were found to be similar to the properties of those other instruments. That's the short version. A slightly longer version would be that the SRTE also appears to be a reliable instrument in that it produces relatively stable student ratings for any individual instructor when enough observations are taken over a period of time for a given instructor. I realize that there is considerable skepticism about this instrument and instruments of this sort. That skepticism tends to be the belief that student ratings are heavily influenced, especially by expected grades, but also by things like time of day, class size, gender of the instructor, gender of the student and so on. However, what the research generally suggests about these relationships is that while all of them matter, none of them matter very much. And in our analysis of the SRTE we found that to be true as well. We found that expected grades, again this is in the report, statistically explained only about 5% in -the variations in student ratings of instructor quality. In fact, there is some relationship between good teaching and student learning. Some such correlation is probably reasonable. The effects of other factors we were able to readily examine for the SRTE, such as class size and course level, were even weaker. Also, the various measures of quality,--quality of the course, quality of the instructor, and up to 15 department selected quality items--also tended to confirm and reinforce one another. I'd like to make one final point. I'd also recommend to you a completely different study, independent of this SRTE analysis, that was recently read by Fern Willits as her Alumni Teaching Fellow Project. Professor Willits' methodology was very different from the report before you, but her results published this summer subsequent to our analysis, were very similar. She surveyed thousands of students and faculty about the quality of instruction at Penn State. And what she found was that students want to be challenged, that they want to learn, and in fact that they are very discriminating judges of good instruction. So again contrary to some of the mythology and the skepticism, she found, her study found, that the most important relationship to student ratings of quality were not class size or difficulty or instructor enthusiasm or time of day or expected, grade. And I want to quote directly from her report, "perhaps the single most stunning finding in all the student data reported here was that the most powerful predictor of student's overall evaluations of the course was the amount they felt they had learned in the course.". If I can close with one thought, this is it: with all due respect to the skepticism and personal experiences and anecdote and the power of those things, all of the objective evidence that this committee has examined about student ratings in general and at Penn State is in agreement with the quote that I just read. With that I would be happy to stand for any comments. Thank you.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you. Do we have some questions for Mike?

Tramble T. Turner, Abington College: I'm just bringing some questions and concerns that came from the faculty and peer discussion this morning. Mike's comments about how similar the SRTE seems to be to tests or the instruments have been normed would address some of those concerns. Nevertheless, let me bring these up. You do point out in your report that there are instruments that have been normed and have been used and are available. You also seem to point out in your report that validity of the SRTE has not actually been studied and that local instruments in general are not reliable. And so some of the questions that our committee had were whether those nationally tested forms are being looked at by your special committee and also whether it might be of use to use such an instrument that might also be in use currently at other CIC institutions. The reasons for that concern and for going ahead and bringing it up is the concern of the committee members of the impact of the SRTE on promotion and tenure decisions, on merit raises, and awards. If you could perhaps respond.

Michael J. Dooris: Sure, yeah, thanks, Tram. That's an excellent question and it shows that someone in your group read the report carefully. I do need to be careful about one distinction, I am more careful in the report than I can be verbally here. The SRTE analysis does not, as Tram noted, strictly speaking answer the validity question, and that question would be, does a particular instrument in fact measure the quality of courses and instructors? And we have not directly answered that question, but given what we do know about the SRTE, which in our judgment is considerable (and we know that there have been 400 studies that have already been published), we didn't necessarily see the value in doing the 401st study. However, your question is still a good one and in fact the committed has examined 6 or 8 other instruments, and it's very likely that the report will contain the recommendation that some of these be adopted as possible alternatives or complements to the Penn State instrument.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: I have some questions really about the wording in some cases, interpretive wording, and that is as it relates to the issue that the inability to prove something does not imply that the factor is not important. I have a quote from my web page. I teach experimental design, and it says that "you cannot statistically prove anything with highly variable (and crappy) data. You should, therefore, be very cautious not to conclude something is not important if you cannot obtain a statistically significant correlation." The issue is more down the road, somebody using this in an interpretive sense, and that is that there are direct specific statements for instance that it is not a popularity contest. That's a conclusion based on that they could not find a statistical correlation, and so it's not. I was going to suggest, you may want to re-look at some of the wording of this because it could be interpreted that popularity does not affect SRTE, and that's not the conclusion. It's that they could not find the opposite, they could not find that it was not significant. And I think that there is not someone on the committee who is a statistician or with that department. They may want to look at those interpretive wording statements and make sure they are not actually invalid in a statistical sense.

Michael J. Dooris: Well, I appreciate those comments. And we will look at it again. I should point out, I would bet dollars to donuts that we do not have the word prove in here. I'm a statistician, I worked for the Census Bureau as a statistician. We also involved people who understand research methodology of this sort: Patrick Terenzini, I don't know if you know him, Fern Willits, several other folks around campus, and Ed Marks, the Director of University Testing Services. Having, said all that we'll take another look at it with respect to that issue.

Effy Oz, Penn State Great Valley: I was wondering if the committee looked into the issue of when we get the results of student evaluations. We wait 2, sometimes even 4 months to get some response.

Michael J. Dooris: Honestly, we did not deal with that question. I think it's certainly a legitimate point however.

Jacob De Rooy, Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg: I'd like a technical question, if you will. In looking over the numbers, and looking over your Tables 2 and I was intrigued that at the top of Table 2 there appears to be a very interesting pattern developed. The mean SRTE scores related to expected grades seem to show a very pronounced pattern that as the student's expected grades go lower from A to B to C to D to F, the mean rating of the course seems to move down rather significantly. Now I did not take the opportunity to conduct any statistical tests of the significance whether these means are statistically significant, although I guess we could do that given the standard deviations here. But when I looked over at Table 2, I found that there is a very low correlation that you report between expected grade and quality of course and quality of instructor. The correlation is only 0.23, which is an r-squared of 0.04 showing very, very little effect of expected grade on student's ratings, but that seems to differ with what I see in Table 3. So I am tempted to conclude here that what seems to be needed here is--it's a jumbling of factors--either a partial correlation of expected grade with rating of teacher quality or instructor quality, or a multiple regression analysis in which you can observe the effect of expected grades on ratings of teacher quality, controlling for all of the other factors. Was that done, and what does that tell us then about how the non-statistician can look at Tables 2 and 3?

Michael J. Dooris: That's a good point, I'm glad you raised it Jake. What's ,going here, and your right, if you look at Table 3. a non-statistician would say that there seems to be a very strong relationship here where you can buy grades, essentially, or to take a sort of cynical interpretation.

Jacob De Roov: Your words.

Michael J. Dooris: Right, but at the same time the standard deviations are very high, and so what happens is that those grades are really scattered to a very great extent so that the correlation's are not very strong. We did do, in fact another analysis using what's called a general linear model where you can look at the main effects and interaction effects. We found that that was not useful, I mean it didn't add much information to this report. In fact, the correlation coefficients are what matter here, and what's more useful in comparing this analysis again to the hundreds of other studies that have been done. It's certainly possible to make this much more complicated, you know, and as somebody who plays with numbers I kind of would like to do that.

Chair Geschwindner: Dennis?

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm not terribly surprised to find that there is a reasonably strong correlation between what people think they learned and how they rate the quality of instructors and the quality of instruction they received. But that doesn't mean there is a strong correlation between what people think they learned and what, in fact, they did learn. In that body of literature that you surveyed and you contextualized in your own study, is there any evidence that there is a strong relationship between what people think they learned and what they did learn?

