T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 36-----SEPTEMBER 10, 2002-----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 2002-03.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports that have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for September 10, 2002
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to September 10, 2002
III. Tentative Agenda for October 22, 2002
FINAL AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 10, 2002
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the April 23, 2002, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:7
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of August 27, 2002
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of August 27, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Awards and Scholarships
Performance of the TIAA-CREF Retirement Savings Plan
Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits
Annual Report - June 2002
University Advising Council
Intermodal Transportation Concept
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate heard five informational reports:
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Awards and Scholarships." This annual report provided information on the total number of awards and the awards that the Senate had jurisdiction over in the 2001-02 year. There were 270 awards made totaling $214,345. (See Record, page(s) 11 and Agenda Appendix "C.")
Faculty Benefits - "Performance of TIAA-CREF Retirement Savings Plan." This informational report compared the performance of the investment funds in the Teachers' Assurance & Annuity Association and College Retirement Equities fund (TIAA-CREF) to several key benchmarks during the past five years. (See Record, page(s) 12 -13 and Agenda Appendix "D.")
Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits - This annual report examined the following issues: health care plans, rates and changes; SERS changes; online benefits changes; student immunizations; military leave benefits; and the occupational medicine programs. (See Record, page(s) 14-16 and Agenda Appendix "E.")
Undergraduate Education - "University Advising Council." This informational report presented the activities of the Advising Council since spring 1999, and gave an overview of new advising initiatives for the 2002-03 year. (See Record, page(s) 16-17 and Agenda Appendix "F.")
University Planning - "Intermodal Transportation Concept." This report considered the current planning for transportation in and around the University Park campus. Some strategies presented included: pedestrian safety, congestion reduction, accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians, and low cost parking alternatives. (See Record, page(s) 17-29 and Agenda Appendix "G.")
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding. Two hundred and thirty-two Senators signed the roster.
Chair Moore: Welcome to the new Senate year, and welcome to this new room. You asked for change last year, and we have given it to you. You asked for challenging sessions, and we are providing them. So I hope the rest of the year is as orderly and as controlled as this. My understanding is that what we are dealing with is a contractor's error in regard to putting the seats back in. But we are confident that it will be corrected well before the next meeting. Let us hope so.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the April 23, 2002 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Chair Moore: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for August 27, 2002. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of August 27, 2002. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Moore: Tomorrow at 12:00 noon, there will be a September 11, 2001 remembrance ceremony at Eisenhower Auditorium, and all are invited. The provost has asked faculty to excuse from class those students who wish to attend that ceremony.
Now in regard to September 11, 2001, I am sure that we can all recall exactly where we were and what we were doing at the moment last year when we heard the news. Those who were on the Senate last year were in the middle of morning committee meetings and responded to the news with initial incredulity. Shocked, we then cut short that afternoon's full meeting after hearing from Chair Nichols and President Spanier. May I ask that all who are present today rise for a moment of silence to honor those who lost their lives last year on September 11, 2001.
Senators: Moment of silence.
Chair Moore: Thank you very much. On Friday, September 13, 2002, as the president has said, he will deliver his State of the University Address to the university community at 3:00 p.m. in Eisenhower Auditorium. The topic of this year's address will be a student-centered university. An idea the president has been discussing over the course of the past year in a number of meetings. This is a topic that will be of particular interest to the faculty, and for that reason you are all encouraged to attend.
On that occasion the president will also name two Evan Pugh professors. Alan C. Walker, Evan Pugh Professor of Anthropology and Nina Fedoroff, Evan Pugh Professor of Life Sciences.
May I now ask Professor Rao to join me at the podium. On June 12, 2002, President George Bush presented to Professor Calampudi R. Rao the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award for lifetime achievement in the fields of scientific research. President Bush cited Professor Rao for "his pioneering contributions to the foundations of statistical theory and multivariate statistical methodology and their applications, enriching the physical, biological, mathematical, economic, and engineering sciences."
Professor Rao is internationally acknowledged as one of the pioneers who laid the foundations of modern statistics as well as one of the world's top five statisticians with multifaceted distinctions as a mathematician, researcher, scientist, and teacher. His pioneering contributions to mathematics, and statistical theory, and applications have become part of graduate and undergraduate courses in statistics, econometrics, electrical engineering, and many other disciplines at most universities throughout the world.
Professor Rao's research in multivariate analysis has been used to improve economic planning, weather prediction, medical diagnosis, tracking the movements of spy planes, and monitoring the courses of spacecrafts. Technical terms bearing his name appear in all standard textbooks on statistics, including such terms as Cramer-Rao Inequality, Rao-Blackwellization, Rao's Test Score, Fisher-Rao Theorem, and Rao Distance. A book he wrote in 1965, Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications is one of the most often cited books in science.
The Government of India has honored him in three ways. He has received that country's second-highest civilian honor for outstanding contributions to science, engineering, and statistics. He has been selected as the namesake for a national award presented to the country's outstanding young statisticians, and the Prime Minister of India bestowed on him an award from the University of Visva-Bharati that, translated into English, means, "The Ideal Person of the Country." He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a fellow of the Royal Academy in the United Kingdom, a member of the Indian National Science Academy, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences.
Professor Rao has also received 27 honorary degrees from universities in 16
countries. He has authored or co-authored 14 books and more than 300 research
Today, Professor Rao, in acknowledgment of your receiving the National Medal of Science and on the occasion of your 82nd birthday, the members of the University Faculty Senate-students, administrators, and your faculty colleagues at Penn State-congratulate you for receiving this outstanding honor, celebrate your many achievements, and I am pleased to present you with this statement of the Senate's admiration and congratulations signed by both the President of the University and the Chair of the Faculty Senate. The statement reads: The Penn State University Faculty Senate commends Calampudi R. Rao on the occasion of receiving the National Medal of Science, thereby, bringing honor both to him and to the entire university.
Senators: Applause and standing ovation.
Chair Moore: Last year the Senate passed legislation authorizing the election of two retired Faculty Senators to serve on the Senate. One was to serve on Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and one on Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. Ballots were mailed to 744 retired Faculty Senators, and the response rate was 42 percent. On the basis of that election, we are pleased to welcome back to the Senate Judd Arnold, who will serve on Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, and Robert Heinsohn, who will serve on Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. May I ask both new Senators to rise (I believe only one is present) so that we can acknowledge you and welcome you back.
Chair Moore: And I certainly do want to congratulate Janis Jacobs for her new position, one which will greatly influence the affairs of the Senate, and faculty everywhere wish you the very best, and we will cooperate with you in every possible way to work with you to make this a better institution.
During the past year, our new Executive Secretary, Susan Youtz, has been busy introducing more technology into the ways in which the Senate does business, and for that we are all very grateful. If it would have been left to me, nothing like this would have happened. Let me site four examples of the ways in which the Senate Office has recently improved its efficiency and effectiveness and reduced costs as well. I saw Louise Sandmeyer someplace, so she should be pleased with this effort to improve quality.
First of all, there is a creation of a database to generate reports, make queries, and maintain attendance records by committee, location, or college; a program to conduct annual elections online; an electronic index of the Senate Agenda and Senate Record that will facilitate online searches for legislative and advisory/consultative reports; and, lastly initiated, an online committee preference process. The response to this process increased the return rate from 65 percent to 80 percent, which is very successful.
The president has accepted the following legislative reports that were passed by the University Faculty Senate on March 26, 2002: one, the Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 - Election to the Senate - Excessive Absences; number two, Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College; and three, Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance. The president also expressed his concurrence with the advisory/consultative report, entitled Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23, passed by the Senate on March 26, 2002.
The Faculty Advisory Committee met on August 22, 2002 with the president and provost and discussed the following topics: General Education Recertification, Calendar Implementation, the Search for the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, University Office of International Programs, Royalties for Course Packets-AP-17, the possibility of the appointment of a privacy officer and other privacy initiatives, College Recognition of Senate service, Retroactive Emeritus Rank for Retired Associate Professors, Attendance at Senate Meetings, and lastly Faculty Mobility.
The Senate Self Study Committee, established last year by Past-Chair Nichols and chaired by George Franz, is making progress and will report in spring semester possibly. One suggestion has already been implemented-Senators asked for improved communications between the Senate and all members of the faculty in regard to what the Senate was doing. That request led to the Senate Newsletter that was sent out last Friday, and for which we have received a very good response, mostly dealing with faculty benefits issues. Future issues of the newsletter will go out shortly after each Senate Council meeting.
You may look at the chart attached to the minutes of Senate Council, which detail the Senate attendance, indicating that overall every Senate meeting is attended by 74 percent of the faculty, 81 percent from non-University Park locations, and 68 percent from faculty at University Park.
