Penn State University Home  

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 35-----OCTOBER 23, 2001-----Number 2

 

The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2001-02.

 

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA  16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221).  The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications.  Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

   I.  Final Agenda for October 23, 2001

       A.  Summary of Agenda Actions

       B.  Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to October 23, 2001

Door Handout – Resolution for George Bugyi

Attendance

III.  Tentative Agenda for December 4, 2001

 

FINAL AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 23, 2001

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –

      Minutes of the April 24, 2001 Meeting in The Senate Record 34:7

      Minutes of the September 11, 2001 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:1

 

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                        (Blue Sheets) of August 28, 2001

                        and October 9, 2001

 

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meetings of August 21, and October 2, 2001

 

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

 

E.      COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS -

Senate Council

      Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – Initial Findings

 

G.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

 

I.   ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

J.       INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

University Planning

            Budget; Strategic Planning (new approach); and Budget Planning,

Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost of

the University

 

Senate Council

 

      Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey

      Medical Center, Darrell G. Kirch, Senior Vice President for Health

      Affairs and Dean

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

      Annual Report

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

      Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-Degree

      Conditional Students

 

            Awards and Scholarships

 

K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

 

L.      COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -

 

M.            ADJOURNMENT -

 

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

The Senate held a Forensic Session:

 

Senate Council – “Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – Initial Findings.”  This Forensic Session was to hear the Senate’s views on the four options presented by the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar.  From this Forensic Session, the Joint Committee will submit their final report to the chair of the Senate.  (See Record, page(s) 8-20 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)        

 

The Senate heard five informational Reports:

 

University Planning – “Budget; Strategic Planning (new approach); and Budget Planning.”   This report summarizes Penn State’s budget for 2001-02 and the University’s appropriation request for fiscal year 2002-03.  (See Record, page(s) 20-27).    

 

Senate Council – “Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.”  Dean Kirch discussed changes at the Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine as a result of national trends and the de-merger with another health system.  (See Record, page(s) 27-32 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)        

 

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits – “Annual Report.”  This is a yearly mandated report updating the Senate on the work of the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits and changes made in the health plans.  (See Record, page(s) 32-37 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)        

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students.  This report summarizes the results of the twelve-credit waivers between the period of August 1999 and July of 2001.  (See Record, page(s) 37 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)        

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Awards and Scholarships.”  This report shows the total number of awards and the amounts of the awards for the 2000-01 and 2001-02 years.  (See Record, page(s) 37-38 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)        

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and eighty-seven Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Nichols:  It is time to begin.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the April 24, 2001 and September 11, 2001 meetings, was sent to all University Libraries, and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  Are there any corrections or additions to these documents?  All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

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

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for August 28, 2001 and October 9, 2001.  These documents are posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  In addition, Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, has asked me to call your attention to two items mentioned on the cover sheet of the September 11, 2001 Agenda.  The first one is the deadlines for the 2002-2004 hard copy version of the Undergraduate Degree Program Bulletin are forthcoming.  Those deadlines are listed and he calls your attention to it.  Second, the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs is seeking faculty input on the first phase of the automated prerequisite checking system.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of August 21, 2001 and October 2, 2001.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Nichols:  I had intended to make some introductory remarks on September 11, 2001 but, for obvious reasons, I did not.  Although we have a full agenda today, I’d like to take a few minutes of your time now for those remarks.

 

First and foremost, I’d like to thank you for the honor of serving as chair of the University Faculty Senate and for serving the faculty at large and the university at large.  I will do my very best to be an effective chair.

 

Thanks also to you too for being good academic citizens and accepting a leadership position in university governance.  This is a time of increasing disaggregation of this and other universities.  There is a tremendous centrifugal force at play in higher education.  Academic units and locations are becoming more atomized and increasing numbers of faculty are little more than independent operators with loyalty to their disciplines but, little to the institution that employs them.  Under these circumstances, your willingness to subsume your individual professional agendas or narrow disciplinary interests in order to contribute to the good of the whole—to help find collective solutions to common problems facing this university—is commendable.

 

Today is an important milestone for the Senate.  This meeting marks the 80th anniversary of the first Senate meeting at Penn State.  In 1921, President John Martin Thomas came to the conclusion that the faculty—which numbered 370 at that time—had grown too large to effectively legislate as a committee of the whole.  He asked the Trustees to authorize a Senate as a replacement to the meeting of the General Faculty.  It did so, and on October 21, 1921 the first Penn State Senate meeting was held.

 

Since then, the Senate has evolved into an extremely important—and indeed probably essential—institution at Penn State.  If you are inclined to think that I’m exaggerating and to dismiss my conclusion as hyperbole, imagine what Penn State would be like without the Senate.  Imagine trying to govern a large, complex university with 24 locations and multiple missions without having a forum by which faculty representatives of all colleges and all locations could come together to discuss common problems and issues, and seek solutions.

 

Not so long ago, I had a conversation with a friend on the Notre Dame faculty in which he asked me why I was not teaching this semester.  After some hemming and hawing, I asked him if I told him, would he promise not to look on me with dismay, contempt and scorn—and could we still be friends?  He said, “of course”.  So, I told him the reason I was not teaching this semester was that I was chairing the Faculty Senate at Penn State.  At which point, he looked at me with dismay, contempt and scorn.  And only half facetiously said, “may I reconsider?”

 

Despite the importance of Senate service to the common good of this university and universities in general, such reactions—while usually much more subtle—are not uncommon.  However, in fairness, Notre Dame is a special case.  You may recall that, earlier this year, its faculty senate concluded that it was so weak and so irrelevant that it decided to vote itself out of business—only to discover that it did not have the power to do so.

 

At the other end of the continuum is Berkeley—widely considered to have one of the most powerful and effective faculty senates in the country.  While Penn State’s Senate clearly is on Berkeley’s end of the continuum, I have thought a bit about what are the active ingredients that puts the Penn State Senate or any senate at one end of the continuum or the other.  And a fair amount is at stake in the answer to that question—because Notre Dame clearly is an exception to prove the rule that there is a very close correlation between effective faculty governance and academic quality.

 

The answer turns out to be rather simple and perhaps obvious, and this summer President Spanier helped me focus on the answer.  In a meeting of President’s Council, he said that the Senate at Penn State was the best of those at the several universities that he had served.  And the reason, he said, was our Senate quote “does stuff”.

 

To the extent that a senate endlessly debates parking policies without any resolution or is largely a forum for the faculty to sharpen their rhetorical skills in preparation to fight a potential—but unlikely—challenge to the core academic mission, it is not significantly contributing to the governance of the university.  The converse is a senate that seeks meaningful solutions to consequential problems and works, often on a routine and unspectacular way, to facilitate the discovery and advancement of knowledge.  As simplistic as it may seem, to paraphrase Professor David Hollinger (a counterpart at the Berkeley Senate), faculty governance works best when there is some real governing going on.