Michael J. Dooris: Again, that's a terrific point, Dennis, and it's one that the committee has discussed and you are exactly on target. The SRTE does not measure student learning and it doesn't pretend to measure student learning. However, validation studies will look, kind of by using triangulation, perhaps look at tests of students who have different instructors but are taking the same course, with the same texts, with the same examinations and compare their student ratings with the performance on the standard exams. And you can see how you could do this in a chemistry class or a physics class, and in those cases there is some relationship. And without making a value statement about this, to me it's not surprising that there is some correlation between grades and student ratings, because if I'm an effective instructor I think the students are going to learn something and they are going to get good grades as a result of that.

Chair Geschwindner: Peter?

Peter Deines: I have a question concerning, the policy implications that you discussed on page seven. It says, "The policy implications are twofold. First, to evaluate a single instructor, SRTE quality-of-instructor data should come from at least five different courses and 20 or more students." Now I guess I'm wondering what that means.
Does that mean five different courses with different course content?

Michael J. Dooris: That is what it means, so Psy 2 taught five times is not five...

Peter Deines: Does not count.

Michael J. Dooris: Correct.

Peter Deines: And the other part is that there should be 20 or more students. And the third condition is that there should be a large enough sample. What fraction of the Penn State faculty does qualify? And why? Do you know?

Michael J. Dooris: Standing here I don't know. No, I mean certainly that would add a bit of information to this, and that would be a useful piece of information to add.

Peter Deines: It certainly wouldn't be true for me. I don't teach five different courses. I teach every semester several courses, but I don't teach five and I certainly don't teach in all of them more than 20 students. So would it make sense to evaluate somebody like me with the SRTE?

Michael J. Dooris: It would make less sense than if you were meeting those conditions. Yes.

Peter Deines: Would it make sense then to think how widely applicable the SRTE actually is?

Michael J. Dooris: And again, that's a good point Peter, and the committee is likely to suggest using a variety of instruments which we're likely to recommend, but also methodologies--peer review of your course materials, for example, or observation of your in-class interactions with students or things of that nature.

Jean Landa Pytel: Another, somewhat sort of related issue, and that is what about sort of compounding the tests? You mentioned there could be a possibility of a relationship to gender, class time, class size. Well, as you know, many courses are taught by the same people and they tend to be at the same time during the day in a semester, so that if you have someone of a particular gender who always teaches a large class at say 8:00 in the morning, what effect would that have on their SRTE?

Michael J. Dooris: Again, we did more analyses than what's here, Jean. And that's a good question and we looked at that, those are called interaction effects. And we did look at that, and we did not see that it added much value, primarily because the effects are so small so that even when you add them together they are still small and the analysis becomes much more complex. It doesn't mean that that's not a legitimate question to ask. I think the context of this analysis in which we're trying to ask some
specific, high -value, decision, action-oriented questions, precluded a lot of complexity of that sort. John?

John W. Baer: First off, is there anything in the Bylaws that states when the SRTE should be given?

Michael J. Dooris: The Senate legislation, I believe, mandates the use of the SRTE, but I don't, someone may want to correct me, know when. Last two weeks of the semester.

John W. Baer: And I am mainly asking this because, should there be something put in, I know of a lot of night classes and weekend classes and things like that where the SRTE is given the same day as the final. And I know of two classes last summer where the SRTE was given the day of the final. So is there something on the books saying that there should not be, and if there isn't, is it something to be put in?

Michael J. Dooris: John, you're asking again another good question. You're getting into a set of issues that relate to how the SRTE is used, which is really not what this analysis was about, but I made note of your question and others on the committee are here and we will bring that back to our discussions. John Cardella?

John F. Cardella, College of Medicine: I thought that this document was very well done, represented a tremendous amount of work, and I would like to make a suggestion, however. You allude to in sort of the preamble and introduction an extensive body of literature,, but yet in your references six out of the seven are in-college publications. I think those individuals who will be evaluated by a tool, whatever the tool is, would feel better about it if some of that seminal or landmark work in evaluation tools had been included as a reference. I think it would lend balance to it. With six of seven being in-house publications, I think that it either looks self-serving or it looks too local.

Michael J. Dooris: That's a good point, I appreciate it. Thank you.

P. Peter Rebane: On page number 3 point 11, there is kind of an interesting statement that really has little to do with what I find in the tables. I wonder if you could comment on that. If I may read this, "It's a misconception that students prefer senior faculty or junior faculty or experienced teachers." It doesn't make sense to me. No relationship between student ratings and faculty rank or experience has been consistently demonstrated. Now I don't know that the SRTEs ask for this. It also seems to fly in the face of something that we academicians like to believe, i.e., freshman seminars, introductory courses should be taught by senior faculty--they are the most experienced, they have the best insights--and not by TAs. I find nothing else in this document that speaks to that point, and, like I say, students prefer senior faculty or junior faculty or experienced teachers. Are those mutually exclusive if you read this English? Can you comment a little?

Michael J. Dooris: That's a finding of the research. We did not replicate all of the research that has been done for the Penn State SRTE. That's the evidence that others have found. That's why that statement is in there.

P. Peter Rebane: I would suggest that you know this is a hotly debated issue, and if this is not the research of Penn State to put this in, in light of the fact that we hired new faculty, we tried to make it a point that senior, more experienced faculty should teach introductory courses allegedly because they have a better experience. This is a rather interesting academic judgment, and if we haven't done any research, that it's simply popped out of thin air, I think it deserves a footnote of some kind or at least its exclusion from the general report. It sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Michael J. Dooris: It could easily be footnoted. I think the point of an informational report is to share with those our colleagues on the. Senate what we found from our review.

Chair Geschwindner: We have time for one more question. Mark?

Mark R. Munn, College of the Liberal Arts: Michael, in your comments and in the report you repeatedly emphasized the factors that mitigate variables and point to Common conclusions, yet there is one point in the summary on page 3 item 8 that you seem to admit to a significant factor that produces a variable result but is nowhere reflected or quantified. That is item 8 page 3, the bulk of the evidence suggests that students who are required to take a course rate it more poorly than students taking it as an elective. That seems to touch on a wide range of concerns that have been brought up one way or another, but it's not reflected statistically and with a single--as on summary pace in chart 1 --statistic of what is the mean of instructor or course appreciation rated, that significant or bulk of evidence, variability is varied. And I would like to see some reflection of that on a table.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you Mike. I'd like to remind you that although this was not presented as a Forensic Report, in essence this is a discussion preliminary to the report from the Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Committee, and so any of you who have comments or concerns that this report has raised that you would like to communicate to that committee, please feel free to do so. Terry Engelder from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences is the chair of that committee. His name is on the report, Appendix "F," first page. You can look him up in the e-mail directory and send him an e-mail. I'm sure Mike would be happy to talk to you. But get any input you have to that committee so that we can have a positive impact on this presentation of that report.


Challenging the Norm: Changing the Environment - 1996-97 Activity Review

Jean Landa Pytel, Chair

Our next informational report comes from the Student Life committee. We will have a visual presentation, you have a door handout associated with that and I will call on Jean Landa Pytel to introduce our speaker.

Jean Landa Pytel: Thanks, Lou. The oral report that will be presented to you is one of a series of informational reports presented by the Committee on Student Life designed to apprise you of issues, programs, and data related to students at risk as a result of abusing alcohol. The door handout is a summary of known prevention programs; you received that when you came in. Please let us or the Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs know of any programs that have been missed from that summary. It is my pleasure then to introduce to you Maureen Gaffhey, the Chair of the Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Abuse, who will be making the presentation. Ms. Gaffney is also the Director of Health and Counseling Services at Penn State Hazleton. She will be able to answer any questions, I hope, and will be assisted by Judith Vicary, who chairs the Education and Outreach Committee of the Commission and who was also quite involved in the preparation of this report.