If you have any suggestions for improving the Senate, please let George Franz know, or send your suggestions to me or to any of the Senate Officers. My email address is on the Senate Newsletter.
Senate legislation passed in 1997 calls for the Senate to review this year each item in the report of the Task Force on General Education. This is the year we will do it, so committees will be formed this fall semester to review the following items: First Year Seminars, the Intercultural and International Competence requirement, and the Health and Physical Activity requirement. Other committees will be formed in a timely fashion, and we hope when these committees are formed that you will all be generous in your responses and let us know just what we are doing.
Also attached to the minutes today under Senate Council is a chart dealing with the recertification response. That is an effort to recertify all the General Education courses. I want to discuss this very briefly. The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs has asked that all recertification proposals be submitted by November 1, 2002. That date, by the way, represents a three-month extension because the original date was August 1, 2002. It was granted by the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs to all colleges to prepare their proposals. Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs will list all recertified and all decertified courses in the April 8, 2003 Blue Sheets. Courses recertifed by that date will be the only ones to appear as Gen Ed or GI courses in the Spring Semester 2004 Schedule of Courses. Courses that are not recertified will simply appear as just undergraduate courses, but they will not fulfill the Gen Ed requirements. To date, approximately 40 percent of all courses to be recertified have been submitted and either approved or are under review. Happily, some college have completed almost 80 percent of their work and others are hurrying to meet the deadline. Nonetheless, we are confident that all will be well but suspect that all Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs members and staff will likely reach exhaustion by April, and our hats go off to all involved in this gigantic but necessary undertaking.
Last night one of you asked me who originated the phrase, "brevity is the soul of wit?" I realize upon reflection that he was politely telling me to make my remarks today as short as possible. But unfortunately, as you will discover, I am a windbag, but I will try. As you know, in the opening meeting of the Senate each year, it is possible for the Senate Chair to make a few remarks while goodwill still exists in the Senate, and he can get away with such things. So I would like to make some personal introductory remarks as we all begin the work of the Senate for this year. I have no program to announce or any new initiatives; I have only an attitude toward the Senate that I wanted to share. Let me just tell you why I am happy to be a Senator. I know that sounds like a freshman essay topic, but nonetheless, that is alright, too.
Each of us lives inside a particular department or academic division in a particular location, and each of us has a lot to do to cope with the demands of that world-its requirements, its traditions, its dramas, its intrigues, its scandals, its stresses, who's in, and who's out. I come from the departments of English and Comparative Literature in the College of the Liberal Arts at University Park, where I have spent my entire academic career teaching old poems and old plays. Now English, in particular at University Park, is a big department with more than 60 tenure-line faculty, and the department requires more than 180 instructors, mostly graduate assistants and fixed term instructors, to teach its more than 300 sections each semester. That world is so complex and large that for many years I was completely absorbed in all its doings and complexities. I was so involved that I could not imagine anything more complex.
Then I joined the Senate and found out that I had a new set of colleagues from many different locations and from many academic traditions, each with his or her own ideas about how best to do the job of teaching and learning and research, each quite pleased with his or her own ways, and each of whom found uninteresting, irrelevant, and reactionary what I thought were the best ways to do everything important. My colleagues were now Peter Georgopulos, a physicist from Delaware; Rob Pangborn, an engineer from University Park; Judy Ozment Payne, a chemist from Abington; Joann Chirico, a sociologist from Beaver; Terry Engelder, from Earth & Mineral Sciences; Guy Barbato, of Agricultural Sciences and in particular, poultry science; Dwight Davis, a cardiologist from Hershey; Cary Libkin, from Arts & Architecture, who puts on musical theatre productions; and Susan Youtz, who taught nursing in Health and Human Development, and many, many others of you. Never again could I live solely by English or Comparative Literature or Liberal Arts rules. Rather than being depressed by the sacrifices demanded to inhabit the world of the Senate, I was exhilarated to have my eyes opened at my advanced age to the nature of the contemporary, large public research university-one of our societies true success stories.
Membership in the Senate made me aware of the fascinating richness and range of intellectual and academic cultures within this huge, dynamic, and far flung institution, with its many obligations and missions and dedicated personnel. Without having become a Senator, I would never have had the chance to meet many of you or to realize the important variety of our many worlds. Best of all, I discovered that when we were all thrown into a room together and were struggling to work something out, each of us had to surrender our narrow vision, and each of us had instead to ask what was best for the university as a whole. How will this affect Lehigh Valley or Agricultural Sciences, Shenango and Smeal, Mont Alto and Eberly? Each of those locations and disciplines had to be accommodated. No one could be ignored or cut out of the proposal. What I grew to love were the endless compromises and consultations needed to get someone who taught German at Behrend to agree with someone who taught Geological Science or Mining Safety at University Park. How does one get a psychologist at York to find common ground with a mathematician from Altoona? How much patience and civility and goodwill and how many accommodations were required to find the right words, the perfect sentence that would achieve agreement and bring about harmony without sacrificing principal and conviction in the process? In these ways the work of the Senate demands the best that is in all of us. Senate demands that we learn the arts of community making.
What happens at each Senate committee is what happens each day in the United States Congress and at every legislative body in the world. The process of finding broad agreement and consensus and compromise is slow and sloppy and uncertain, but there is no desirable alternative. Democracy, as Winston Churchill said, "is the worst form of government but none is better." None is better because there are no good alternatives to patience, civility and goodwill in the attempt to achieve harmony. Now what drives that determination to find common agreement is the resolve on the part of each one of us to make this university a better academic institution. That is what the Senate does. We have the responsibility for fashioning the policies that will eventually govern the academic mission of this big university. Separately and collectively, we in the Senate help shape the intellectual life of this university. Its academic mission and how it is carried out are our responsibility. As our predecessors in this chamber worked hard to fulfill that responsibility in their time, so let us seize the opportunities that lie before us in this year, and this time it is ours to do all that we can to make sure that we leave this institution at the end of the year a little bit, or maybe a whole lot, better than it is today. So let us begin our important responsibility of improving the ways in which this university fulfills its academic mission, and let us work hard together to make that happen. Let us begin. Have a good year.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Moore: President Spanier is in attendance today; however, he needs to catch a 2:30 plane for Washington, DC for a NASULGC Board meeting, which I believe means National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. If there are no objections, we will reorder the Agenda to allow the president to speak now so he can catch his plane on time. Hearing no objections, I call on President Spanier.
Graham B. Spanier, President: I was hoping for an objection. I could get out of here even sooner. When the history of the university is written, and they ask what was the most complex issue ever facing the Faculty Senate, we'll be able to report it was this new seating arrangement. It is a good thing the reporters arrived late so the headlines tomorrow won't be about that.
I want to begin by saying what a pleasure it has been working with your new Senate Chair, John Moore, since he has taken over this position. The Senate Officers continue to work very busily throughout the summer. We have had some meetings with them already and he has latched onto this responsibility in a very impressive way as I knew you would expect. We are very fortunate to have him in that role.
I also want to add my congratulations to Professor Rao. He is truly one of Penn States most distinguished faculty. He has brought great credit to this university and, of course, to himself and his family, and it has been a great pleasure to have an opportunity to get to know him over the years, and I am so pleased with this latest recognition.
We are off to a great start at the university this year. At all of our campuses, we have had reports of wonderfully well functioning move-in procedures, residence halls, and adjustment to classes. We will have, we think, a record number of students this year by the time all the final numbers come in and get settled down. Penn State does continue to grow modestly and dealing with a little bit more student numbers each year, of course, requires us to be very flexible and very responsive in our classrooms and, we are very pleased when faculty members show a little flexibility and allow students to add their classes and squeeze in to the room when space is at a premium and, of course, when departments and colleges offer the sections, we need to accommodate our students. Overall, from virtually every aspect you could look at the university, it has perhaps been our most successful start that we have had, judging it now two weeks into the semester.
I want to encourage all of you to attend my State of the University Address on Friday. For those of you who will be here in this community, you are welcome to show up at 2:30 p.m. and there will be ice cream served. Then at 3:00 p.m., we will have an academic convocation where a number of your colleagues will be recognized and honored and then my address. I think we will have all of you out within an hour. We especially hope you will attend because the message I think is important. I will be reviewing some issues, focusing broadly on the university but will then talk specifically about my interest in seeing this become a more student-centered university. For those of you at other campuses, there should be a location at each campus where this will be carried via satellite and where you can gather on your own campus. You should have received information about that already. If you haven't, just ask your dean or campus executive officer. Someone on campus will know where the address will be carried.