 

Last year, our Senate passed a recommendation on a Courseware Policy, which has since been accepted by the president and currently is being implemented.  I was initially disappointed to learn that some in the Senate and others in the faculty at large were rather upset at the outcome of that recommendation—they strongly disagreed with the new policy.  Of course, we would all like to please everybody, but the more I thought about it, the fact that some people were upset was not all bad.  It was testimony that the Senate had taken action on a complex, controversial issue that directly affects faculty and the academic mission.  If the issue was not so important, people probably wouldn’t have cared what the Senate did.  While the number of faculty affected and the amount of money involved probably will prove to be fairly small, the courseware policy raised some fundamental questions about the very nature of academic work and who owns—under what circumstances—the fruits of that work.  While only the future will tell whether we made the correct decision at that time, there is no question that the Senate tackled a consequential problem, studied it carefully, debated it at length, and offered a meaningful solution.

 

That to me is an effective Senate.  And, to do the same on a regular basis should be our goal not only for this year but into the future.

 

There is an important corollary to this point:  Not only should we focus our efforts this year on consequential problems but also, we should legislate or make recommendations based on academic merit—not on the fashion of the moment.  Each year the Senate is faced with internal and external pressures to act quickly on a variety of specialized issues.  This year probably will be no different.  But, one of the quickest ways for the Senate to undermine its own authority is to act in response to the noise level—rather than on academic merit.  If in the process of dealing with the ephemeral, peripheral or myopic, we neglect the core academic mission and thereby contribute to the deterioration of the quality of scholarship at Penn State, we obviously have failed. The key, therefore, is for the Senate to remain true to the core values and mission of the university despite the inevitable pressures and distractions.  If we meet this challenge, this will be a very good Senate year.

 

These thoughts, which I wrote before the September meeting, in my opinion are still valid today.  The events of September 11, 2001 have not changed our mission, indeed they have powerfully reaffirmed our mission.  The terrorist attack was not just an attack on innocent people and buildings.  It was an attack on our value system.  It was an attack on reason and rationality.  It was an attack on pluralism and tolerance.  It was an attack on intellectual freedom.  It was an attack on scientific, technical, and economic progress.  It was an attack on equality, especially for women.  In short, it was—largely—an attack on liberal education and the values for which this and other universities stand.  The September attacks have brought into clearer focus the importance of what we as educators do.  And if there is a silver-lining to these terrible events, it may be the re-invigoration of higher education in America.  This may foster an academic renaissance, in which faculty and students with the support of external constituencies come together with a renewed and expanded commitment to teaching, learning and the advancement of knowledge.

 

I also have a number of housekeeping announcements.  Given the length of time since our last full meeting and the importance of what has transpired since then, I ask for your indulgence for a few more minutes.

 

First, the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President has met on four occasions, and in the interest of time, I ask you to refer to the minutes of the Senate Council of August 21, 2001 and October 2, 2001 (which are attached to this and the previous agenda) for a listing of the topics discussed.  The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for November 14, 2001.  If anyone has items for the FAC agenda, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected members:  Gordon De Jong, Elizabeth Hanley and/or Peter Rebane.

 

Second, the president has responded to a number of Senate reports from last year, and they are summarized in the Senate Council minutes.  Because some of the president’s responses are not routine, I encourage your attention to them.  In cases where the president has not accepted reports in total, they have been referred to the appropriate committees for further consideration.  Of particular importance is the president accepted, without exception, the proposed Courseware Policy.  And as is called for in that policy, Dean Pell and I have appointed a Courseware Advisory Committee.

 

Three other significant matters have occurred since the last full Senate meeting and they are also reported in the Senate Council minutes.  The first is the Senate Chair’s report on the faculty’s very effective response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  The second is the Chair’s detailed report on the Senate’s role in the Plan for Diversity.  The third is the retirement of the long time Executive Secretary, George Bugyi, arguably the most important challenge that the Senate has faced or will face for a considerable period of time.  My written report to Senate Council is posted on the University Faculty Senate web page, but the essential elements of it are as follows.  First of all, Provost Erickson, who has the ultimate authority for appointing the executive secretary and Vice Provost Secor recognized the extraordinary importance of George’s retirement and the need for a smooth transition not only to the Senate, but to the entire university.  I’d like to publicly thank both of them for orchestrating a great search and agreeing to an emergency re-hire of George to ensure a smooth transition.  I’d also like to thank Robert Pangborn who chaired the search committee and the other members of the search committee for a superb search, attracting an excellent pool of candidates, and expeditiously presenting a short list to the provost.  The result is that what could have been an absolute nightmare for any incoming chair, even before the first Senate meeting, ended with an extremely well-qualified executive secretary being appointed and under George’s tutelage, was on the job.  So it’s my great honor to formally introduce or more appropriately re-introduce the new Executive Secretary of the University Faculty Senate, Dr. Susan C. Youtz.  A faculty member in the College of Health and Human Development for 19 years, Dr. Youtz also served 12 years as Assistant Director of the School of Nursing, where she coordinated the school’s undergraduate programs and directed the Rural Nursing Center Project.  During the year 2000-2001 she was an Administrative Fellow in the Office of the Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension.  Dr. Youtz also, as most of you know, was a Faculty Senator for almost a decade, during which time she chaired the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations and was a member of Senate Council.  Will you please join me in giving Susan a warm welcome.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Nichols:  President Spanier could not be with us today.  He is attending meetings of the American Association of Universities.  The chair recognizes Immediate Past-Chair Schengrund.

 

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine:  Thank you.  I move that the Senate suspend the rules for the purpose of a special recognition of our immediate past Executive Secretary, Dr. George Bugyi.

 

Chair Nichols:  It has been moved and seconded that the Senate suspend its rules for the purpose of a special recognition as many that are in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Opposed?  The motion carries.  The chair recognizes Chair-Elect Moore.

 

John W. Moore, College of the Liberal Arts: 

 

RESOLUTION FOR GEORGE J. BUGYI, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

 

Whereas Dr. George J. Bugyi has served The Pennsylvania State University as Executive Secretary of the University Faculty Senate since 1983 with dedication and distinction, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi served for more than 32 years as a faculty member in the College of Health and Human Development, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi, in his capacities as Executive Secretary of the Senate, has distinguished himself through wise decision-making and judicious counsel, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi has effectively served the community through his many generous contributions of time and expertise, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi has displayed true unselfishness, by always putting this University and the Faculty Senate first in his professional actions and concerns, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi is a respected colleague and friend, a man of loyalty and constant civility,

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on this 23rd day of October, 2001, expresses its gratitude and appreciation to George Bugyi for all of his accomplishments on behalf of the institution and its faculty, and recommends that the President of the University bestow upon him the rank of Executive Secretary Emeritus of the University Faculty Senate.

 

Chair Nichols:  This resolution comes to the Senate from Senate Council and therefore does not require a second.  The vote is to endorse the resolution including the recommendation for emeritus status.  All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Nichols:  Opposed?  The motion carries.  The chair recognizes the provost of the university.

 

Rodney A. Erickson, Provost:  Thank you.  May I ask Dr. Bugyi to join me down at the podium, please.  In the administration’s continuing quest to respond quickly to Senate initiatives…

 

Senators:  Laughter.

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  I’m pleased to take an action on this request already and I have in front of me a certificate that says, “By special action of the president of the university, George J. Bugyi is hereby accorded emeritus status with all of the honors, privileges thereto appertaining,” George.

 

Senators:  Applause and standing ovation.