Maureen Gaffney, Chair, Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Abuse: Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to meet with you and to represent the Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Abuse. Our intent this afternoon is to review the 1996-97 activities and efforts of the Commission as directed by the goals of the Strategic Plan. Secondly, we would like to discuss the importance of collaboration and leadership in shaping the direction for continuing and new efforts. We welcome any questions you may have. The Commission is a University-wide group with a diverse membership of faculty, staff, students, and community members, representing all campus locations. The Commission serves as an interdisciplinary advisory group to the Vice President of Student Affairs on any matter that affects the use or abuse of alcohol, tobacco,or other drugs in the University community. It recommends initiatives which will foster an academic and work environment that values healthy lifestyle choices concerning alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Under our first goal, increasing the commitment of University leaders to the goals of the Commission, the Commission coordinated and administered the core alcohol and drug surveys to all faculty and staff at all University locations. This will create a database that will guide the development of educational efforts aimed at leadership as well as their constituencies. The information from this survey has just been delivered to us, and we are in the process of compiling it for distribution and evaluation. Regional meetings for Penn State campuses were held in the spring semester. Faculty and staff participated in learning about the Commission, and in dialogue about the opportunity to change current norms and perceptions of alcohol use, three versions of a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Educate Leadership", were developed. The program was presented for the Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life and at the regional Penn State campus meetings. This year teams representing the Commission will be available for presentations. A presentation was also made to the Academic Council of Undergraduate Education. Under goal two, decreasing the number of students experiencing problems related to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, collaboration occurred with the Collegian and the Office of Public Information to publish information about the Commission and the University's initiatives aimed at reducing the negative consequences of high risk behavior. Collaboration occurred with Judicial Affairs, the Office of Health Promotion and Education. Residence Life, Penn State Police Services, and community police and district magistrates to coordinate the interdiction and intervention efforts of campuses and their communities. The Commission was also represented on the Greek Task Force to develop a plan for Greeks to set new alcohol policies. Under Goal 3, decreasing, student use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, the core survey was administered to students at all campuses other than the University Park campus. The Harvard Study was re-administered at University Park. This data, the core data, also has been returned to us, and we are also in the process of creating a method to disseminate that to the campuses as well. The Commission supported the implementation of a freshman seminar model that would incorporate information from sessions on life skills. Arrangements were made at University Park and other campus locations to deliver appropriate messages regarding alcohol, tobacco, and other drug issues during the summer freshmen testing, counseling, advising, and placement sessions. The spring Penn State pulse survey demonstrated a decrease in the level of the use of alcohol. In agreement that drinking is a problem, the Commission supported the initiation and promotion of late-night HUB and other activities designed to create social interaction without the use of alcohol and other drugs. The Commission is represented on the Vice Provost Orientation Committee. Under Goal 4, increasing faculty, staff, student, alumni and community involvement in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention and intervention, University Health Services developed a web site through which resources can be identified and information can be accessed about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug issues. The Commission publicized information regarding the Commission and its strategic plan. Collaborative efforts between the Commission and the State College Tavern Owners Association and the Downtown State College Association are being discussed. Messages have been developed with the assistance of Intercollegiate Athletics for delivery on University scoreboards. The Commission recognized outstanding contributions at the annual awards reception held in April. Named were the Arnold Air Society, the College of Communication, the Student, Peer, Athlete Network, and the Resident Assistants of Atherton Hall. Additionally, the Moderation Program of Behring College was also named. Commitment. All Penn State locations have made a commitment to establish appropriate education, prevention, and intervention programs for their communities. This level of community has been recognized outside of our Penn State community. The Vice President of Student Affairs, William Asbury, has been notified that the description of the Commission, its structure, its three-year strategic plan, and the matrix design have been identified by Promising Practices, Campus Alcohol Strategies as one of the best ideas in alcohol abuse prevention. It was submitted for their 1997 nationally published resource book. Another demonstration of the level of commitment is the development of alcohol intervention and education programs at several campus locations, including, University Park. These programs work across disciplines and departments and require substantial commitment in time and talent. They will in the coming years provide an opportunity to research and evaluate innovative approaches that will contribute to the body of knowledge in the areas of intervention and education for the collegiate community. Now I'd like you to turn to the handouts that we cave you for the matrix, It will be easier to look at the handout than it will be to look at the overhead. I believe. The matrix is entitled "Challenging the Norms: New and Ongoing, Student Effort." This has been developed to look at efforts in the student arena. A goal of the coming year is to evaluate our methods and to consider the most effective manner of categorization. This matrix and the one that follows will continuously be upgraded and distributed. Our hope is that it will inform as well as encourage and stimulate activity. I will direct your attention to the top of the matrix. You will see the title "Changing the Norms." Well, the other half of that equation is challenging the environment. It will be our Commission theme for this coming year. We intend it to be the continuation of the very good work done in the past year. The second matrix looks at new and ongoing non-student efforts, and the group that is included here: faculty and staff, administration and trustees, alumni and the community. And again you can see we have added some things in there. We hope that you can help us add more in the coming year. The next two slides give some additional examples of the ways that leadership has contributed to shaping our current direction and moving us to future considerations and actions. We have identified the administration, President Spanier's emphasis on alcohol issues, and William Asbury's support of the Commission's strategic plan, the faculty, with curricular infusion activities across disciplines, and the alumni, the Penn Stater's feature article on alcohol abuse that appeared last January and February. Here we see the contributions of faculty through their research, areas of expertise, and governance, alcohol-related research that has been conducted by the faculty in agriculture. bio-behavioral health, communications, and counselor education; your own Faculty Senate involvement; and the addition at the end of the two Greek societies that have joined in an effort to create alcohol-free facilities by the year 2000. University leadership can help by working with the Commission for the Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Abuse and within your own circle of influence to develop, implement, and evaluate effective strategies to promote the reduction of high risk drinking. We have given you a great deal of information regarding this past year's efforts, and time precludes the identification of all the individuals involved in the accomplishment of these admirable and often difficult activities and events. The key word that I believe that we would all identify as descriptive is collaboration. One of the accomplishments of the Commission has been the creation of the opportunity for community ownership and action. They join me in soliciting your continuing support of President Spanier and William Asbury in their efforts to address the issues and to create an environment that is conducive to the mission of our University. I welcome any questions.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you. Do you have any questions? No questions? Thank you very much.


Summary of Student Petitions by College Unit or Location

Arthur C. Miller, Chair

Our next informational report will come from the Undergraduate Education Committee. It's a "Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location and is given in Appendix "H," and the report will be presented by Steve Arnold.

Steven F. Arnold, Eberly College of Science: The first statement of the report says the Senate through its committee has permitted students to petition for exceptions to Senate academic rules following the academic policies, rules, and procedures for students. These policies are the responsibility of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education unless otherwise assigned to other committees. And also, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education is supposed to make a report once a year on how many of these there are, and this is the report. And I think the thing that stands out the most is that it is almost the same as last year's. That's about all I can think of that would be really super interesting about it.

Chair Geschwindner: The reason we have got Steve presenting this report is because Steve is the one that has to read the majority of these petitions and deal with all these actions. Does anybody have any questions? No questions? Thank you very much, Steve.