This week we also have our Board of Trustees meeting. It begins Thursday and continues through Friday. We will have virtually all of our trustees here for, as usual, a jam packed agenda. One of the most important things we do at our September meeting is we ask the trustees to approve our budget proposal that goes to Harrisburg and is sent through the channels there. Given the state's economic situation right now, our proposal is actually quite modest this year. It is about as modest a proposal we have ever made, but it is imminently realistic, and, we hope, imminently fundable by the state, and we will be pushing it very hard. We are also at the same time engaged in a very serious process of internal budget reallocation and some actual budget cutting. Now we are talking about millions of dollars here. We hope to do this in a way that will not be very visible to the faculty because we want to preserve every last dollar we can within the academic enterprise of the university. But we hope it will allow us to have a tuition increase that is considerably more modest than we ended up being faced with this past year. If the state does its part, we will do our part to keep tuition low and still be as generous as we can in keeping up with employee benefits, benefits for our graduate assistants, and faculty and graduate assistant salary increases. Those are all built into the budget at, we think, very reasonable levels.
We will also, at the Board of Trustees meeting later this week, ask the trustees to approve our capital construction proposal. There won't be a lot of new news on that because a lot of what is in the capital construction proposal is reauthorizations of things the legislature had earlier proposed but the state has not yet funded. Under new state rules, they have to be reauthorized every four years. But there will be a couple of new things in there and you will also begin to notice a trend in our capital construction proposals that will put somewhat more emphasis on renovation and expansion of existing buildings and renovation and expansion of the infrastructure of the university and a little less emphasis on new buildings and that is really the way it needs to be. Because this university had such an incredible growth spurt in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and those buildings are all now talking about millions and millions of square feet of space that are coming into that zone where they are in need of serious rehabilitation and renovation, we can't just go out and build new facilities for everything. We have to take care of what we have and improve them and put them to better uses. So those are the kinds of changes that we will see reflected more and more.
Of course, another important thing that is happening this fall in Pennsylvania is the gubernatorial race. The first of the major state-wide debates will actually take place on this campus in Eisenhower Auditorium in a couple of weeks. There will some tickets available to the public. I hope that many of you on the faculty will attend those debates. For those of you on other campuses they will be broadcast state-wide. Our public broadcasting stations are very heavily involved in making sure it gets to all the other television and radio stations in the state that are carrying it as well.
I have had a number of opportunities to spend time with both of the gubernatorial candidates, talking in some detail about Penn State, where we are going, what we need, and what kind of assistance we would like from them. Both candidates have been very responsive, very open to seeing me and spending time with me. I cannot tell you that I have any commitments, but we certainly have their ears and their interest, and we will be continuing that through the fall.
I am very pleased to reiterate here what I think is pretty well known now and has been announced throughout the university that upon John Cahir's retirement at the end of this month, Janis Jacobs will succeed John as Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs. It will be somewhat of an expanded portfolio in her responsibilities. We are delighted to have Jan in that role. She, of course, has most recently been Vice President for Administration and before that was in a number of different administrative positions during her career. Her academic appointments are in Human Development and Family Studies and Psychology. She is one of the nation's eminent developmental psychologists and will bring great background and perspective to this position. I think most of you know Jan, but for those of you who do not, would you just stand so they can see who you are, Jan, and welcome you to your new position.
President Spanier: Finally, I would like to say that I have spent more time than usual lately with members of the news media. It is principally the sports reporters, however, and a lot of people calling me, asking me who am I rooting for this weekend? I assume they are calling about the women's volleyball match on Friday. So I have been telling them Penn State, of course. They are talking about the big football game with Nebraska on Saturday. There are a lot of ties between Penn State and the University of Nebraska, which I am sure is the reason several thousand Nebraska people are coming here to visit during the weekend. We will have quite a contingent, including their governing board and members of their administration and others who, of course, want to see the game but are very interested in learning more about Penn State. So we will be host to them. But I just want to assure all of you here that I have no divided loyalties about the outcome of this game. I expect Penn State to do well, and we will be cheering them on, and we certainly do hope for a victory.
So with that, let me see if you have just a few questions for me. By the way, this is a great turnout. Is it just that there are fewer seats or did everybody actually come? That is great. Keep coming. The Senate does good and important work, and we need you to be here to be a part of this. There are not really exciting issues at every meeting, but at every meeting there is always something important on the Agenda. The Senate really needs to be there to keep an eye on what happens.
Kathleen L. Lodwick, Berks-Lehigh Valley: President Spanier, I have a book that is being published by a publisher in a neighboring state. The person I am working with just happened to tell me last week that they are now publishing five Penn State professor's books. So this, of course, raises the question about the Penn State Press. I know you have been addressing issues about publications. But when one neighboring state has five of our professors' books, what does that say about our own press?
President Spanier: I think it's great. I can report that the Penn State Press is publishing the books of more than five Penn State faculty members. I would say we are still probably in first place in that regard, but Penn State faculty members are publishing books in large numbers with presses throughout the country, and I happen to think that is good. I think that kind of diversity and visibility is very helpful to us. The Penn State Press, like all university presses in the country right now, is operating on very tight margins. Libraries are purchasing fewer books. You folks are purchasing fewer books. The cost of publishing books is very high. University presses were never really started to make money, and many of them enjoyed handsome subsidies from the university. At Penn State, our philosophy has always been, like it is for so many enterprises within the university, that we hope that the press can operate on a self-support basis. They have not been able to operate entirely on a self-support basis, but they have done pretty well. As the margins get narrower, we have to work harder and harder to balance the academic objectives of the press and the business objectives of the press. This has been a discussion, by the way, that has been on the table for almost three years now with the Big Ten universities. Eva Pell, who is here, and Rodney Erickson and I have all been involved in hours and hours of discussions with our colleagues at the Big Ten level about how we can strengthen our university presses, make them very productive and units within our universities retain the original objectives, but try to make it all work financially. It is very much a challenge these days. That looks like that is it.
Chair Moore: Thank you very much
President Spanier: See you all later.
Chair Moore: As we begin our discussion of these reports, I remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. We have an Informational Report from Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid, entitled Awards and Scholarships. Mark Casteel will stand for questions.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Awards and Scholarships
Mark A. Casteel, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Mark A. Casteel, York Campus: This report is found in Appendix "C." I should point out that this is a traditional report that comes before the Senate about this time every year. Additionally, the criteria for awarding these scholarships and awards are fairly set and so what happens is we just rank order the students and whoever is up for whatever award, those moneys are allotted to those students and we are just basically there to rubber stamp what goes on, but I'll stand for questions.
Amir Khalilollahi, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College: Are the awards for all the campuses or just University Park?
Mark A. Casteel: Did you say are the awards just for University Park or campus wide?
Amir Khalilollahi: Yes
Mark A. Casteel: University wide. Students university-wide are eligible for all of these awards.
Chair Moore: Are there any other questions? We have a report from Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits entitled, Performance of the TIAA-CREF Retirement Savings Plan. Indicating the significance of the report, Deidre Jago, Dennis Shea, Keith Burkhart, and Billie Willits will stand for questions, seeking comfort in numbers.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Performance of the TIAA-CREF Retirement Savings Plan
Deidre E. Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits
Deidre E. Jago, Hazleton Campus: This report was prepared last year under the leadership of Dr. Keith Burkhart, who chaired the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. Dennis Shea is the vice-chair of the committee this year and served on the committee, and Billie Willits is present to answer any questions. I am pleased to present Keith Burkhart, who can answer any questions.
Keith K. Burkhart, College of Medicine: We are all inspired by the opening talk, and many of our retirement accounts need new beginnings too. I feel bad about standing in front for a report about underperformance here at the university, but most of our retirement plans, and even the competitors out there to TIAA-CREF, obviously had one of the worst years for many of us in 25 years. We are all praying that we don't follow the Japan route and not come back for 15. A sad thought. In any case Jacob De Rooy, an economics professor who retired last year, felt that we did need to hear or include this as one of our Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits reviews. We have not presented such an informational or educational report to this point and, we wanted to do that so other faculty, especially new faculty, would have the ability to look at this and be educated. Hopefully, over the long term, others will follow the performance. I think one of the impetuses for doing that was to really look at the TIAA-CREF and how it compared out there to other funds. We are a captive audience, and TIAA-CREF underwent a change in becoming a tax identity and may have lost a little bit of its competitive edge in that way. So we wanted to pay attention and see if more competition came along or at least put pressure on to do so. On that note we will take questions.
W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: When you say adjusted
benchmark index, is that taking into account what happened last September?
Chair Moore: Travis, what page was that?
W. Travis DeCastro: It is the chart on page four. Underneath the CREF stocks it would say adjusted benchmark index.
Keith K. Burkhart: The double asterisk, is that what you are referring too?