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  That still doesn’t give you the right to park in my space.  I would like simply to read the letter that went along with this certificate.  I think between this letter and the resolution that the Senate just passed conveys very much our sentiments on this occasion.  “Dear George:  The special distinction of retirement with emeritus status is recognized at Penn State with a certificate noting that official action.  No document can adequately convey the depth and extent of the appreciation due to you for the quality of your endeavors at Penn State.  But the certificate confirms the significant contribution of your years of professional services to the university.  This university is grateful to you and proud that you contributed to the great purposes of Penn State.  With my many thanks I add my personal best wishes to you.  Sincerely, Graham B. Spanier.”

 

George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary Emeritus, University Faculty Senate:  Let me just take a moment.  I know you have a lot of very, very important work to do especially the forensic session on the calendar but let me just…we’d really like to bring that to some closure by the way.  Let me just say to you thanks for letting me be your colleague for these 32 years.  Most of you don’t know that I turned in my letter of resignation on April 25, 2001.  You do know that the last Senate meeting last year was April 24, 2001 so therefore, my plans were just totally…they were good plans.  No worry about it at all because what I was going to do is slip away just as I served as a sort of a quiet advisor and as a servant.  But it didn’t happen.  First of all, there was a very, very nice dinner party with the Senate Officers and some colleagues from Old Main.  Judy and I really appreciate that.  Secondly, there was a beautiful reception and I’d love to again thank the staff of the Senate Office for all those arrangements.  It turned out absolutely beautifully.  By the way, I didn’t really want that reception but they declared me public property, so I had to go and it worked out very, very nicely.  Thirdly, as most of you know, I taught and coached at Mont Alto Campus for 14 years before coming to University Park, and there was just an absolutely beautiful little reception down there on Saturday.  It consisted of maybe 50 former student athletes, their families, their children, it was just absolutely beautiful.  We dedicated a Japanese Elm in my name.  Just beautiful.  So the arboretum has now a specimen tree that it didn’t have before.  It was very, very moving for me.  The fourth thing of course is this resolution.  Many of the resolutions that came to the floor over the last 18 years I wrote.  Obviously, none of them were written as beautifully, obviously none of them had the sort of emotion attached to them and I thank you very, very much for that.  Many of us only dream about the fact that we could be granted emeritus status at the university.  I am very, very honored and very, very pleased to accept that.  It is something I just never dreamt of so Rod, I appreciate it very, very much.  So to all of you and also on behalf of my lovely wife Judy, because many of you know her very, very well from the Nittany Lion Inn, we would both like to thank you for the many, many courtesies that you’ve extended to us over the last 32 years.  Thank you very much.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  The Senate Officers and former chairs were…it is indeed true that George asked for no honors and hoopla, but the Senate Officers and Past Chairs sat down to discuss that for all of about 30 seconds.  We concluded that in fact George and Judy, his delightful spouse, are Senate property and he could not be allowed to leave quietly.  So, George thank you for indulging us.  If you believe that a well functioning Senate is essential to shared governance and by extension academic quality, then George is one of the most significant academics on the Penn State faculty in the last two decades.  Some of you, probably most of you, do not know that in a former life George was on the University of Maryland…the only University of Maryland football team to ever beat Penn State.  After 32 years of service at Penn State by George, all is forgiven.  Best wishes from the Senate to you and Judy.  Reminder that there is a reception in the Alumni Lounge to honor George immediately after the Senate meeting.

 

Agenda item “F,” forensic business.  This is the report of the Joint Committee To Review The University Calendar.  James Smith the chair of that committee will open the forensic session with some background.  A couple of things, first of all, I have granted the privilege of the floor to members of Jim’s joint committee who are not Senate members and in addition to that, for those of you in the Senate who wish to speak if you will do the usual and that is to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

SENATE COUNCIL

 

Joint Committee To Review The University Calendar—Initial Findings

 

James F. Smith, Chair, Joint Committee To Review The University Calendar

 

James F. Smith, Penn State Abington:  Thanks, John.  I think…I wonder if George would mind stepping down again and sharing the platform for this?  Last spring the Joint Committee To Review The University Calendar was charged by Provost Erickson and then Senate Chair Schengrund with words to this effect, “The calendar is broken, fix it.”  So began our group’s deliberations.  As you might see from the list of committee members, we drew representation from a variety of university interests and constituents as well as from the administrative side, which includes faculty and students.  And what surprised me when I was persuaded to take on this charge was I was obviously interested enough in the subject matter being with the university since we used to be on the term system.  Also, I actually worked while on the Senate with three previous recommendations on the calendar (so one more or less to that string).  One of the things that surprised me was once the committee was announced and my email address was given out last spring that there was the absence of email, telephone calls, letters and commentary, so we began our deliberations.  The second surprise was our diverse group of people that came to some conclusions rather quickly.  So quickly that we scared the devil out of the Senate Officers when we formulated a recommendation and we were ready to present it.  They said, “whoa” we have to be more deliberate, more inclusive and so on.  So we decided to frame our report in the fashion that you have in your Senate Agenda which is in a matter of fact fashion that has been public pretty much since early August.  The absence of electronic communication, telephone calls, letters, threats, or whatever channeled to me, has continued.  However, over the last couple of days I have noticed a ramping up of attention.  Last night I visited with the Commonwealth College Caucus, and a good handful of people were there and Anthony Baratta and I sat with them and talked with them about our findings and listened to some of their suggestions.  Once again this noon, a little less than three hours ago, I met once again with the Commonwealth College Caucus which was augmented by the Senate Officers to a much larger group of people and discussion ramped up a few more notches.  And all day long people have been saying to me, “Are you ready for this?  Are you all set?” and I said “Do I need body amour?  What’s the story?”  The idea is that we wanted this forensic session to be an opportunity to gather information from the university community to help us in framing a position statement, which is a recommendation that will go from us to the Senate Committee on University Planning and will presumably come back to the Senate at the most expedient and appropriate time possible.  So that’s our agenda.  Today is for discussion.  Today is to try to assess the variety of opinions from all of our constituents.  The calendar, like so many things that we discuss here at the Senate, will evoke many different, even conflicting responses on what is the best solution to a problem that maybe not everyone perceives as problematic.  But the past year saw an increase in the number of concerns raised both to the Senate leadership during its visits to campuses and colleges, and also in the complaints made directly to central administration.  Hence, what we have been is a joint committee appointed by the administration and the Senate leadership to review the calendar and to make recommendations on improving it.  What we have done in the forensic document that you have in your Agenda is list some of the issues that were regarded as problematic with the current calendar, (1) the informal and unauthorized extensions of breaks like Thanksgiving and even Fall Break, (2) the availability or lack of availability of sufficient orientation time prior to the start of fall semester, (3) the lack of designated exam days during the summer sessions at University Park was part of the charge.  Further, disruption of fall semester caused by three breaks—a break at Labor Day, a break at Fall Break and a break at Thanksgiving was included.  The last time the Senate had a comprehensive review of the university calendar was in the 1985 Bennett Report, led by Peter Bennett then with the Smeal College of Business Administration and as you might imagine that report saw considerable divergence of opinion regarding the calendar.  Although there was a great deal of support at that time for shortening the duration of the semester to 14 weeks which is a similar configuration to comparable institutions and the added benefit is such a configuration would make a post-Labor Day start for fall semester possible in at least some years.  The Bennett study included a survey of faculty, a very broad based survey, that ultimately was depending on who was evaluating the data, as it could be seen as widely divergent or inconclusive.  There was considerable support for that 14 week semester but no calendar alternative offered got a clear majority of faculty support.  So what we want to do today is open the floor to your discussion and remarks.  We are listening.  We are taking notes.  I am assured that there will be a transcription of today’s discussion available to us during our next deliberations and if at all possible, what we want to do is craft a report.  That isn’t going to please everybody, as John described earlier, we hope that we will fix some of the broken pieces that people have brought to the attention of both your colleagues on the Senate and the administration while giving us the opportunity in our calendar to do the best possible job we can do for our students.  And with that, I’ll just stop and try to respond to your questions, and I hope we get a good discussion going.  Thanks.