Status of the University's Compliance with Disability Act Regulations

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair

We now have two reports from University Planning. The first report is the "Status of the University's Compliance with Disability Act Regulations" given in Appendix "I," and Shelton Alexander will introduce our speaker.

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: The first of these reports is an outgrowth of a briefing that we had actually last spring from Mary Franks who coordinates the ADA programs here at Penn State. And we thought it appropriate that we should let you all know some of the obligations and rights and so on that we are implementing under this federal act. It turns out that Mary was unable to be here today because she's at one of the branch campuses concerning our compliance. In her stead, Bonnie Ortiz who works closely with her--she's Director of the Affirmative Action Office--will make the presentation. And there is a handout you received at the door which is the advance copy of a lot of the information that has been brought together concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act and how that applies to our students and faculty.

Bonnie J. Ortiz, Director, Affirmative Action Office: Good afternoon. I am pinch-hitting for Mary, and she was really sorry that she couldn't be here, and I'm sorry too because she really has worked very closely and almost exclusively with ADA since she began at the University a few years ago. But we wanted to not lose this opportunity to have time on the agenda to talk to you about what we're doing in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Some of you may know that we really had an obligation to respond to disability issues for a long time. Beginning in 1973, with the Rehabilitation Act, the University has had a legal requirement to not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became effective in 1990, was in some ways really an extension of that act which brought a lot of other people under the umbrella that higher education had been under for a long time. So it got a lot of publicity and created a lot of public awareness, but in fact it really didn't change the obligations of higher education all that much. Both of these, the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, are really anti-discrimination statutes and they're designed to remove barriers which prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to the same people without disabilities. They do not guarantee results, establish quotas, or require preferences favoring individuals with disabilities over those without disabilities. There are a couple keywords that I'd like to just call your attention to in this language, and let me just read for a minute and then I'll talk about some of the words. "No otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities in the United States shall solely, by reason of his or her individual disability be excluded the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." So that's really the mandate. The key words, otherwise qualified. So our obligation is to make sure that people who are qualified are not denied opportunities. So when we talk about what "otherwise qualified" means in the context of higher education and particularly students, we're talking about people who meet the academic requirements to participate in our programs, and who meet also the technical standards that we may establish for our programs. So that we're not talking about admitting students to our programs that can't do the work. We're talking about people who can do the work and who may require some special assistance to do so. The technical standards have been primarily interpreted in health care and other such fields that may have some physical requirements, like therapy programs, for example. Now I think the important thing when we think about what are the technical standards for doing work in any academic discipline or in any kind of job are that we don't make assumptions based on our prejudices about what people can or can't do, because I can tell you that there are some people with disabilities will have managed to do quite amazing things by their own adaptation and with the benefit of technology that is available now to provide assertive devices and things. So that's a real key thing to know, that we are talking about people who are qualified. Since the ADA, as I said we were already under federal mandates as a University, but there have been many more contacts to the Affirmative Action Office about disability issues than there were. In fact, Mary tells me that since 1990 the number of contacts we've had that are related to disability issues have increased 1200 percent. That's a pretty phenomenal increase - we started at a pretty low base but I think it's evidence of a couple of things. One, public awareness, changes in education requirement for K- 12 which have meant that we have a lot more students coming out of high school, students with disabilities who are qualified and want to do higher education than perhaps we had in earlier years And the other piece of that is that we are in some ways a victim of our own success because we have talked a lot in the last few years about our willingness and our eagerness to make our programs available. And so we talked about where to go if you have issues, and that just means we get more contacts, which is a desired outcome. We have also had a very dramatic increase in the enrollment of students who let us know that they have some disability. In 1980 across the Penn State system we had about 100 students who told us they had a disability and identified themselves to the Office of Disability Services. Fall of 1996 we had more than 1500. So that's a pretty steep slope of increase. I think that historically, when we think about people with disabilities, we may be guided by the signs like the ones over here with the little wheelchair. But, much of the increase that we've seen in people with disabilities and activities has been what we would call hidden disabilities. They're not people that you would recognize as having an obvious disability. And those may be psychiatric disabilities, learning disabilities,environmental sensitivities, a whole range of things that we are being called on to deal with that are relatively new to us and about which we don't have a lot of experience. And I think those are the ones that create the most concern about how do we effectively identify and respond to people with those issues. We have been responding to legal requirements, as I said, for a long time. And the law mandates us as a public education institution to provide program accessibility. That means that the services we offer must be available. You all know regardless of what campus of Penn State you come from that we have in almost all cases physical plants that are kind of old and buildings that have a lot of architectural barriers. While we're working to remove these architectural barriers, there are many ways in which we can make programs accessible and in which we have been making our programs accessible for a long time. Very simple low-cost, no-cost ways. If we have a student who has a mobility impairment who has a class, we'll make sure that class is scheduled in an accessible location if it's possible at all to move that. If a student needs to meet with an advisor or faculty member whose office is on the second floor of a building with no elevator, we'll ask that person to meet the student somewhere else. I mean just pretty common sense things that you have probably been doing in your departments for a very long time. But going beyond that, I think there are some things that are new. I'm very pleased that we were able to have copies of the new Faculty Handbook for you today. This has been prepared as a joint effort of the Office of Disability Services, and Mary was involved in putting it together, too. And I'd like to just take a moment at this point to introduce a couple of other people sitting in the back. Diane Resides was Interim Director of the Office of Disability Services last year. And brand new to the role of Director in that Office is Deb Merchant. Deb's been in that role for, what, three days or something? Eight days. She's not exactly new to Penn State; she's a Ph.D. candidate who'd been here for a while before but has now moved into that job. We work very closely with the Office of Disability Services and in the Affirmative Action Office. One of the things that we did, and in fact what we hired Mary Franks originally to do, was to guide a self-study that the University undertook in 1993-94, and some of you may remember being involved or being asked to participate in that self-study. It was very comprehensive. It looked at programs. It looked at publications. It looked at facilities. And it looked at employment across the campus. Some of the recommendations and conclusions that came out of that study is that we need more education. There were people who were very confused about what their obligations were and how to go about meeting them, and so that is one of the reasons why I am glad to have this opportunity today. We needed more understanding of what academic accommodations might be, and particularly for the hidden disabilities that I mentioned, and those may be things like extended time or alternative rooms for testing, that sort of thing. We needed to do a better job in providing material in alternative formats, and you may see that almost every Penn State publication you pick up these days has that statement, "this material will be provided in an alternative format upon request's What does it really mean if a student comes to you and says I need this in alternative format? It might mean a variety of things, and the best thing to do is just ask what will work. Sometimes it's large print, sometimes it's an audio tape,. sometimes it's a computer disk with the information that a person with a visual impairment could pop into their computer, which has a voice synthesizer. So many of those things are also very easy for us to do. It may mean that we have some facility issues that we need to address. When we look at what's happening, what are the kinds of things that people come to the Affirmative Action Office to talk about lately in these contexts that I've talked about? They may be talking about the need for academic accommodations or modifications. They may be talking about accessible locations. They may be talking about admissions policies. If you've looked at Penn State's admissions applications recently, we do provide information in the application about our services for students with disabilities. And when we send out a notice of admissions, we also include an opportunity, an invitation for students to identify a need for accommodation for a disability. We've had some questions about course requirements, particularly foreign language requirements, as they may be difficult for somebody with a learning disability or other kinds of issues. We've had concerns about students complying with the Code of Conduct. Suppose we do have somebody with some emotional issues, what's our responsibility, how do we handle those things? Well. students, everybody, has to comply with the Code of Conduct, and having a disability does not relieve someone of that expectation. In fact, one of the things that you will find in the handbook on page 12 is a listing of the rights and responsibilities, and I think this is really a very instructive and helpful thing both for students and for faculty because it really just in that page spells out some of the expectations that we have of everybody. We expect students, we guarantee them the right to, the things I've been talking about, but we think that they have some responsibility, too. They have to be qualified, they have to identify themselves as having a disability and tell us they need some assistance. They have to provide documentation for their disability, and that's where the ODS people come in. That documentation goes to them, they review it, they make recommendations for accommodations, and the student has the responsibility to bring that accommodation letter to you as a faculty member and explain to you what their needs are mid work out with you an arrangement for meeting those needs. There you will also find some of the rights and responsibilities that we believe as a University and as faculty and staff we have. I am very pleased to say that I think we are doing a lot of very proactive and impressive kinds of things. We still have lots of challenges, and this is an area that is still evolving. We're still learning a lot about disabilities we didn't know a whole lot about a few years ago, but I think we have programs and people in place now to help us go forward in meeting these challenges.