W. Travis DeCastro: No, underneath each choice in TIAA-CREF you have adjusted benchmark index, and then you have TIAA-CREF rates for one year and five years?
Keith K. Burkhart: Page eight describes some of the benchmarking that was done to try, I think, match up against some of those reports, if I remember correctly. Jake would be able to answer that question being the economics professor. We could try to make sure and verify that.
Dennis G. Shea, College of Health and Human Development: The double star asterisk is what the adjustment is made there. It is adjusted for administrative cost differences between the TIAA-CREF and the benchmark index.
Paul J. Eslinger, College of Medicine: It sounds like one of the points you are making is that TIAA-CREF is no longer focused solely on the academic community and, thereby, have many more pressures and interests given to the account.
Keith K. Burkhart: And we used to get the benefit of the tax status. That was kind of an extra return, and many times it would beat out other options by a percentage point because it didn't have to pay taxes. So it has lost that.
Paul J. Eslinger: What would have to happen for us as faculty to have a choice beyond TIAA-CREF? What is the process like, which would have to be opened up and discussed in here?
Billie Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: Good question. First you would need to seek legal clarity. It is not absolutely clear that the Pennsylvania law even allows us to go to get another company or to add companies. Once we could get that clarity, then what we would do is a request for proposal, and we would see whether there are other companies that would be interested in providing these kinds of program study.
Paul J. Eslinger: Is there any incentive for Penn State to stay solely with TIAA-CREF?
Billie Willits: That is a good question. Not necessarily from the university's perspective. But what we found is when we benchmarked with other universities that have made more options available, most people migrate to one or two anyway. So if we were to go in that direction, we probably would not add a great number of options, but we could conceivably add more options, but right now administratively we are where we want, but it would be of no benefit to the university to go with more than one. Also, I should probably say that TIAA-CREF will be opening its portfolio. We do not have a lot of detail, but, apparently because of law, they have to go through certain amounts of procedure, and they expect that probably by late 2003. So for us, it is probably going to be around 2004 if there are additional options that will allow TIAA-CREF to use them as our portal for our payroll deduction; then you could go with some other options. So we are at a wait-and-see at this point.
Keith K. Burkhart: Thank you, Billie.
Chair Moore: Now we will hear an Informational Report from the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits. George Franz will stand for questions.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS
Annual Report -- June 2002
George W. Franz, Chair, Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits
George W. Franz, Delaware County Campus: This, again, is a mandated report that we bring to you usually in the fall semester that summarizes the activities of the committee during the past year. I have no real formal presentation to make; I just want to make two announcements. As I indicated I think in the spring, Nancy Hensal retired as benefits manager, and I just want to introduce Karen Volmar, who is in the audience and who has replaced Nancy. Although I do not know if anybody can replace Nancy, but Karen is in that position, and we welcome her and hope to work closely with her.
I would highlight two things in the report. One, the fact that there has been substantial and dramatic improvement in the maintenance prescription drug plan. That was an issue for many of the faculty concerning the timeliness of response for prescriptions with the maintenance prescription drug plan. Through a change of personnel and purchasing of additional equipment, there has been a dramatic turnaround and, in fact, the committee felt that the turnaround was so significant that I was requested to send a letter to Margaret Spear, thanking her. It was a dramatic change, and we appreciate that, particularly those of us that are ageing and using maintenance prescription drugs.
The other thing that I would point out is that I am sure at the first meeting in the fall a continuing issue is going to be increased health care rates. If you have been paying attention to news broadcasts, that is the point of many of the strikes that are occurring, particularly in public school systems. We do not know yet what the increased rate will be, but I think you can expect a healthy increase of medical rates. You need to keep in mind that in addition to the increased costs, we are still trying to phase-in over a period of years the 80/20 and 70/30 split for costs, so we are going to have to have that. When you get the "Time to Choose" forms in the mail, you probably need to be prepared for a little sticker shock. So with that happy news, I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: Thank you. I want to ask a question on behalf of those of us who are more paralogically gifted than others. Would you tell us whether retired faculty and their dependents will still be able to continue to purchase medicines at the maintenance drug rates through Ritenour Health Center? Could you give a little bit more explanation about the university's wrap-around policy, as it is called, for those who are retired and who will end up on Medicare? Billie, I didn't put you on the spot this time, I will let George answer that. But would appreciate a little bit more explanation.
George W. Franz: Retirees are covered under the maintenance prescription drug plan just as full-time employees are. If you are part of Medicare, then I think you use the Medicare co-pay to begin with, but you can still participate in the maintenance prescription drug plan. If you retire, and you are under 65, you can get any of the medical plans the university provides. If you are over 65, and you are eligible for Medicare, then your choice is a little more limited, but you still have choice. What happens is Medicare is the primary cover, and then the university's plan picks up. It wraps around the Medicare plan and picks up the costs that Medicare does not cover.
Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I would encourage your group to take a look, next year, at student immunizations. It seems ironic that Penn State would require the meningitis immunization and then the health service benefits do not cover it.
George W. Franz: Well, we did look into it, and in fact it was a point of discussion at several meetings, and we looked into what it would cost to include meningitis immunization as part of the medical package, and it would cause a substantial increase. The decision was, at this point, not to do that. Most medical plans do not include meningitis immunization. There are a few that do but most do not. If I recall the ones we benchmarked in the Big Ten, as long as they were not state supported medical plans, they did not provide immunization. So what we have been suggesting is if somebody sees that coming, they should make that part of their flexible benefits account. But now that the law has changed, I am sure we will go back and look at it because of what the state has done. When we looked at it last year, the decision was not to pursue it as part of the medical plan.
Brian A. Curran, College of Arts and Architecture: I noticed this report ends in June 2002, but I was wondering if your committee had any opportunity to address the dramatic change in health care benefits that has been around since June about the dropping of the Geisinger system. I think about 3,000 faculty and staff at University Park were enrolled in it, somewhere around that kind of number. And we have gotten rather sketchy information about why this change happened and what it all means. I guess we are going to have our options reduced to very few as of very shortly. Have you been discussing this at all?
George W. Franz: It was discussed when it happened. It happened just at the time we had our last committee meeting. We will be discussing it again as part of the "Time to Choose" discussion probably in October. Billie, do you want to say anything about Geisinger? I sure don't. We have talked about it, but I do not know yes, your choices have been cut.
Billie Willits: It particularly affects people mostly in central Pennsylvania. You have seen it on the newswire, and you have also seen it in the Intercom. We are going to come up with, we hope, a couple different options, but there will still be a HMO option. There still will be a PPO option for the central part of Pennsylvania. We are looking right now at whether or not we add a Point of Service to replace the Geisinger Point of Service that will be ending. Your point is very well taken, by the way, in terms of why we chose to do what we did. And you heard me say, if you have been a Senator for some time now, that we want to partner with health care providers who are willing to be flexible and support Penn State University. We need those companies to have that kind of flexibility, and we have decided that bringing our risk pool together would be in our best interest with a company that does provide that flexibility. So that was a business decision in fact we did make. Thank you.
George W. Franz: If you have any issues you want the committee to take up, my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org, and we will be happy to take them up.
Chair Moore: Thank you very much. Our next Informational Report is from Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education entitled University Advising Council.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
University Advising Council
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: Thank you. I would like to make the first correction of the year. In the first line of our informational report if you can change the date to 1997. The University Advising Council was formed by the University Senate five years ago, and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education felt that we should look at the University Advising Council, how it is operating, and receive an informational report. I have asked Eric White to give a short summary and answer any questions you have.
Eric R. White, Director, Division of Undergraduate Studies: John Moore has asked me to provide a few comments, so I would like to give some observations to put this report into a little bit of context. Typically, when students are surveyed about their satisfaction with academic advising, they provide, when not satisfied, the following responses: (1), they feel they have been given misinformation; (2), they feel that advisors are not available when they want advising. The environment that we now live in, with access to the Internet and communication via email, appears to have reduced these two concerns. Students now can get very reliable academic information at many web sites and, for better or worse, students can contact their advisors via email at any time of the day or night. And, lastly, I would like to note in the 2002 Student Satisfaction Survey about 79 percent of all Penn State students, both here at University Park and at other Penn State locations, indicated satisfaction with their own efforts to assume final responsibility for course scheduling, program planning, and successful progress toward completing graduation requirements.
Chair Moore: Are there any questions for Eric or Laura about university advising-a subject of usually a lot of interest?
Laura L. Pauley: I would like to mention the web site in the third paragraph. It is very helpful, very well organized, and easy to find information.