 

Chair Nichols:  And a reminder to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.

           

Peter C. Jurs, Eberly College of Science:  I am speaking not just for myself but for the Eberly College of Science.  In preparation for this forensic session, I have canvassed the undergraduate officers in the seven Departments of the Eberly College of Science.  We are unanimously opposed to shrinking the semester from its current 15-week configuration and we are also opposed to eliminating a separate identified finals week.  Some of us are merely opposed and some are adamantly opposed and I think I personally fall among the adamant category but I’m going to try to represent what the seven other people which are faculty members in my own department of chemistry and science, have told me.

 

I see in the Tables in Appendix “B” of the Agenda here that Penn State offers more instructional days than either Temple or Pittsburgh.  I think we should be proud of that.  I think that’s a good thing.  I also see that we offer more instructional days than all the other Big Ten schools, with the exception of Northwestern.  I think that we should be proud of that too.  I think having a longer instructional semester is a good thing that we should keep here at Penn State.

 

The math, biology and chemistry departments here are among the largest generators of student credit hours in the whole university.  I am most familiar with the University Park numbers and I know that at University Park the chemistry department is the third largest generator of student credit hours and math is second, so two out of the top three.  Those courses that we are teaching are very large, multi-section courses on fundamentals.  They have a lot of material to cover, and we need all the instruction time we can get.  The students also need adequate time in between their class meetings to absorb the material, to work homework problems, to gather in groups to study, and to reflect on the concepts being taught.  For these reasons and the rest that I have left out in brevity, we support the continuation of the 15-week semester.

 

I also see in Appendix “B” that only 40 percent of classes here at University Park actually schedule final exams in final exam week.  Our large, multi-section courses that I’m talking about in the Eberly College of Science are precisely those courses which are among the most likely to have final examinations during finals week.  I personally teach freshman general chemistry, CHEM 12, this semester and in that course we give final exams and in that one course, one semester, it is taught to several thousand students each year.  This particular semester we have 65 sections of CHEM 12, which is about 1800 students and there is no way we can give a final exam to 1800 students that is the same.  Therefore, to be fair without having them take it all at the same time, and there is no way we can do that without a separately scheduled final exam week.  We strongly support the continuation of separate final exams and not folding final exams into the instructional semester.

 

Another point, laboratories in chemistry and biology present a lot of special problems.  Multiple sections that meet across the week mean that scheduling is already a nightmare for these kinds of classes.  In addition, in biology and microbiology labs, the living organisms that are being used in the labs have their own timetables.  They do not pay attention to administrative thoughts or faculty thoughts.  Growing flies or microorganisms from one lab period to another imposes such a timetable on labs that may or may not be compatible with the university calendar.  The three disruptions we already have in fall semester cause scheduling problems for those labs which are causing those courses to offer less substantive material to the students than would be the case if there were fewer disruptions.  To shorten the semester further would just make a problem that already exists worse.

 

One additional consideration speaks against shortening the fall semester.  In the Senate here we spent a lot of effort in the last couple of years incorporating active learning elements into our General Education courses.  I have not heard anybody that disagrees with the proposition that introducing such active learning elements takes more time--not less.  So to shorten the semester would be counterproductive to this large university-wide effort in my opinion and the opinion of the Eberly College of Science faculty that I’ve been discussing.  Now we only have four possible calendar configurations presented and at the risk of just saying that we are against something and we do not like those suggestions very much and so as a consequence, we favor choice number one (1), which is the status quo.  But what we really favor is a 15-week semester with final exams in a separate time for all the reasons that I’ve just explained.

 

James F. Smith:  Thanks, Peter.  Those are very thoughtful remarks and the committee is glad to hear them.  The only thing that I will respond is and do not take this as a counter argument because we do not have a position yet.  We are trying to explore only one calendar configuration.  If we had one last June, we have abandoned it.  This is truly an open process.  What we are talking about is a shift from a 15-week to a 14-week semester assuming that the alternative chosen keeps the current classroom minutes as now scheduled.  The worse case scenario of shortening the semester is 150 minutes, which is 10 minutes a week on a 15-week schedule.  If pedagogically a Penn State professor cannot accommodate 12 minutes a week of instruction by doing what she/he does better during the length of time that she/he has in class I would be very surprised.  I would not want to see us equate minutes committed to a class schedule with quality because that seems to be a stumbling block when we start saying that by shortening a semester we are giving up quality.  I would imagine if one of our colleagues from Princeton, on a 12-week semester, were in the room, that colleague would argue that the quality in his class would be comparable to the quality in my class or your class even though they had presumably three weeks less instruction in the class.  Minutes in class may or may not have an intrinsic relationship to the education that occurs or the learning that students experience.  But the position that Peter has articulated is one that I think we know well and we have heard many times in the Senate and certainly is a position that needs to be reckoned with and that is why the alternative of maintaining the status quo is one of the four options that we have put in the document.  However, our position is that if the alternative that is ultimately decided upon, the issues that have been raised to the Senate and to the administration will be left unaddressed.

 

Annette K. McGregor, College of Arts and Architecture:  I do not care how long the semester is but in our school a later start would help us accommodate the large percentage of our students who are doing summer internships, who are working in the field, and who are continuing their education during the summer.  And our calendar is forcing them to miss…and continually our graduate students to miss the first week of school because it is starting before the kind of traditional end of the summer season and that cuts into jobs or internship possibilities.  I also would like to say that I also teach large classes.  I am already losing days every semester that I am not supposed to lose to Thanksgiving break starting now on the Friday before Thanksgiving.  And now October break starts on the Friday before October break and I am teaching class.  However, when I am teaching 50 instead of the 800 students that are registered I am not sure of how good I am doing or how much educating is going on.  So I only want to speak for myself primarily in favor of somehow solving the problems that are on the report.  The status quo is not working in terms of getting the hours that are on paper, at least in my area, and the early start is disadvantageous to our students who are trying to work in the summer in their field.

 

James F. Smith:  Thank you.  One of the things that occurs to me as a result of your remarks is as one reads options two, three and four on our list is I hope nobody reads those options as a conspiracy to shorten the semester.  I think the perspective of trying to solve a problem by a later start is the rationale for this.  It is not a conspiracy to somehow deprive anybody of anything.  It is an attempt to address issues that were brought for us, so thank you.