The one other thing that I did want to mention about the faculty handbook: in a pocket in the back you'll find a list of contact liaisons, and that's another step that has been taken in the past year or so, is to identify people at each of the locations, at each of the campuses, and provide some support and training for them in how to deal with issues. And I think that should be very helpful to students on each of the campuses, and to you as faculty on the campuses, that you have somebody there who can respond quickly. Like many other kinds of civil rights issues, one of the most important things to remember is that we don't expect every single one of you to be an expert on disability issues. But we do think it is very important for you to know what the resources are in getting help in answering your questions, and one of the reasons why I asked Deb to be here is to be identified as the key person for resources on ac commendations. And certainly Mary and people in my office have a response to any issues that are raised about lack of responsiveness or compliance. With that, I'm going to stop and ask you if there are questions that I could answer for you.

Chair Geschwindner: Do you have any questions? Jean?

Jean Landa Pytel: What's the distribution for this type of handbook?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Let me defer to Deb. That's going to be...

Deborah Merchant, Director, Office for Disability Services: I'll stand so that you can all hear me. That's going to go to all faculty both here at University Park and at the Commonwealth Campuses, too.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: And throughout the system. We're really still in transition, and that's why we have a really great team back there.

Deborah Merchant: We are working out a plan for that distribution.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: OK.

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: Follow-up to that question. Does "all faculty" include fixed-term faculty? Does it include TAs?

Deborah Merchant: Right now I believe it is just fixed-term faculty, also for adjunct.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: I think we can make copies available for departments to distribute, and for fixed term, too. We are looking at the distribution of that.

Diane Resides, Former Interim Director, Office of Disability Services: In answer to the TA question, all new TAs did get the handbook. All new TAs who just came in through the Center for Excellence and Learning and Teaching did get the handbook.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: Can you put it on the web?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Yes, there's a plan underway to do that. Deb popped up.

Deborah Merchant: I feel like a jack-in-the-box. Yes, there is a plan. ODS is putting together a home page, and we are going to put it within our home page on the web as soon as possible.

Chair Geschwindner: Peter?

Peter Deines: I have not yet had a chance to look at the handbook carefully. I'm wondering, there may be occasions where the faculty might need some assistance in working out the accommodation. Is there some reference in here as to what office one might go, and say I need to do such and so please help me do it?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Yes, that's the Office of Disability Services. And when a student comes to you and says, "I need an accommodation," one of the rights you have, and I would say one of the responsibilities you have, is to make sure that the student is working with the Office of Disability Services. I mean, if a student comes to you and says, "I need this or that" and presents you with no evidence of this or that you certainly have the right to say, "have you worked through the Office of Disability Services and can you provide evidence." What they do for a student is provide a letter which would be addressed to the faculty member. But it is the student's responsibility to bring you that letter and say the recommendation is for extended test time. It is also your right as a faculty member to talk about what the implications of that recommendation are for your class, and to decide whether that is a reasonable accommodation in your class.

Peter Deines: If it would involve for instance, the construction of an audio tape, how would one go about doing that? Does it need to be put on audio tape in a certain way?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Well, one thing a student might do for example would be to come to you and ask for permission to tape the class or tape your lectures. And that's...

Peter Deines: The other way around, if you have a student that requires a test that is audio rather than written, so what would the faculty, where would we go in order to solve the real problem?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: OK, the question is what if the student needed the test in an audio format rather than in a written format? And I think you can make some provisions for that, Deb, right?

Deborah Merchant: Yes, you can. You can contact our office.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Right, Office of Disability Services could do that, help you with that.

Chair Geschwindner: Tom?

Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering: We get these letters and we always comply with them. I thought we had complied with them; however, most of them say this student can't take the test with anybody else, they have to have half as much time again as anybody else. Every student I have ever known in the last 35 years needs more time for tests, would love to take them in a big room without 50 other students sitting there. How does somebody determine that this person is different than the other 99.9% of the students?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Well, learning disabilities are not as commonly understood as some kinds of physical disabilities. It is a documented disability. There are tests for determining what a student needs. I think the important thing, if you have concerns about it, is to talk with people in ODS about it. The data show that people with learning disabilities really do significantly better if the accommodations are made for them, that students without disabilities may have all the time in the world and not do any better on the test if they have double time than if they had the regular amount of time. I think the important thing is to really be conscious of what we are measuring in a test. Are we measuring knowledge, or are we measuring time?

Chair Geschwindner: Any other questions?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Deb, do you have anything to add to that?

Deborah Merchant: I want to let you know that when decisions are made on accommodations in our office, they are based on the documentation. If a student comes in and says I need extended time or I need time and a half, the staffers don't say, "Oh, OK." They go back to the documentation, which is a psycho-educational battery. So that really is valid.

Chair Geschwindner: Bob?

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm always interested in the extent to which people take their own advice when they are setting standards for us all. Can you talk a little bit about the way in which you have made this available in alternative media?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: The alternative media is upon request. Since the Faculty Handbook is just now being distributed, I doubt we've had any requests for that. We do occasionally have requests for alternative media and we do provide it, as I've said. Sometimes it's as simple as taking a piece of paper to a copy machine and enlarging it, and sometimes people with visual impairments may have computers with large screens. We do have equipment in Pattee Library to transfer things to braille. So, yes indeed, we do get and respond to requests for alternative media. Thank you.

Deborah Merchant: It's on computer disk already.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Yes, almost always when we do something like this, it is on computer disk, and many students with visual impairments do have voice synthesizers on their computers.

Chair Geschwindner: Ed?

Edward W. Bittner, Penn State McKeesport: Just a quick question. Do you have people at each of the campuses to evaluate students prior to this or how is this done?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: No, we don't do the evaluation in our Office or in ODS. That's done by qualified professionals, and it's the responsibility of the student to bring, us documentation that is an evaluation done by a qualified professional. And then we base our recommendations on that documentation.

Edward W. Bittner: If a student comes to me with documentation how do I know as a faculty member on the campus what to do?

Bonnie J. Ortiz: You don't that's not part of your responsibility. That's when you pick up the phone, talk to the person on your campus or call Deb at ODS. And that's when you say to the student, there are people on campus who coordinate these services and you need to be directly in touch with them.

Chair Geschwindner: Tram, do you have a question?

Tramble T. Turner: No, I was just going to go back to a point that was brought up that there are people who have done workshops locally, sometimes faculty, sometimes staff, that the faculty can contact.