Eric R. White: And I should say that the council has tried to operate its business, if you will, through the web site so that virtually everything that we do is up on the web site so that you can see it, or there is information there that would be of value to you.
Chair Moore: Okay, thank you very much. Our final Informational Report is from the Senate Committee on University Planning entitled, Intermodal Transportation Concept.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Intermodal Transportation Concept
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning
Anthony J. Baratta, College of Engineering: I am chair of the Senate Committee on University Planning. This report will actually be presented by Gordon Turow of the Office of Physical Plant. This is a concept that grew out of the Master Plan that was developed a few years ago and is one aspect of the Master Plan that deals with the transportation around and to and from campus. The Senate Committee on University Planning reviewed this plan last year and actually saw some earlier versions of it that go back a couple of years. Gordon will be providing a detailed discussion of it and I believe accepting questions and comments at the end.
Gordon Turow, Director of Campus Planning and Design, Office of Physical Plant: Thank you very much. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the colleagues who are here with me: Teresa Davis, who is the Director of Transportation Services; Doug Holmes, who is the Assistant Director of Parking; Bruce Younkin, who is Fleet Manager; and Doug Winger, who is the University Planner. We are all very pleased to be here.
Perhaps some of you have seen this presentation before. It is called our intermodal transportation study. There is a catalyst for the creation of this plan. First, I am sure many will agree that there are existing conditions on campus that need improvement. Sometimes the roads are clogged, and sometimes parking can be a frustration, and sometimes the buses do not move as quickly as we would like, and there seemed to be some conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in some places, and the bicycle system is kind of limited. So we thought it was time and decided to address some of these issues, and they were incorporated into the 1999 University Park Campus Master Plan that was approved by the Board of Trustees in 1999. To initiate the process, we began establishing the Master Plan Transportation Committee in November of 2000, which we call the MPTC, which is still an active group. Its primary goal was to validate the Master Plan transportation proposals. You can see the representatives listed here from within Penn State. And you can also see that within the MPTC are peer groups from CATA, Regional Planning Association, State College Borough, and Ferguson and College Townships for a period of time that were involved in the MPTC. In addition, the transit associates and municipal consultant was on board to assist in the review of our data and our projects. McCormick Taylor Associates was Penn State's engineering consultant on the development of this plan.
Some of the MPTC activities are listed here. It shows that we had a diverse group all participating in the development of this plan at the same time. And these are the number and lists of the presentations that we have made to date of this plan. We have been very busy; this is our 24th presentation to date. We have had six public forums and 18 presentations internal to Penn State, and we did present to the Senate Committee on University Planning on March 26, 2002, but this is our first time at Faculty Senate. Thank you.
The overall goals of the Master Plan approved in 1999 include making the University Park Campus more pedestrian friendly, more people oriented, safer for pedestrians, certainly more environmentally sustainable. We strive for the highest possible quality of our environment. By sustainable that includes less dependence on automobiles, better transit, more dependence on bicycling and walking, and enhancing our system of open space. Included within the Master Plan are these eight transportation components, which include managing our access to the core campus, managing our through traffic, creating an effective and dependable transit system, consideration to converting some roads to transit use only, consolidating our surface parking into decks, providing alternative parking locations on the periphery of campus, enhancing and extending accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, and enhancing pedestrian safety on campus. This is a nation-wide trend. Penn State is not unusual in striving to attain these goals. Universities across the country are making changes to reduce vehicular congestion in their core and to reestablish a more people-oriented and safer core campus. You can see some examples here of the Big Ten universities who are exploring these same strategies.
Well, what are the big ideas? Let me orient you to this drawing where it seems that some of our line work is missing. Park Avenue across the top, and downtown is down here, and here is University Drive. And the first point I want to make and discuss is Pollock Road between Burrowes on the West and Shortlidge on the East. The issue here is to create a more people oriented core. To do so is indicated by the location of the red asterisks, is to consider installing staffed kiosks. Staffed kiosks that can serve as guides to visitors and students and faculty and staff and alumni on campus, to help them find optimal parking space for where they are going, and to help manage traffic on Pollock Road. The idea here is that this staffed kiosk would be operating at the same time as the gates operate today.
Another one of the ideas is to consider the portion of Curtin Road between Allen and Bigler. To consider the idea of having this as a transit use only corridor during the peak hours or during the business day, the idea being that this will facilitate the speed and efficiency of the transit system around the core and between the eastern and western peripheries. This is an idea that is definitely still under study.
Another key component right here on Shortlidge Road is the idea of closing this small portion of Shortlidge Road. It is adjacent to where the Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings are currently under construction. This idea would not impact the driveway into Ritenour. It would not impact the driveway into the north or south side of Eisenhower Auditorium. In fact, we are currently improving this small connection between Bigler and Shortlidge on the north side of Eisenhower Auditorium and Eisenhower Deck. So what we are talking about is this very small portion of Shortlidge that we will look at again in a moment.
The last component is the idea of parking. Parking in the core would be complimented by providing alternatives to park on the eastern and western peripheries. It is not a substitute for. It is not in place of. It is in addition to. It is an alternative to provide parking on the eastern periphery here by Beaver Stadium and to consider and explore the opportunities to consider peripheral parking out here in the vicinity of Corl Street on the western end of west campus. The idea for these is to provide an alternative parking option for the community, faculty, staff, and students where they can park on the periphery, take a fare free transit ride into the core, and have a parking rate reduction to say $5.00 per month. Visitor parking would be in the three decks here and the deck that is under design today, called the east deck.
All of these ideas were in the Master Plan developed in 1999, but during the process of their development they were not tested from an engineering point of view. We did retain the firm of McCormick Taylor Associates traffic management engineers and provided them with this scope of work that included testing the validity of stadium west, the east deck, I am sure you are familiar with this-this is in Lot 80 adjacent to Park Avenue across from the Arboretum, the component of the transit only on Curtin Road, closing the small portion of Shortlidge Road, and also considering the possibility or potential value of extending Bigler Road down to College Avenue.
Their processing included extensive data collection efforts as you can see summarized here. They worked closely with the CRPA and CCPO to develop forecasts for the year 2010. These were distributed for review, and they used this information to develop a travel demand model that was also reviewed by the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. They worked closely with our group, the MPTC, to develop scenarios on how to analyze individual projects. They conducted origin and destination surveys, particularly in reference to Shortlidge Road, and conducted traffic impact analysis for specific projects.
This is a brief summary of their findings: the stadium west, which is essentially complete today and is operating well, the east deck is feasible, changes to Curtin Road and Shortlidge Road are feasible and would go a long way towards enhancing pedestrian safety in those areas. The transit way could increase the efficiency of transit, and other findings, surprisingly enough, are that the idea of a Bigler Road extension for all vehicles is not necessarily required or of great value at this point in time but perhaps sometime in the future could be a transit only corridor. In addition, controlling access to Pollock Road does enhance pedestrian safety. We will talk about in a moment, the issue of transit transfer stations. These are refinements that could improve the efficiency and reduce traffic in our core.
The idea of Pollock Road in more detail: these next few slides go from the original scale to one that is slightly larger so we can more clearly see what the proposal is suggesting. This is Pollock Road, Burrowes is on the west, of course, and here is Shortlidge Road on the other end. The red asterisks indicate the locations of these two east and west staffed kiosks. You can see these very strong yellow areas are the locations of the existing parking areas that are primarily accessible off of Pollock Road. The idea here that these staffed kiosks would be able to assist in maintaining or managing this inventory of parking would be reserved for those faculty and staff who pay to park in these specific lots. I am sure there is frustration when you get there and there are people who are parked in your spots who are not supposed to be. So the idea of this kiosk is to help manage that program. One of the changes you may notice is that there would be a one-way entrance into what is referred to as Brown A and a one-way exit here so that this staff kiosk would assist in managing that lot. And in addition, service vehicles, deliveries and other kinds of vehicles, OPP vehicles included of course, would use this system and faculty and staff would use this area. The HUB plaza, the centerpiece of Pollock Road, was recently completed and is located right here.
To look in a little bit more detail on how the staff kiosk would actually operate, this is the intersection of Shortlidge Road and Pollock Road. You can see that we have shown very graphically the idea of this very simple turn-around. The way it would operate is there would be an express lane so that people who customarily have business here and park here on a regular basis can certainly continue to do so with their permit shown and would not have to stop at the kiosk. Those people who are not authorized to park in parking lots off of Pollock Road would stop to speak with the attendant and to either gain access to where they were going or to be directed to visitor or student parking and be asked to please turn around and proceed. The exact same design and the same type of system could also be sited on the western end of Pollock Road, as you can see, without interfering with the physical and visual relationship between west halls and Steidle Building. It would not interfere with the operations at the fraternity, so it looks, on a conceptual level, that it fits quite well.