 

D. Joshua Troxell, Student Senator, Division of Undergraduate Studies:  I would like to read something that the students have prepared because we have had considerable discussion within our meetings outside of that.  The calendar revision issue is an issue that affects us all.  The Undergraduate Student Government Academic Assembly is comprised of student representatives from each college at the University Park campus and acts as the voice of the students on this issue.  They are represented here today by the Student Faculty Senate Caucus.  The Student Faculty Senate Caucus reviewed the proposals regarding possible calendar configurations.  After considerable discussion, proposal number two—a 15-week semester including final exams and all forms of final assessment, as well as proposal number four—a 14-week instructional semester with established class times plus five days of final exams emerged as the most favorable recommendations presented in this report.  It is important to note that of these two proposals there was not one that stood out more clearly than the other.  And by that same token proposals number one and number three were not dismissed, but they were not favored as highly as the other two.  The reasons why we support these various proposals are as follows.  For proposal number two—a 15-week semester including final exams.  The students support this because it encourages other methods of final assessment that are somewhat implied by not having a final exam block.  Second, it minimizes the instructional time lost as a result of having a final exam week while still shortening the semester.  And as was previously mentioned, the later fall semester start allows additional opportunities for faculty to attend conferences, longer orientation for new students, and more time for the students that are returning from the summer classes, co-ops, internships, and other educational pursuits.

 

We were concerned about proposal number two in that it would provide a possible overload during the end of the last week of instruction.  It would probably be assumed that if an instructor was going to give an in-class assessment, theoretically, all those could occur on the Friday of the last day of school, which I do not think is something that any student really wants to see happen.  Also, students would have less time to complete these exams if they were given in class versus having a one and a half hour block.  This was a concern because if we are going to cover the same amount of material this would result in fewer questions, a higher point value per question and obviously if you miss one question it is going to affect your grade much more dramatically.

 

Proposal number four was supported because it does maintain the current semester format allowing for a final exam block which was favored by most of the science and math-intensive majors.  The current 50 and 75-minute period lengths are still maintained thus preventing the lengthening of the academic day, which would be proposal number three.  And it still allows for a later start in the fall, which was previously discussed.  The concern was that there would be a loss of instructional time—a loss of a complete week and the concern was that some faculty members may feel it necessary to cram all that extra material in thus adding to the burden of the student trying to study for final exams.

 

The Student Faculty Senate Caucus also considered and discussed the issue surrounding Fall Break.  Regarding this issue, the student body is much more single-minded.  The students definitely oppose the elimination of Fall Break.  While we do acknowledge that Fall Break is not necessarily used as the study days as was originally intended, Fall Break still does serve the student population in a very positive way.  The break coming at the middle of the semester allows students the time to refresh, to relax, and come back to the second part of the semester ready to attack their studies and continue their academic pursuits.  Although some people have suggested moving Fall Break and combining it with Thanksgiving, and this would give the students a break much like Spring Break, but it was felt that this would not be beneficial to the students due to the timing of Thanksgiving being only two or three weeks before the end of the semester.  By taking an entire week off, that is going to mean less time for students to ramp up after the break to get ready for finals.

 

In summary, the Student Faculty Senate Caucus recognizes the need for changes to the calendar as it currently exists and recommends that proposal number two and/or proposal number four be advanced for further consideration with the concerns previously noted, including but not limited to leaving Fall Break as it currently stands in the fall semester.  Respectfully submitted, Josh Troxell.

 

James F. Smith:  Thanks Mr. Troxell.  The issues around fall break are issues that some of us on the Senate remember well.  Those of us with good memories will even remember that during the discussion in which we authorized a Fall Break the suggestion was made even at that time to collapse Fall Break and Thanksgiving week and turn it into a one-week break at that time.  And that resolution was defeated at the Senate largely because of extremely effective and vigorous lobbying by the students who were originally the prime movers for the concept of Fall Break.  The points that Josh raises are not unanticipated.  The alternative of the collapsed Fall Break in one week was suggested as a possibility because of minimizing the interruptions.  No one is naďve enough to believe that it will eliminate the extension tactic of the Friday before or in this case the Monday after Thanksgiving for the hunters in the crowd.  But it does reduce the number of occasions for those extensions.  We understand that it does not provide mid-term relief.  On the other hand…you know this is like the scales of justice swinging back and forth.  On the other hand, I can imagine a scenario in which a student with two major projects due during those last three weeks of the semester might appreciate a week long hiatus in much the same way that the student preparing for a mid-term the Wednesday after Fall Break would appreciate those two days to study.  So I think that depending on the students course demands and schedule in a given semester a student could maybe thank the presence of that week just as easily as they could see a disadvantage to eliminating the two days earlier in October.  But this is an issue and you notice of course that we decoupled a recommendation on Fall Break from any of the semester scenarios because I think Fall Break condensation if that is what people want to do can be used in any of the configurations or conversely any of the configurations can be used with the present Fall Break and that was deliberate on our part on the committee.  Thanks, Josh.

 

Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus:  I wish to give the results of a forensic that was held at the Hazleton Campus.  Since some of the points have been made before I will keep this brief.  The faculty at Hazleton were not uniformly or adamantly opposed to change to the semester length.  We have a mixed report.  There was admission of several sources that a later fall start would be beneficial to many of our students who have seasonal employment and also many of our non-traditional students who rely on these jobs for part of their tuition income as my colleague from the Theatre Department pointed out.  And we also admitted that a large number of classes with the consent of both faculty and students concluded at the end of the 15th week without a final exam and apparently these classes have been with the entire approval of the students as they do not see that their education has been cheated in this fashion.  Therefore, there were a large number of people that suggested that an alternative to the alternative number four would be acceptable.  There was concern among a number of faculty that this kind of move to a 14-week semester with the elimination of the final exam week could compromise the quality of education, particularly by not allowing students a final chance to show that they have mastered the content of the class.  Therefore, they asked me to pass on to the committee the need to justify any change of a semester length as pedagogically sound.  Moreover, it should not simply be a convenience to students and faculty, but it should be as good or better a way of delivering a class.  And finally I do not see any sentiment for changing Fall Break.

 

James F. Smith:  Thanks, Bill.  May I ask Peter, Josh, Bill any of the caucuses or any of the groups that have any kind of written remarks, could you leave them with some of the Senate people?  It would tremendously help to the transcription process.  The calendar and the curriculum are related but I do not think our committee or any of us as faculty want to see calendar driving curriculum.  But the fact is particularly in the past decade and more, pedagogy has changed.  Many of us, even old timers who have been around 30 and more years, are doing classes in different ways today than we would have done them 15 or 20 years ago.  Chalk and talk does not work as well for everybody any more.  When I was in college and when some of you were in college that was it.  A blackboard, a podium, a room bigger than this, a professor in the front, graduate assistants going up and down the aisles, and lecture notes with no note taking service.  Exam, exam, exam, exam, big final, boxes, bags however security was assured and that was it.  Now universities, colleges, junior colleges and everybody involved in the post secondary education have been moving in a variety of different directions.  The fact is that not every class has to give a final examination.  If you’re doing a speech class…you know we talk about the service courses, in addition to MATH 140, CHEM 12, and PHYS 201 and the other large service courses, we do have ENGL 15, ENGL 202, and SPCOM 100 classes that do not give final exams.  They do not need to.  It would be a misinterpretation I think of Senate policy for someone teaching one of those courses to feel constrained to give final exams because of a finals policy that we have at the Senate or the presence of a finals period in the calendar.  So I think that we are in a position to try to suggest that the calendar should not drive pedagogy.  On the other hand, in the proposal for a 15-week semester including all forms of final assessment, were that calendar to be adopted there is probably an implication, I will be honest about this, there is an implication that if one gives a final examination it will be done in a way that is not business as usual.  I could imagine myself in that situation.  I could probably give the same examination but it might have to be over two days.  Not all of the tests on the Friday of the last week, but maybe Wednesday and Friday, two parts, objective one part, essay another part, or something like that.  That could be done.  For those people who do not give final examinations that last week could be a week of in class presentations, portfolio collection, an assessment, return and/or discussion for the students.  There could be a lot of different activities occurring during that week that culminate in a final assessment including, maybe as Josh suggested that last chance to redeem yourself after a semester.  I do not think anybody on the calendar committee wants to do away with final assessment.  That was not our charge.  It was not our mission and it certainly is not our position so even in the most radical of the proposals is there no longer a designated final exam week set aside, please do not take the perception that we wish to do away with final assessment.  That is not the case.  I think what it represents is a recognition of the multiplicity of ways final assessments may be conducted.