Chair Geschwindner: OK. thank you very much Bonnie.

Bonnie J. Ortiz: Thank you.


ID Card Update

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair

Chair Geschwindner: Our next report is on the "ID Card Update," and Shelton's going to introduce our speaker there.

Shelton Alexander: OK, the second informational report has to do with the new ID card that's in the works. And contrary to what you might have gathered from some of the local publications, it's not finalized and the date for actually issuing these en masse, will be about one year from now. So, Tom Gibson, who is the Assistant Vice President for Auxiliary Services has been spearheading the work of actually a large committee with broad cross-sectional involvement from all aspects of the University over the past two years to look at this whole issue and to decide what things should be incorporated into the new ID card that will be forthcoming. So, we thought it would be important to bring you up to date on that issue. First of all, to emphasize why are we changing in the first place, why do we need a new ID card; have him describe where we stand right now; and finally to let him indicate ways in which you and other faculty members can respond to this and make comments or suggestions which could be incorporated into the final product that comes along. So, Tom.

Thomas V. Gibson, Assistant Vice President for Auxiliary Services: Just have to give me a minute to get worked out here. Thank you for the opportunity to give you this update on where we are with the ID card process at Penn State. First of all, I would just sort of like to review the current program that we have, and that's manifested by the card that many of you are probably packing around in your wallet. It's for faculty and staff. It has a green background. For students it has a blue background. That card has basically been produced off-site. University captures photographs on Polaroid film, sends them off to Rochester, New York, and the card comes back in 2 or 3 weeks. The applications that are currently being used for that card are for student and faculty and staff identification, for access to the library, for meal plans for residence hall students, for residence hall access security systems and for time and attendance for hourly employees who work for Housing and Foods or the Nittany Lion Inn or what have you. Currently, the Social Security number and a few other numbers in a string are the transaction number that are encoded electronically on the back of the card, and it's basically 20 year old technology. So, therein is the current card and the 4 or 5 basic applications that are being used. Now what's happened with this card throughout this whole process. We found out in March that Griffin Technology, who is supporting this card production, is basically going out of business and was not going to support this card after June 15. All their customers received a notification in the mail. So we've gone ahead with part of our plan to purchase the video imaging system which I will talk about in just a bit. The ID card committee--which is a representative group of 25 students, faculty, and staff from all aspects of the institution--we've been working on this for about 2 1/2 years and we probably have about another year to go. We developed some goals for the program: a single, recognizable University ID card. We wanted that production inteotated throughout the entire Penn State system. We wanted to start producing instant cards on-site, and we wanted to be able to integrate whatever platform the card was on with current and future applications. To support those goals we came up with five aspects of the card that we have been working on. One is the ID card production. The second one would be the online legacy systems, and those are the systems that are currently running: the library, time and attendance, meal plans, and security. We wanted to add online financial services as a voluntary aspect. We wanted to add off-line stored value opportunities, and we wanted it to become a calling card, currently with AT&T. To support the production system, we have purchased and installed a video digital imaging system statewide, provided by AT&T Campus Wide Systems and Data Card. The server is located here at University Park, and all Penn State campuses and locations are connected to that server. We have on-site production at 13 locations currently and off-site production at nine locations and eventually those nine locations will also have a printer. It's just a matter now of, all locations having a workstation to capture the image. 13 of those are being produced right there and the student, faculty, or staff receiving the card. At the other nine the image is transmitted to another location, the card is printed there, and then it is sent out. For example, Shenango--there if you capture your image it would go to Behrend College, and then the card is produced there and sent out the next day. Eventually, every location will have the printing capability. And the ID card production for this new system started in the summer of 1997, so it is up and running at all campus locations, and we had to do that very quickly because we only had a couple of months from the time we found out that they were not going to be able to support the new card. What we have is a temporary bridge card and it looks like this. It's being produced on the new system which is exactly the same system that the driver's license folks are using. So if you've been down to get your renewal, you'll see that you get your card right away. This is just an interim card. It does nothing, more than what the previous card did; it's just being produced on a new system. The legacy systems, we're going to change the way the electronic gate is transmitted to the system and start to use an ISO number, which is the International Standards Organization's 16 digit number that's used in the financial world. The Social Security number will remain in the University files and the University records, so we're not going to change how people are identified. And the applications in those legacy systems include, once again meal plans, residence hall access,,library, and time and attendance. The new feature which will start sometime in the fall of 1998 is voluntary on-line financial services so people who have the card can opt to participate in this program. And what that means is that we are going to create a Penn State network through our prime contractor, who's the Penn State Federal Credit Union, and we will affiliate member financial institutions in the area with that network so what we will have is a Penn State network that is very similar to MAC. What that will allow individuals to do is to tie their ID number--their ISO number on their ID card--directly to their financial services account, assuming that their personal bank is one of the members of the network, and we assume that most of the banks in the region will be, and then you can start using ,your ID card as your MAC card. It will work at ATMS, it will do all the things that your check card or debit card does now tied to your own individual bank. This is a new program, There are many schools that have a bank contractor kind of affiliation, but we will be the first one that has a multiple bank aspect to it. Purdue University and Penn State are kind of going down the same path, mid both hope to have this program Lip and running in the fall of 1998. Services then would include with your ID card now ATMS, point-of-sale on and off campus, direct deposit. PIN numbers, all the kinds of things that happen with a financial services account. The card will also have the ability to do stored value off-line transactions, and the technology that has been chosen is what's known as the chip technology. In a second I will have a bigger picture for you up on the screen. But on the ID card is going to be embedded a little computer chip--I don't know if you can see it here, but you will when it goes up on the screen--that stores information that can be accessed through certain readers. So this is for on- and off-campus applications where a PIN number is not important for small volume transactions, things like vending machines, student laundries, copiers, laser printers, transit, parking, where a person would put money on their card. So you might put $5 or $ 1 0 on your card and then you go to a vending machine, you put the card in the machine, and you subtract $0.65, it gives you your Pepsi, and away you go. Or you could go to a copier. We are using this program right now on a pilot program in the residence halls for student laundries.- Thousands of transactions a day. Had a few bugs to start with the first week, but we are starting to work those out. But it is working fairly well. Other applications for the computer chip are that it can be used for voting, it can be used to retrieve records. You could download, theoretically, medical records or student bursar records or what have you onto the card and then have them with you if you so choose. The calling card component will be to access long distance through 1+ or 0+. It could be used on-campus or off-campus for faculty, staff, and students and basically is built on the existing partnership with AT&T. So, there again, this is the bridge card that's kind of a temporary card that we are using with the new production system, but now you can see the expanded opportunities that can be done with the card once we have sort of changed to this platform. Many, many things. Ticket sales at Eisenhower or the Jordan Center, you could order your Ethernet card at Microcomputer Order Center. It can be used for event access if it is just a matter of are you a student or not, or faculty or not, and pass your way into events. It can be used for a myriad of applications. The implementation schedule that has been developed thus far is that the ID production system is installed and operating at all campuses this summer of 1997. We will have to go through a re-carding in the next year, capture images from fall 1997 through spring of 1998 and hopefully we will issue the new card in May 1998.