The Curtin Road transit way and transfer stations, this is a component of the plan as I said that is still in study today. This idea is that from Allen to Bigler Road is to be considered a transit only corridor either during peak hours or during the day. It includes, in these red areas, transit transfer stations. These are the locations where buses that bring commuters into campus, where the campus loop routes, and where the link routes, where people could predictably transfer from one line to another.
People always ask, of course, about the potential impacts to parking so I will review those very quickly. The existing ADA lots here adjacent to the library would not be impacted. The spaces here at Weaver Building would be integrated into the arts parking lot. Access would be provided off of Shortlidge Road. Entry here and circulation here would be improved. Connection would be provided into this lot here and the equivalent number of faculty, staff, and visitor parking would be provided.
The east deck showing here, I am sure you are all familiar with the east of campus, this is the location of the Food Science Building and the new Creamery. This is where the Smeal College of Business Administration will be located and this is where the School of Forest Resources will be located. The 1280 or so spaces for faculty and staff that are in Lot 80 would be consolidated into this deck.
Just to take a look at a concept of what a transfer station might look like, this one is shown here adjacent to the Pattee Library on the west side of Allen Road. The idea is that first, bus pull-offs would be created so that buses would not have to stop in the middle of the road. There would be ample protection for people using the bus system. There would be ample bus parking. This shows eight so that people coming in on the CATA system, people using the link or the loop in either direction, the spaces for each of those buses would be specified so that users of this system could predictably plan their travel easily. So that is the idea here. What is also shown here by the gray is suggesting this might be a very important east/west bicycle route as well.
I am sure you are familiar with what we refer to as the Shortlidge Mall. This is the portion of Shortlidge Road where the Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings are currently being constructed. We are looking north. The tall building you see over here is under construction today. The Eisenhower Auditorium is on the other side of this opening. Our back is basically to Pollock Road. Part of these two buildings include the construction of this very important program space that connects the Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings. It is a very large piece. The opening in here is the full width of Shortlidge Road, including the sidewalks and the full right of way. It is also two full stories tall and has two full stories of program space on top of that, and it is primarily made of glass. This really creates a fascinating centerpiece and gateway in the center of campus. This portion of Shortlidge Road is being designed as a pedestrian first environment. Again, I want to stress the fact that this portion of the closure begins north of the driveway into Ritenour and ends south of the south drive into Eisenhower Auditorium. So none of those connections would be interrupted. It is important to note that this idea of closing this portion of Shortlidge Road is out of our Master Plan. JJR Landscape Architects and Planners are authors of the plan, and they counted 23,000 pedestrians crossing in this area in one business day and also observed 50 near misses in this area during that business day.
Also, you can see what we are working on now is the planning of what might be a very important north/south bicycle route as well. Bicycles on campus are an important part of the next phase of the development of our intermodal transportation strategy. We are working now to refine the JJR Architects Master Plan as a part of this strategy. We are working closely with the Centre Region Bicycle Coalition, and we are working with Penn State's Bicycle User Group in order to facilitate and promote the use of bicycling and walking on campus.
In closing, a couple of slides. First there are some changes included in the plan. Core campus could have some different traffic patterns. Certainly there are things that we need to continue to study that we look to all of you to help us with, like drop offs for example. We are continuing to work with CATA on the refinement of bus routes as we always do. Teresa is working on her parking rate strategy so that parking on the periphery can be quite a good incentive. We actually want to promote the idea that walking is a form of transportation. I know that is hard to believe, and perhaps, as we look at our parking diagrams, ten-minute walking from parking could be appropriate, and a five minute walk from the bus stop could be appropriate. I do not know.
We would see all kinds of benefits. The big ones are increased use of transit, parking improvements all over campus with alternatives, and the campus core becomes more pedestrian friendly and safer. We are increasing accommodations for bicycling and walking as modes of transportation. We'll have a more sustainable campus. And I guess that really what this means is we are evolving from a multi-modal transportation system to an intermodal system. We have always been walking and biking and taking the bus and driving. But what this is doing is really looking at how to foster the connections between each of those modes so that people can consider more than one mode in their daily routine of coming to work and coming to school and getting around campus as part of their day. Most of this show is on the web site (www.opp.psu.edu/divisions/cpd/trans/itchome.htm). It has got a very long address but basically it is through OPP, and certainly we encourage you to visit that and look at it in more detail and contact either Teresa or myself at any time-our email addresses are here-with any suggestions you might have or any questions you might have. As you see, we have made these presentations, all of us many times, and we are collecting and assembling all the recommendations and frequently asked questions. On the web site you will see, I think, 12 or 14 of the most frequently asked questions, and we have provided some of those answers there. But certainly we are always willing to discuss any portion of this plan in more detail at any time. That concludes our presentation.
Elise D. Miller-Hooks, College of Engineering: My question is could you address an issue of visually impaired people and how you would address these issues. It seems to me that conditions are pretty poor as they are and that condition will only worsen with this new Master Plan. Would you address that?
Gordon Turow: We have the University Access Committee here at the Office of Physical Plant and that is an active committee that we are working with continuously. They are involved in the review in each and every project that we are working on, whether it is for open space to confirm accessible routes between buildings or bus stops. And each of our projects go through a thorough review on this campus as well as other campuses to look for improvements in the accessibility of our campus. I personally met with them just last week to not only review this again but to also review the current projects that are in planning and design so their input can be garnered early and their recommendations can be integrated into final designer projects. They are also doing studies not just confined to individual projects but to also inventory our paths, our accessible routes, appropriate signage, and we remain very cognizant of evolving laws and rules as they come forward. So I think we are being quite attentive and I hope responsible.
Gary W. Petersen, College of Agricultural Sciences: I have two questions. One, you talked a lot about bicycles. I did not see any plans for where the bicycles are going to park. And number two, it seems like the major issue when you talk transportation in this region is how you get across State College. All traffic is funneled up Atherton Street. I do not see any plans on traffic movement across town. You just can't find one road to get across town.
Gordon Turow: Are you talking about north/south or are you talking about
Gary W. Petersen: North/south of Atherton Street.
Gordon Turow: So you are not talking about the campus improvements?
Gary W. Petersen: The inner loop.
Teresa Davis, Director of Transportation Services: As far as the Master Plan, we were looking at the campus because that is what our area is for transportation services. The western inner loop, the future potential eastern inner loop, and the impacts of I-99-we did take all of those into consideration and McCormick and Taylor used those numbers for future when they did the traffic studies for all of these pieces. But as far as us providing information on a western inner loop, in this plan we do not address that. We have a bicycle group and it was created three years ago with a transportation demand management plan which was followed shortly by the Master Plan. We have been meeting recently. We are going to pay more attention to bicycles. We are going to be creating an executive committee. We are going to address the "BUG" group-BUG is what they call themselves-Bicycle Users Group in bringing in Centre Region Planning. We do have racks that are being purchased, and we work with them to try to determine where those racks need to be located. They put their feelers out to help us when they find a place that they feel racks are needed; we purchase them and put them out there.
Sallie M. McCorkle, College of Arts and Architecture: Back to the point where you were speaking about issues specific to faculty, and then students, where we have to deliver materials on a fairly regular basis to our buildings. It is an issue in Arts and Architecture a lot. Faculty, for their research, need to bring materials, and then students often need to bring materials to the building itself and not in a way that they can carry. So have you gotten to the point yet where you are meeting with faculty?
Teresa Davis: Well, that is the whole idea of what Gordon said about drop offs. One of the biggest issues that we keep running into are drop-offs. Students need to drop off papers; faculty need to drop off things. There are graduate students who have blood samples and the list goes on-UPS, Fed Ex. And it is a very difficult situation because as we are asked by many faculty members who park in the core campus, "I cannot park in my lot; there is always someone in there with flashers on because they are dropping things off. I cannot park. Please get them out of there so that I can park." But then again, at the same token I am asked, "We need to get these people in so they can drop these things off." We do not have the space to do it all. We have not solved the drop off issue yet. We are addressing that with several groups. We have gone from one parking advisory committee that had been around for many years, and we have gone to kind of sectional committees. We have a Nittany Deck parking committee. We are creating an east deck committee. We are going to have a new student committee, and I will be bringing together faculty members and staff members to discuss these issues specifically because that is an issue that is outstanding. We know that we need both, but we do not have the room to bring everyone in. That is why we look at these kiosk situations. We were looking first at gates to help us enforce the lots such as Brown A. I bring Brown A up because that has always been our problem lot. But the gates will not help with drop- offs.