 

Chair Nichols:  The clock is ticking and we’ve got a very full Agenda so let’s see if we could pack as many brief comments from Senators as possible.  Let us move along as expeditiously as possible.

 

Sallie M. McCorkle, College of Arts and Architecture:  Specifically the School of Visual Arts.  The bullet item at University Park indicates approximately 40 percent of classes actually schedule final exams does not reflect what occurs within our School.  This is true particularly within the studio component of our School where we actually do utilize a final exam time period for individual meetings with the FA and MFA students.  Long-term meetings.  I mean, Monday thru Thursday we are meeting with them individually and trying to weave that kind of structure into the last week of classes instead, would be very difficult.  So I want to point that out that actually we would support the retention of the final exam period.

 

James F. Smith:  Thank you.

 

Joshua D. Walker, Student Senator, Penn State Altoona:   I am representing the student body at Altoona and we have discussed and actually done several surveys about the topic.  There is immense fear that by eliminating finals week, it is going to condense the finals and compact them to the last few days of class.  And as it is right now even with finals week at a smaller campus it allows them a little bit more leniency with the time constraints.  And a lot of classes actually have finals before finals week, as now, and a lot of times it creates an overload of stress and having the finals week it would be…it allows a time for students to calm down, have that time to study and know when the finals are going to be.  Eliminating the finals week is going to cause problems of, “Okay, I have one exam this week but I still have classes I have to take.  I have my final exam in this class the week before school is over yet I am still absorbing information from a separate class.”  It really makes things more confusing than what they need to be.  Option four was actually the most supported on our campus through the SGA.

 

James F. Smith:  The reason I was wincing was the Senators should remember our own legislation regarding final examinations and anybody giving a final examination outside of final exam period is in violation of that policy.

 

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine:  I think we need to also bear in mind the potential for public relations with shortening the school year.  Particularly the agenda item that is forthcoming, this state government has not been particularly kind to higher education.  There is a significant possibility of substantial increases in tuition next year and by potentially cutting instructional hours, this may send a very damaging message to the parents of our students and the parents are ultimately the ones footing the bill.  I just want to raise this caution due to the timing of this sort of decision, particularly if it involves shortening instructional hours for a year where a significant tuition increase is possible.

 

James F. Smith:  Thanks.  That sensitivity is certainly been part of our discussion and it is at least in some of our opinions probably the reason why nothing has been done to change the calendar up to this point in time since 1985.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  I have two consensus statements to read that represent the two voting bodies in the College of Engineering.  The first is the Engineering Caucus and the second is the Engineering Faculty Council.  The College of Engineering Faculty Senate Caucus unanimously supports the following tentative formulating in the calendar.  The academic calendar should have a designated final exam period and I do not need to articulate that.  Second, the calendar for a given semester should have the same number of week days.  Since functionally we have courses where you would have one day you might teach a course, you may already have a 14-week calendar for some of those.  The rationale statement that goes along with this considerable amount of the College of Engineering course material is pedagogically presented in a consecutive manner which logically builds to a comprehensive examination of course content and the longer format with 50 minutes.  The College of Engineering finds it important to retain this performance evaluation format.  Since students in engineering typically are taking three to four finals in a semester, its impractical to impose combined finals week with the end of classes.  That is the end of the statement from the College of Engineering Senate.  The second one is then from the Engineering Faculty Council and by the way, both of these were unanimous.  The Engineering Faculty Council unanimously supports the aforementioned position and further it unanimously supported the position statement against shortening the academic year in general, basically on account of reducing quality.  I just have one final personal statement which is neither of these and that is, already in a given year we have a lot of things that we are doing.  I have to go to professional meetings and I feel guilty and usually cut it short to get back to teaching.  If you make that time period more critical, you have students that are ill, what you are doing is you are functionally reducing the degrees of freedom.  The flexibility and the importance of the time you have left.  Seniors that are interviewing are going to lose a week in the process of doing that.  And in that general context, the idea of compressing the semester year is not typical of a research institute and what is reflected in the Big Ten and when you say that, we should not be benchmarking against Temple.

 

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  This is just an observation.  You mentioned that the calendar should not influence how we teach.  Our present calendar does.  I just needed to change my course that I teach in the spring to a fall offering and I have to do things significantly different mainly because we have three breaks rather than one break.  So the existence of the three breaks has impact over the business in the classroom.

 

Douglas K. Brown, Penn State Altoona:  Just to report the results of a forensic session at the Altoona College last week.  The Altoona College faculty is unanimously and relatively adamantly opposed to the shortening of the structural semesters and the elimination of the finals exam period.  Many of the reasons for that have been mentioned already.  A lot of it has to do with the fact that at the college we are primarily teaching are foundational courses and a lot of the remarks made by my colleague from the Eberly College of Science come to bear.  Also, we do have a written statement to put forward to your committee.  I might also mention that in some of those foundational courses at other parts of the university many of those four and five credit courses are not losing 150 minutes, but something like 250 minutes by shortening the week.

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  When you started your presentation you indicated the committee was told that the calendar was broken, and so to fix it seems to be a condition that sends a set of facts not in evidence as nearly as I can tell from reading the report that we were given.  Aside from the possibility that the calendar is not broken means that somehow we have come to a standstill.  But even if that is the case the major breakage is not at all determined after anything I have heard, we have had some benchmarking data and we have had some expressions of preferences of what people would like to see in the calendar, but the documentation for what are the consequences of this presumably broken instrument have not been articulated.  I find it very difficult to evaluate the relative merits of these four proposals or others not on the list when you do not know exactly what it is and whose perception of the breakage it is we are trying to address.

 

Chair Nichols:  We have only got a few more minutes so we need to move on.  If you would be as brief as possible.

 

James F. Smith:  May I just respond to that a little bit?

 

Chair Nichols:  Sure, quickly please.