When that happens we will pick a date because the current card reading the Social Security number for those applications where the card is being read is on track 2 of the stripe, and track 2 is where the financial series will live, and so the current identifier and Social Security Number will move up to track1 so those units that choose to continue to read that string will have to change the reader to track 1 where those who start to use the ISO number will remain on track 2. So we have to have a date when everything is cut over. So you may get the card in a little pouch that says this card is good on a specific date. You may get it in April but it may say it is good on June 1st and your old card will discontinue to be active on June 1st and the new one will take over. That's for the implementation committee still to work out how that's to be communicated. The readers will then be converted from the Social Security number to the ISO in May-June 1998. Stored value, the residence hall laundries, the pilot card is active today. There are about 8,000 cards out there among the 12,000 students here at University Park, so it's going to get a good test. We hope to have a pilot banking program among maybe 100 or so volunteers in the spring of 1998 to see how the network works. And we hope to have full implementation in the fall of 1998. This is what the laundry card looks like, and you can see at the very top the little gold computer chip that's in there, and that's what stores the value and gets read by the machine. Other colleges and universities have similar programs. The Big Ten conference is obviously a leader in this, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, all have active programs that are similar to what I have discussed. Purdue was ready--they are about the same stage we are--ready to go in fall of 1998. Other schools that are not Big Ten, Florida State's the one that initiated all of this sort of activity with ID cards about 10 years ago, University of Florida, the entire SUNY system, Clemson, Penn, IUP, Western Michigan, Duquesne and about 100 other schools are doing some similar program to this. We have a project management team that is pretty much involved, meeting every week and dealing with all the implementation issues: Joel Weidner, who is the chair of the committee; Roseanne Sieminski, from the Bursa.r's Office; Brian Youngblood, the President of the Association of Residence Hall Students; Rich Pierce and Dave Rose from my staff; Wendy Buterbaugh, from the Penn State Federal Credit Union; and John Williams from Computer and Information Sciences. So they are the ones who are receiving information, and they meet with the larger 25 person committee on a 4-5 week basis to resolve the issues. And that's basically where we are and I would love to entertain questions.

David P. Christy, Smeal College of Business Administration: Who will capture and have access to the data that is collected by the use of these cards in all these different formats from both students and the faculty and staff.?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well. the images are all captured and kept in one...

David P. Christy: I'm not interested in the images, I'm interested in the financial transactions.

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, the financial institution that the member participates in will capture whatever that information is. The network will capture across transactions and volumes, but not necessarily. I mean, there has been no discussion about who is going to get that data, and I'm not even sure that it is available to us. It will be operated under the same banking kind of rules that the MAC system is. So. It's whatever a member participates now in the MAC, it will be that same kind of rule.

David P. Christy: My concern is on this computer chip. Will Penn State have access to the transactions that I have made using this MAC card?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, we don't own the network. The network is going to be owned by the credit union, so they'll be ruled by the same regulations that they're ruled by. So where I don't have access to what goes on in Mellon Bank right now, I probably won't. I don't feel I am going to have access to what goes on in this network. The computer chip, the information we will get is how the chip is used in individual locations, not who is using it. It won't tell us that you used it in the vending machine, it will just tell us how many chips were used in the vending machine and how many dollars of sales were generated, OK?

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: I may be asking the same question, but how much risk are you taking if you lose your card?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, you are taking no more risk with this than you would with any other electronic transaction through other...

Philip A. Klein: Well, that is if you cut it off immediately, but you'd have to know that you lost it. Suppose you lose your card and you don't know you've lost it, and so you don't find out.

Thomas V. Gibson: That's a good point, OK. The money that goes on this card, which will be actually incorporated into the ID--I mean, this chip is going to be part of the ID card--if it's the same as cash and it's not able to turn off, it's like when you lose your check card or whatever or like the meal plans and those activities now. So, first of all it's going to have a limit to what people can put on it $20, $50 or whatever, and then if it's lost it's the same as cash. It could be used; that's the risk people take. I myself, I've never lost my drivers license, so I would risk putting money on there. If somebody is losing their ID card, and some students we issue 7 or 8 cards a year to, then I would suggest that you don't put money on the card.

Philip A. Klein: Well, an aspect of the same question is when I use my MAC card, say, in London, I get a receipt immediately that tells me how much I have in my bank account in State College. It always bothers me a little to find out in London what my bank account is. If you lose your card, how much of your life is available?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, if you lose your card, first of all your bank account tie-in will be with a PIN number which is the same as your MAC card or whatever you are using now. So if somebody finds your card and you haven't had it validated yet-which is something that will happen with this program just like your Visa or MasterCard or whatever--if they don't have your PIN number, they can't access anything anyway. The online part of this is not part of the chip. The online part of this is on a magnetic stripe that is exactly the same as your check card now.

Brian B. Tormey, Altoona College: There is obviously a lot of cost involved in this. Who is underwriting the cost, and how does Penn State plan to split the cost?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well there's a couple of ways. One, Penn State has a basic requirement to support its ID system, so the whole concept of capturing images and issuing cards is part of Penn State. They have a requirement to have an ID card, so therefore they are going to support it. All the other activities are not necessarily costly to Penn State, but they can be supported. So, for example, transactions through the Penn State network will generate revenue for Penn State the same way that transactions through MAC generate revenue for MAC. The banks who these transactions finally go to pay MAC to process the transactions. If it goes through the Penn State network, they will pay the credit union who will in turn pay Penn State to do it.. So there are some outside revenue streams which are potential, and one of the reasons why so many schools have done it is because they do in fact support the University's obligation to provide the service in the first place. It's the same thing with the AT&T calling card. Once you have that tie-in to the ID card, that's worth a lot of money to AT&T, so those will be the new revenue sources that will hopefully support not only themselves-well, they'll certainly support themselves and hopefully support the entire program so that it does not have to be supported by Penn State through other sources.

Salvatore A. Marsico, Penn State Wilkes-Barre: If you have an income revenue, do we share profits contributed into the revenue stream?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, we'll work out an agreement where we receive transaction fees. Well, if that's profits, then that's what we'll share in. And you know each transaction in the network, or every time a card is used in an ATM, we'll generate a certain amount of revenue for Penn State.

Felix L. Lukezic, College of Agricultural Sciences: This ATM card used at Penn State, can it be used at say a Mellon Bank without charge? Because if not. if you use it at Mellon you can be charged for that.

Thomas V. Gibson: All those rules are for us to write. One of the hooks to get the financial institutions to be part of the network is to be able to have an ATM on the campus or on the campuses. So I think our thinking right now is that if you are a member, if your bank is a member of the Penn State network, then you will not be charged a foreign bank fee using the ATMs that are members of that network. That's sort of where we're at right now, which is different than your opportunities with MAC because they may be part of the MAC network, but if it's not your own bank you can get charged, and those charges are going up substantially. But I must tell you that people whose banks are not part of the network or who have not affiliated with it, then that's a foreign bank charge.

John W. Baer: What if you go to another campus will you be able to come up and use it the same way here?

Thomas V. Gibson: Yes. let me talk about first of all the library system. I believe they can do that now. So all of those systems. I know that students on meal plans at Beaver Campus can come up here and use the same ID card for the same services here.

John W. Baer: What about the debit system?

Thomas V. Gibson: OK, the debit system. If a person chooses to affiliate, to tie their personal account, you can use the card anywhere in the world, because then you can use it the same way that you can use your check card now. So if you are in San Francisco and the credit union will either be affiliated with Plus or Cirrus or one of the national networks. then you can go to a Wells Fargo Bank and put your ID card in and it works just like an ATM card would work anywhere. So, yes, you will be able to use it for those services.

Peter Deines: Will the students be able to use the card to pay their tuition?