Sallie M. McCorkle: But I guess I really want to drive the point home that I can't do my job teaching sculpture for example, if there is not a way for me to deliver my materials to my studio. So this is really serious.
Teresa Davis: Which is why there would be a staffed kiosk instead of a gate. So you could tell the kiosk person, "I need to drop this off then I will go to my designated parking space." That is why we are trying to move to a staffed area.
Kathleen L. Lodwick: As a survivor of the Michigan State Campus where they had bicycles and buses in same roadways, they had so many bus-rider/bicycle accidents that I do not know if you have addressed this? You are going to have to have some rather draconian rules for bicycle riders to not ride between the bus and the curb where someone is getting off. Now you have plans for that bus to go in, is that for every location where there is going to be a bus?
Teresa Davis: For bus pull-offs?
Kathleen L. Lodwick: Bus pull-offs.
Teresa Davis: Yes, we are creating bus pull-offs. As you probably noticed, we just created a new one at east halls.
Kathleen L. Lodwick: Then you are going to have the problem with the bus pulling out.
Teresa Davis: Exactly, it is a catch twenty-two. In fact those bus pull-offs actually slow down that bus movement because they have to pull out and come back in. I understand your questions about bicycles commingling with traffic. There is shared sentiment on that from bicyclists. Some bicyclists feel that they would like to commingle with traffic and use the main roads. Some bicyclists feel that they would rather have separate pathways. Those pathways have certain requirements. We do not have the space on campus on every roadway to create a ten-foot wide bicycle path; so that is something that we are dealing with. We have been talking with this new executive committee. What we are probably going to do is bring in a specialist to assist us with these questions because we have been battling over what is the best thing to do. What is the safest thing to do?
Kathleen L. Lodwick: Can I then go on with this handicapped issue. You may have suggestions from people but there is absolutely nothing in this report about the handicapped problem. I get around on a scooter. I have to find a place to park the car to get the scooter out. But if you have done the homework, you need it in that report that you are addressing these concerns.
Teresa Davis: And we will do that. That is a good comment and we will put that in.
Dawn M. Noga, Student Senator, College of Engineering: Currently a number of students are parking off campus in Lots 80 and 83. They are storing their cars there for a long period of time. I heard about an east deck and I heard about visitor parking; could you just clarify where students will park their cars long-term and short-term?
Teresa Davis: Are you new at the campus?
Dawn M. Noga: No, I am a senior.
Teresa Davis: Okay, I was just curious. So you have not had a car on campus, I guess?
Dawn M. Noga: I park off campus.
Teresa Davis: Okay, Lots 80, 83 north, and 83, those are for resident students. That is for anyone with over 28 credits. They park in those lots. Those are storage lots and it is only for them. We have one lot that is Lot 43 down by graduate circle. We built that to assist with students living off campus. It is 784 spaces. It sells out about a week after we put it out there. It is much cheaper than downtown so it goes very fast. So we provide that for off campus students. The east deck is totally replacement parking for those faculty and staff who will be losing their surface lot parking in Lot 80 and Orange A Curtin. Where will the student replacement parking be? I have about 300 extra spaces in 83 north right now. So when I do not sell them, and I never have, then I sell them to the students who still live off campus and want to park on campus. We have other areas set aside for student parking. We will be replacing that. Right now, there are several ideas, and if I threw them out I would probably freak some people out, but we do have replacement parking for the students. We are totally replacing the faculty/staff parking in the area of the east deck.
Mark A. Levin, Student Senator, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I happen to live in Irvin Hall, which is right next to the west transfer station which you indicated putting on Curtin Road, and I can tell you right now we have the bus station right here at Kern Building and the buses are actually quite loud. Even with the windows closed in our hall, you can still hear every single bus that goes past. Now if we have a bus transfer station outside the building, how are you going to address the noise issue with that?
Teresa Davis: This plan, as you see its concept and being based on your concepts, that is one of the concerns. The impact of the noise on the Nittany Lion Inn guests of having the CNG buses there-they are great for the environment but they do tend to have a noise level. We are looking at that. There are also some great landscape architectural issues with that whole Fisher Plaza area for a transit depot. It may not be there, but one of the areas that we are looking at is noise. We recently did a noise study for the east deck to see how a deck next to east halls would impact east halls. We did some studies of the sound levels over in your area, too, so we would have that information. We are taking that into consideration and this is a concept. So if it turns out that would impact the students in that residence hall, my boss is Tom Gibson, who runs the residence halls, so we are not going to do anything that would have a negative impact on that.
Brian A. Curran: I do not want to sound too harsh, but maybe I will. I want to follow up on what Sallie was saying about perhaps consulting the people who actually have to work or live in these areas. Based on my own experience working and sort of existing not too far from the blue asterisks over there on the left at Allen Road and Curtin Road, it strikes me as an extraordinarily congested and very hazardous area for pedestrians especially bicyclists now. We used to have, for example, over in that section the arts section, we used to have a nice open green walkway that we used to walk to from the old arts and music area to the library. A decision was taken to build a great structure there now, which is the spiritual center which is going up. The old walkway was aligned to the underpass underneath the library. In other words, at some point in time there was an idea that this was a walkway that would work. No crosswalk was ever put there and then this giant building was put up, which means you have to walk along the way and into situations where the traffic is worse to get there, etc., etc. The point being that if people who work in these areas where you have existing open spaces and walking spaces that are then taken away maybe planning needs to be a little bit more focused on what happens in each individual case on the way things were laid out before. Instead of every time you see an open space plop a big building on it and then block everyone's route in and out of places. Thank you.
Roger A. Egolf, Berks-Lehigh Valley: I was wondering if any thoughts were being put into the width of parking spaces? I see lots of parking spaces that I just drive right by because there are too many tiny parking spaces that are not designed for the size of the cars that are built now in mind, especially with as many SUVs as there are now and pickup trucks.
Doug Holmes, Assistant Director for Parking: The parking lot standard for spaces on campus is 8 ½ feet. That is a nationally accepted standard for this sort of an operation. It probably would not fly at a mall where people are changing over every 20 minutes or where you have a complete change in your parking lot every hour or hour an a half. It is an acceptable standard, however for a surface parking lot. The parking spaces in our garages I believe are set on nine foot centers, which is again a nationally recognized standard for parking space inside of a garage. We are getting rid of the compact spaces that do exist some places on campus. The first place that comes to my mind is between Deike and Electrical Engineering West Buildings. Those spaces are only eight feet wide. You are right, they are too small. They are history the next time we restrike that lot.
Gordon Turow: I apologize; I did not respond to the last question quickly enough. Well, it is such a big question I was not sure where to begin, but I will consolidate down to a couple of sentences. First of all, I would like you to come down and visit us at my office at OPP so I can show you our Master Plan and explain to you how buildings are sited on this campus and on our other campuses. Each new building is identified within our Master Plan and each one contributes to connecting and improving the quality of open space on campus. Recently, someone said to me, "wow, you are putting those four buildings out at Lot 80." I said, "sure we are adding four new buildings and we are increasing the amount of open space and the quality of open space on that block," for example. We have a very excellent presentation that we can make to you about how we site buildings. We have a site selection criteria matrix that we establish for each and every new project, and it is all anchored within the Board of Trustees approved Master Plan for 1999. That is true on each of our campuses that our master plans go through a thorough preparation process and ultimately presented to and approved by the Board of Trustees, and we carry them wherever we go. So I would be more than happy for you to contact me and I will present that to you.
Lynn A. Carpenter, College of Engineering: During Arts Festival the bicycle policy changes which is not allowing bicycles on Shortlidge and Burrowes Roads and I have not been able to find out who does that or why that policy changes particularly during the Arts Festival or who is responsible?
Doug Holmes: That is news to me. I do not know of any changes that take place that are officially sanctioned for bicycles. I am not saying it does not happen or that something is not going on out there, but nobody has brought it to our attention.
Lynn A. Carpenter: There are student marshals placed all along Shortlidge and Burrowes Roads that do not allow people to ride bicycles on those roads.
Doug Holmes: On Burrowes?
Lynn A. Carpenter: On Burrowes and Shortlidge Roads, yes.
Doug Holmes: I am not sure I understand why on Shortlidge.
Lynn A. Carpenter: Sorry, Pollock and Burrowes Roads.
Doug Holmes: Then the only thing I can think of is with the number of vendors and pedestrians that are walking around there, they are afraid of a conflict and a bike smacking into a pedestrian.
Lynn A. Carpenter: There is no allowable place to get a bike through campus all through the whole area, and they have people marked out to watch and they make you get off your bike and walk.
Doug Holmes: We shut the road down to vehicles, and the only thing I can think of is a bicycle is a vehicle and we need to talk to police services to see if there is a way to work around it.