Thomas V. Gibson: Yes, in a sense that we are working with the Bursar, and one of the reasons Roseanne Sieminski is on the committee is because through direct deposit or by having an account set up, if they just go over there and basically swipe their debit card, that could theoretically pay their tuition. There is a problem with that that we are trying to work out and that is that the MAC networks and the various networks we use have a limit on how much you can use your debit card for, and typically it's less than the $2000 or $3000 that we charge for tuition. So maybe we'll have to reduce tuition to $200. Through our own network though, and this goes back to the rules that we can write, we may be able to write certain locations in where that is not a problem so we can say that at the Bursar's Office at University Park. or wherever tuition is paid, there is an exemption to the rule in the network and the card can go over. Of course, if you don't have the money in your account it doesn't make any difference. So, yeah, it could be. There's a whole world, once you get into the financial system, there's a whole world open to you if you so choose to use it.

Peter Deines: Just another question I had concerning the card's appearance. Depending on how it works, I think it could raise questions in the commercial realm here.
There is the potential for the card to look commercial, and it may not look so much like a Penn State ID.

Thomas V. Gibson: There are three or four active designs for the card right now that the committee is looking at, and we'll pass up recommendations to the University. I think that the front of the card is going to stay picture. It's got to have the Penn State shield on it.

Chair Geschwindner: It's going to have a swoosh.

Thomas V. Gibson: Swoosh, but it might have an AT&T logo on the back of it.

Chair Geschwindner: I think we have time for one or two more questions before everyone besides me leaves. Lou, do you have a question?

Louis F. Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Berks Campus: Yeah, I have a question with that right off the bat. You mentioned it right then. We're going to get an income screen which will go to the University. It may benefit the students, faculty, and staff, but we're using this card and we'll have AT&T advertised on it. And I object to it. There is so much that we advertise. Can't we avoid that somehow? Because this is for the University, this is not for AT&T. We may use AT&T, but why do they have a license to put advertising on our card? Maybe we ought to use Joe Paterno to figure out how not to do this. I object to having my identification card, which has my picture on it, to have an advertisement for AT&T at the same time. I'm telling you that now as a Senator.

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, I think those are all issues. OK, thank you, appreciate the input.

Robert G. Price: What do you hope to generate that there would be no coercive elements attached to this?

Thomas V. Gibson: There would be no what?

Robert G. Price: No coercive elements attached to this and what you do have is a Pepsi card. Are there going to be other ATM cards still permitted on campus? If there are calling phones, will they be only AT&T? And so forth?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, the University, a couple of questions there. One, AT&T is the University's sort of official long distance carrier and there is a significant amount of support that could be gained from continuing on with that relationship. Will other ATM cards be able to be used? Sure, I mean it's not going to look any different.

Robert G. Price: Not other ATM cards, other ATM stations. There are a whole bunch of ATMs on campus right now.

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, I would predict that there would be a bank of ATMs with the major banks.

Chair Geschwindner: Take one more question down here, Tim.

Timothy T. Creyts, Student Senator, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Perhaps it would be a good idea to personalize the card. For example, we could put an AT&T logo on the back for those who possibly want to use those special abilities of the card.

Chair Geschwindner: Tom,. could you just summarize for the Senators the best way for them to communicate any additional concerns that they have so that they could have input into the ongoing considerations here?

Thomas V. Gibson: Well, you have a very loyal and devoted member of the Senate who is part of our committee, George Bugyi, so that would be the number one way to communicate. In the handout you have a list of people who are on the project management team, and my suggestion is that Joel Weidner would be the number one person to communicate to. It's JLW3--I think is his email And his phone number (which actually all of this was in the Intercom a month or so ago) is 814-863-4494. So, and we actually received quite a few comments from the Intercom article and the same kind of questions and concerns. We are working on all these things, and as I said prior to the meeting, none of this is actually cast in stone so we are interested in input and how people feel about it. We don't really have a driven agenda on this other than to have a good ID card that is self-sustaining for the institution.

Chair Geschwindner: Thank you very much.






May I have a motion to adjourn?

Senators: Motion.

Chair Geschwindner: See you next time.

The September 9. 1997 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:06 PM.


Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of August 22, 1997

Committee on Committees and Rules - Proposal to Rescind Delegation of Authority to Penn State Harrisburg-The Capital College (Legislative)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Awards and Scholarships (Informational)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students (Informational)

Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation - An Analysis of the Penn State Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (Informational)

Student Life - Challenging the Norm: Changing the Environment 1996-97 (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location (Informational)

University Planning - Status of the University's Compliance with Disability Act Regulations (Informational)

University Planning - ID Card Update (Informational)



Abendroth, Thomas W.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Anderson, Christopher B.
Arnold, Steven F.
Asbury, William W.
Askov, Eunice N.
Baer, John W.
Bagby, John W.
Bakis, Charles E.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Beatty, James J.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bemecker, Craig A.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blumberg, Melvin L.
Brannon, S. Diane
Brasseur, James G.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brighton, John A.
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Brunk, Quincealea
Burgess, Robert L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Burrows, Meredythe M.
Byman, David H.
Cahir, John J.
Cain, Julie
Cardella, John F.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Christy, David P.
Clark, Katharine E.
Coraor, Lee D.
Crane, Robert G.
Creyts, Timothy T.
Crist, George
Crowley, Sharon
Curtis, Wayne R.
Das, Jayatri
Daubert, Thomas
E. de Hart,
Steven A. Deines,
Peter De Jong,
Gordon F. Dempsey,
Brian A. Dempsey,
Richard F. De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, William C.
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Fahffline, 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.
Glasmeier, Amy K.
Gold, David P.
Goldberg, Marc D.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gregory, Monica E.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine M.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Howard, Robert K.
Irwin, Zachar-y T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Kayal, David M.
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Kristine, Frank J.
Lamancusa, John S.
Lasher, William C.
Laubach, Julie
Lippert, John R.
Lucas, Veronica Burns
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Marshall, Louisa J.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Michael, Erica B.
Milakofsky, Louis F.
Miller, Arthur C.
Miller, Linda P.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Morganti, Deena J.
Munn, Mark H.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Myers, David J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Nicholson, Mary E.
Nixon, B. Tracy
Oz, Effy
Oztnent, Judy
Pangbom, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Pees, Richard C.
Platz, Michael D.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Reed, Rodney J.
Richards, Robert D.
Riclunan, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ridley, Jane M.
Robinett, Richard W.
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.
Schmalstieg, William R.
Schneider, Donald
Secor, Robert
Smith, James F.
Smith, Richard M.
Smith, Sandra R.
Spampinato, Carie
Spanier, Graham B.
Stewart, James B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thigpen, Kemeth A.
Thomas, James B.
Thrower, Peter A.
Toriney, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda K.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Wager, J. James
Ware, Roger P.
Weiss, Beno
White, Christine A.
White, Eric R.
Whittam, Thomas S.
Wilson, Richard A.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Young, James S.
Youtz, Susan C.
Yucelt, Ugur
Zavodni, John
Zelis, Robert
Ziegler, Greogry R.


Bugyi, George J.
Clark, Helen F.
Lehner, Brenda L.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
157 Total Elected
7 Total Ex Officio
5 Total Appointed
169 Total Attending


Curricular Affairs - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of October 10,1 1997

Special Committee on General Education - (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - Faculty Tenure Issues (Informational)

Faculty Benefits - Faculty Salary Report by Gender (Informational)

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits - Annual Report - 1996-97 (Informational)

University Planning - Update on University Planning Council Activities (Informational)

University Planning - Budget for 1997/98, Process and Outcome, Budget for 1998/99 (Informational)