Lynn A. Carpenter: Well, this summer I had to get off and walk my bicycle to my office and they let a semi-trailer truck through the same street.
Teresa Davis: We will speak with police services about that.
Kim C. Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences: What we see here is the plan for University Park and one of the principle objectives is to reduce vehicular traffic and make campus a better environment for bicycles and pedestrians. It reminds me of the College Heights situation we had a couple of years ago where they wanted to reduce the traffic in College Heights and greatly increased traffic problems on Park Avenue and North Atherton Street. Well, what I am wondering is, and I am sure you have Gordon, I want to hear the answer, have you folks considered the impact of this new circulation pattern on College Avenue, Beaver Avenue, North Atherton, Park Avenue and University Drive?
Gordon Turow: Excellent question. Absolutely, that was the primary charge of McCormick Taylor, and why we retained and had such an extensive scope for McCormick Taylor Associates as this process began. Because certainly we cannot solve our problems or improve our quality of life on campus at the expense of others. It absolutely cannot be done. That is why I should have mentioned that each of these projects were not only studied individually but cumulatively by McCormick Taylor with traffic counts and with demand models, with improvements in the regional network to determine what, if any changes in traffic patterns, would occur, and what type of mitigation measures would be prudent and responsible. One of the things that makes the results of this study so interesting is this is not merely changing traffic patterns, but it is an intermodal transportation system in which the improvements to all forms of transportation are considered together so that a system can be put in place. So rather than merely restricting traffic to one neighborhood or to one specific area, alternatives are encouraged and provided so that there is a new system in place. But I can assure you absolutely, and I wish Brian was here, and I will get you the details.
Kim C. Steiner: What is the answer?
Teresa Davis: Well, based on the study and, as Gordon mentioned in the beginning, the borough brought their own consultant to the meetings so they also reviewed the numbers and the traffic models. PTI worked with us to create a model as well as the Centre Region planners. When they reviewed these different changes-Curtin Road, Shortlidge Road, that type of thing, they did not degrade the intersections and that is what they look at. I am sure you know the level of service at the intersections-they did not degrade the intersections below a level "C," and that is what the university plan district ordinance requires, and that is what the borough or the townships would look at also. So it did not have a significant negative impact on the adjacent roadways.
Gordon Turow: Kim, I wanted to say this is a planning study. Each project still has to go through a traffic study individually-each project each time-to then revalidate what McCormick Taylor did and assess it in even more detail.
Chair Moore: Okay, thank you very much. We set aside a certain amount of time, and we have enormously exceeded the time, and so what I am going to ask is those folks who still have questions come up after. We are only going to be here for about five more minutes, and if you could wait then, the folks who have questions can come up and ask questions, is that alright? We have exceeded the time we set aside for this presentation.
Robert P. Crum, Smeal College of Business Administration: Can I add a request on that? Even though we waited until after the meeting to have the other speakers, could this be a public questioning, because I think people are interested in hearing other people's questions? In other words, I am requesting to go ahead and finish the rest of the business and then come back?
Chair Moore: That is fine. Yes, why don't we do that. But as you noticed, the hall is thinning, and we have to keep to as much of our Agenda as possible.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
May I have a motion to adjourn? The September 10, 2002 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:19 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Awards and Scholarships (Informational)
Faculty Benefits - Performance of the TIAA-CREF Retirement Savings Plan (Informational)
Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits - Annual Report - June 2002 (Informational)
Undergraduate Education - University Advising Council (Informational)
University Planning - Intermodal Transportation Concept (Informational)
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2002, SENATE MEETING
Susan M. Abmayr
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Phyllis F. Adams
P. Richard Althouse
Richard I. Ammon
James B. Anderson
Mohamad A. Ansari
Lauren M. Applegate
Anthony A. Atchley
Deborah F. Atwater
Connie D. Baggett
Christopher T. Baker
Anthony J. Baratta
Guy F. Barbato
David E. Barnes
Paul E. Barney, Jr.
Richard N. Barshinger
Aida M. Beaupied
Laura M. Beck
Paul E. Becker
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Leonid V. Berlyand
R. Thomas Berner
Hemant K. Bhargava
Christopher J. Bise
Edward W. Bittner
Dawn G. Blasko
Ingrid M. Blood
John P. Boehmer
Edward R. Bollard, Jr.
Robert H. Bonneau
Patricia A. Book
Thomas E. Boothby
Laurie Powers Breakey
K. Robert Bridges
Dan T. Brinker
Douglas K. Brown
Barton W. Browning
Victor W. Brunsden
Charles L. Burchard
Robert L. Burgess
Keith K. Burkhart
John P. Cancro
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Lynn A. Carpenter
Arthur W. Carter
Mark A. Casteel
Gary L. Catchen
Joseph J. Cecere
John H. Challis
Michael J. Chorney
Roy B. Clariana
Paul F. Clark
Milton W. Cole
Lee D. Coraor
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Eric B. Cowden
David A. Cranage
Robert P. Crum
Brian A. Curran
Wayne R. Curtis
Gordon F. De Jong
W. Travis DeCastro
Diane M. Disney
James M. Donovan
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Roger A. Egolf
James T. Elder
Paul J. Eslinger
Jacqueline R. Esposito
Christine Clark- Evans
Dorothy H. Evensen
Christopher J. Falzone
Charles R. FisheR
Gary J. Fosmire
George W. Franz
Mary I. Frecker
Joyce A. Furfaro
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Roger L. Geiger
Peter D. Georgopulos
David S. Gilmour
Thomas E. Glumac
Margaret B. Goldman
Dennis S. Gouran
Timothy N. Gray
David J. Green
Wallace H. Greene
Madlyn L. Hanes
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Irene E. Harvey
Julia C. Hewitt
Kane M. High
James W. Hilton
Dale A. Holen
Alan L. Horwitz
Pamela P. Hufnagel
Brandon B. Hunt
Ali R. Hurson
Zachary T. Irwin
Janis E. Jacobs
Deidre E. Jago
Leif I. Jensen
Ernest W. Johnson
Christopher L. Johnstone
Billie Jo Jones
W. Terrell Jones
Michael L. Jonson
Richard R. Kennedy
Kenneth B. Kephart
John H. Kramer
Donald E. Kunze
Daniel J. Larson
Mark A. Levin
Amy E. Locke
Kathleen L. Lodwick
Christopher J. Lynch
Stephen J. MacCarthy
Digby D. Macdonald
Cynthia M. Mara
J. Daniel Marshall
Wayne K. Marshall
Salvatore A. Marsico
John M. Mason
Anna S. Mattila
Kevin R. Maxwell
James E. May
Ronald L. McCarty
Sallie M. McCorkle
Annette K. McGregor
Elise D. Miller-Hooks
John W. Moore
Wilson J. Moses
Jamie M. Myers
John S. Nichols
Dawn M. Noga
Mary Beth Oliver
Robert N. Pangborn
Laura L. Pauley
Judy Ozment Payne
Katherine C. Pearson
Eva J. Pell
Gary W. Petersen
Gene P. Petriello
Martin T. Pietrucha
Jean Landa Pytel
P. Peter Rebane
David R. Richards
Winston A. Richards
Bob D. Ricketts
Michael C. Ritter
John J. Romano
Andrew B. Romberger
David W. Russell
Howard G. Sachs
Karen Wiley Sandler
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Dennis C. Scanlon
Alan W. Scaroni
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Kristen E. Seabright
Ladislaus M. Semali
Thomas A. Seybert
Dennis G. Shea
Patience L. Simmonds
Julia B. Simon
Richard J. Simons, Jr.
Timothy W. Simpson
Semyon (Sam) Slobounov
Carol A. Smith
Edward C. Smith
James F. Smith
Stephen M. Smith
Summer J. Spangler
Graham B. Spanier
John C. Spychalski
Stephen W. Stace
Macklin E. Stanley
Kim C. Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton
James A. Strauss
Mila C. Su
Brian B. Tormey
Rodney L. Troester
Tramble T. Turner
John B. Urenko
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager
Robert A. Walters
Douglas H. Werner
Eric R. White
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers
Billie S. Willits
Edgar P. Yoder
Stamatis M. Zervanos
Gregory R. Ziegler
212 Total Elected
5 Total Ex Officio
15 Total Appointed
232 TOTAL ATTENDING
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 22, 2002
Senate Council - Update on the Dickinson School of Law, Philip McConnaughay, Dean (Informational)
Faculty Benefits - Employee Benefits Update for 2003 - Health Plans (Informational)
University Planning - Budget Presentation for 2002-2003, Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost (Informational)