 

James F. Smith:  I think, Dennis you are correct in what you are pointing out.  The problem is that the evidence of problems with the fall calendar is substantially anecdotal and a preponderance of opinions expressed and it is an issue that apparently climaxed in the past calendar year in the sense of its urgency to the Provost’s Office, the President’s Office, and to the Senate Office.  But it is an issue that for as long as I have been involved with the Senate and certainly during my tour as a Senate Officer, was in evidence all the time.  In part, it depends upon the people that you are listening to and one of the reasons for this discussion is to try to assess that.  Now there have been articulate and well reasoned statements expressing relative satisfaction with the current calendar.  Maybe those critics who raised the issue to the attention of the President’s Office put it on the front of the stove, maybe those positions are not being articulated perhaps because of the nature of the report itself.  I do not know, but there is not empirical evidence that we can put forward that will suggest this level of dissatisfaction to your desire.

 

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg:  Jim would you give us your email address?

 

Chair Nichols:  Howard would you state your name and your unit please?

 

Howard G. Sachs:  Sachs, Harrisburg.  Jim would you give us your email address?

 

James F. Smith:  Yes.  As it was said in March and April at the Senate meetings it is JFS6@PSU.EDU.  Hurry.  Our committee is meeting tomorrow evening.

 

Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education:  With all due respect to the student representatives I really appreciate what you are trying to share with us.  I am not at all opposed to the idea of shortening the semester, which seems to be a minority opinion but I will throw it out there anyway.  But I have spoken to a number of faculty who are very concerned about the Fall Break and Thanksgiving break issue and the combination of those two together.  Generally, everybody that I have spoken to on the faculty thinks that it is a good idea.  What I would definitely be opposed to would be shortening the semester and still maintaining two breaks because in essence we are already taking almost two weeks off.  People do not come to class Monday and/or Tuesday before Thanksgiving.  They leave Friday before Thanksgiving and they extend the Fall Break for the entire week.  So we are already in essence in a 14-week semester just by default so I would say I like the way you separated those out as options.  I definitely would not support a shorter semester including two breaks but I think the combination of the breaks into one Thanksgiving break seems to have a lot of support with the faculty I’ve spoken to.

 

Chair Nichols:  Two more and I think we will have to call an end.

 

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts:  There is empirical evidence ordered by this group three years ago for what one of the problems is and that had to do with evidence that we gathered from the pulse surveys about the number of students leaving for Thanksgiving break early and you are welcome to go check it out.  So there is massive leaving early empirically documented right there.  The same thing is now happening and I presume in all your classes, certainly in mine, if I do not give a quiz on the Friday before the mid-semester break.  Although I agree totally with previous comments there is a problem.  It is empirically documented.  If you do not know the consequence for your class you are just not there.

 

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts:  First, I would like to support item four, for the reasons everybody said before, but mostly because I think the later start in August will allow academically in preparing teaching assistants who teach a lot of those courses mentioned and classes, especially beginning classes, at University Park.  And we need a little bit more time in August to prepare teaching assistants for their teaching responsibilities.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you.  A lot of good input for your committee Jim.  We are going to have to call an end to it.  You can email Jim.  The plan is for Jim’s committee…I think they are meeting tomorrow night and they are going to give a recommendation which will be considered by the Senate Committee on University Planning and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education at the December 4, 2001 meeting and therefore will not come forward to a vote until the first meeting of the…at the earliest the first meeting of the calendar year.  So you are going to have plenty of opportunity for additional input between now and then and in addition there will be…right now we are shooting at a moving target, but pretty soon the Joint Committee To Review The University Calendar is going to offer a fixed target.  So we could have a more specific discussion.  Thanks a lot, Jim I appreciate your help.  Moving on to Agenda item “J,” informational reports, the Senate Committee on University Planning is sponsoring a report by Provost Erickson on the Budget and Strategic Planning, Provost Erickson.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Budget; Strategic Planning (new approach); and Budget Planning

 

Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  Thanks for the opportunity to share some highlights with you about Penn State’s operating budget for this academic year.  I am planning to summarize the universities budget plan and appropriation request to the commonwealth for 2002-2003 as well.  In the interest of time I am going to move through this very quickly but the entire presentation will be available on the web and you may want to consult that later.  Let’s start then with a look at the current year state appropriation.  We received a total appropriation of more than $334 million dollars.  This represents an increase of less than one percent or $2.8 million in new funds over last year.  How did we arrive at this modest increase?  First, the $5 million line item for program initiatives that was in our 2000-2001 appropriation was eliminated.  Special funding of $2 million for Penn College was also eliminated.  We then received an increase of three percent on each of our remaining line items.  This includes the educational and general, agricultural research, cooperative extension, and the College of Medicine line items.  And the School of Information Sciences and Technology received an additional increase of $812,000.  The state appropriation is just one piece of the states budget…I think our funds for technology were cut here.  That gives you an indication of how we ended up with less than a one percent increase.  We should be on slide number four at this point…go one more.  Okay, there we are and assuming this advances we will be back on track here.  The state appropriation is just one piece of Penn State’s budget.  The total budget for this academic year is just less than $2.3 billion.  The activities on the left side of this chart are all self-supporting budgets.  These include the medical center and restricted funds--each representing about 20 percent of the total budget.  Auxiliary enterprises comprised nearly 10 percent.  The items on the right side represent the general funds portion of the total budget.  Tuition contributes 29.4 percent and the state appropriation contributes another 14.6 percent.  Let’s look more closely at the general funds budget.  This is the budget that supports the universities academic and administrative activities and maintenance of the physical plant.  The state appropriation represents 31.4 percent of our general funds budget this year.  Student tuition and fees contribute 62.1 percent.  The reverse of what these shares were in 1970.  Other income such as income on investments, recovery of indirect costs, and departmental services contribute 6.5 percent.  This year the general funds budget totals $978 million.  Last year I introduced you to the concept of one percent increase modules.  We calculate income and expenses in one percent modules to provide some initial parameters in budget planning.  For example, on the expense side a one percent increase in salaries and related benefits costs about $6.2 million.  On the income side, a one percent increase in the state appropriation, excluding Hershey and Penn College, will yield $2.9 million.  A one percent increase in tuition will generate about $4.5 million in revenue.  The important point here is that a one percent increase in state appropriation does not correspond directly with a one percent increase in salaries and benefits.  The cost of a three percent salary increase would be roughly $18.6 million.  Hypothetically, if we were paying for the $18.6 million out of our state appropriation alone, it would require a 6.3 percent appropriation increase just to cover a three percent salary increase. Or, if we were paying for the increase totally from tuition, it would require a 4.2 percent tuition increase.  Salaries and related benefits are the largest component of the general funds budget, comprising of 72 percent of all general funds.  Penn State’s average faculty salaries have slipped in ranking since 1995-96 in comparison to other Big Ten universities and the 22 public universities participating in the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE).  We continue to be committed to making salary increases the highest budget priority.  This year, we set a salary increase pool of three percent for merit-based increases and for market, equity, and compression considerations. We also have a Faculty/Staff Excellence Fund for special merit, market, and equity concerns.  In addition, the entire President’s Excellence Fund, was used to supplement the salary increase pool.  This slide shows our benefits cost increases this year for the university’s educational and general operations.  The net increase is more than $7.8 million.  Health care insurance cost increases represent $6.1 million of this total. And we are incurring increased costs of $1.7 million in the TIAA-CREF retirement program due to the increasing number of university employees who participate in this program.  Turning now to facilities cost increases, we have budgeted just over $2.5 million for the maintenance and operation of new or newly remodeled facilities at various campus locations.  We are continuing the capital improvement program which began two years ago to help address the university’s urgent space needs.  We have set aside money for financing construction and renovation projects above and beyond those supported by the commonwealth.  The $4.5 million shown here represents the third year of a six-year program to support the $180 million of debt for capital construction and renovation projects.  It also provides the associated operating expenses for facilities that will be built with these funds.  An additional $1 million is included for deferred maintenance.  Penn State’s backlog of deferred maintenance projects currently totals more than $200 million. And, we have allocated $250,000 to address environmental protection needs such as improving air quality, enhancing our hazardous waste materials management, insuring the quality of our water supply and removing contamination from some of our land.  Program adjustments in this year’s budget total nearly $5.5 million.  A total of $1 million is included for the School of Information Sciences and Technology to continue its multiyear buildup.  These funds come from an additional state appropriation of $812,000, as I mentioned earlier and $188,000 from the School of Information Sciences and Technology student tuition surcharge funds.  You will recall that we are in the midst of a six-year plan that focuses on four interdisciplinary areas that address important societal needs–the life sciences; materials sciences; environmental studies; and children, youth, and families.  We are continuing that investment this year with a total amount of $1.35 million.  Two million dollars is included in the budget for libraries and information technology.  These funds are provided from the student information technology fee and are used for high priority student computing, telecommunications, and information resource needs.  An additional $379,000 was budgeted for student activities at all campuses.  The $766,000 budgeted for other program adjustments needs a bit more explanation.  Internal budget reductions total nearly $3.7 million.  This budget recycling amounts to one percent of the operating budgets of all academic colleges and administrative units at University Park.  Other campus locations also reallocate internally to help fund their highest priorities.  Adjustments of $3.3 million have been budgeted for high priority academic program needs in the colleges at University Park and other campus locations.  And, we have budgeted $1.1 million for academic and administrative support units including enhancements in administrative computing and the transportation and parking programs at all locations.  The net of these recycling and enhancement funding changes is $766,000.  The basic tuition rate increase for this year was 5.76 percent.  In addition, the tuition increase included $33 per semester to support the capital improvement plan and $33 per semester for the competitive salary program.  Thus the total increase in tuition is 7.76 percent.  There is a $3 per semester increase in the student activities fee, which generates the additional $379,000 for student activities I mentioned previously.  These funds are made available to each campus for allocation by its campus student activities fee committee.  A $15 per semester increase in the information technology fee provides an additional $2 million.  We do not take tuition increases lightly.  We have had to turn to tuition to help support critical areas that are necessary to protect Penn State’s educational quality.  These are--competitive salary increases, employee benefits, capital improvements, which includes:  new facilities, renovations, deferred maintenance, information technology and new academic initiatives.  Penn State is not alone in implementing relatively large tuition increases. Tuition increases for the other Big Ten public universities range between 6.5 percent and 18.4 percent, with an average of about 10 percent.  Our increase of 7.76 percent places us near the bottom of that list.  We will continue to work for maximum efficiency in order to keep tuition as low as possible.  One way that we focus on Penn State’s goals and how best to use our resources is through strategic planning.  The next series of slides highlights our planning activity.  Strategic planning is a disciplined and coordinated effort to meet the university’s overarching goals through decisions and actions that shape what Penn State is, what it does, and why it does it.  Eighteen years of planning experience has made Penn State a national leader, and strategic planning has become a part of the Penn State culture.  Each unit’s strategic plan serves as a guide for determining direction and for making unit-level budget and resource allocation decisions.  It has enabled us to improve all kinds of processes including our teaching, research, and outreach.  Strategic planning continues to improve our efficiency and effectiveness.  Penn State is consistently ranked as one of the most efficient universities in the nation while accounting for academic quality.  For the next planning cycle, we have avoided issuing a rigid set of guidelines, but rather have allowed for flexibility and creativity.  We recognize that our academic units and administrative units differ in the ways they approach planning and are at different stages in the implementation of their strategies. We want a process that is–first and foremost–useful to the participants. We will continue to monitor performance indicators at the university level and to encourage individual units to collect and use indicators appropriate to their own goals.  To encourage comprehensive and coordinated planning, we are asking the units to discuss their goals specifically in light of enrollment projections, staffing requirements, budget forecasts, and existing and projected space and facilities.  This approach provides a comprehensive and realistic background for planning.  We plan to use existing councils and committees to discuss university directions and to make recommendations on enhancements.  Short-term working groups will be commissioned to undertake special studies on critical issues, as they are needed.  We have chosen a three-year rather than a five-year planning cycle to maintain maximum flexibility.  This is because of the uncertainties surrounding the economy and the associated implications for future sources of funding.  Units have been asked to discuss their future directions, their strategies to achieve their vision and goals, and the measures they will use to evaluate their performance.  Each unit has been asked to discuss the implications of major university task force reports and University Faculty Senate legislation on their respective units.  For the next planning cycle, we are placing a moratorium on central recycling, and asking that all budgetary units recycle at least one percent of their permanent budgets on an internal basis each year, moving funds from lower priority to higher priority academic and administrative needs.  Integrated planning is an aspect of the current cycle of strategic planning that we will continue to refine for each of the campus college cost centers.  We wanted a process that would better integrate academic planning with budget, enrollment, and facilities planning.  So we worked with the campus colleges as they collected data and developed individual business and academic plans for each campus.  The objective is to advance our academic goals while taking into account infrastructure and human resource needs.  This process is providing an excellent context for the strategic planning that our campus colleges are undertaking with respect to new baccalaureate and other academic programs.  One highly positive outcome of the current cycle of university planning was the creation of the report entitled, A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: 1998-2003.  Diversity strategic plans from each unit were woven into one comprehensive document and set of challenges.  The seven challenges are shown on this slide.  Budget executives have been asked to submit a status report on their progress in meeting these challenges by mid-December.  The final portion of my remarks will take a look at the university’s budget plan and appropriation request to the commonwealth for 2002-2003.  Let me emphasize that there are many steps in the process that need to be played out both in Harrisburg and here before the Board of Trustees gives final approval to the budget next July.  We have requested a 4.25 percent increase in our basic operating costs.  This slide highlights our top priorities for the basic budget next year.  They are: – improving faculty and staff salaries – meeting escalating health care costs, and – supporting facilities improvements and deferred maintenance.  In addition to the request for basic operating costs, we have made four special funding requests.  These include funds for: – Information Sciences and Technology – Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension – the College of Medicine, and – Workforce Development at Penn College.  To maintain our commitment to providing high-quality education and to fund the priorities on the last two slides, we have proposed a basic tuition increase of 5.84 percent.  In addition, a $35 increase per semester is planned to support the capital improvement program.  And, a $35 increase per semester is anticipated to support the faculty salary initiative.  If our requested appropriation increase for operations is funded, the overall proposed tuition increase would be 7.84 percent.  Here is a summary of Penn State’s appropriation request for next year.  We have asked for a basic increase of 4.25 percent for operating costs, or $13.94 million.  And, we are requesting special funding of $12 million for Information Sciences and Technology, Agricultural Research, Cooperative Extension, the College of Medicine, and for Workforce Development at Penn College.  The total increase requested is $25,940,000.  And, the total proposed state appropriation requested for Penn State for 2002-2003 is $360,753,000.  Let me reiterate that we are still many months away from a final budget for the next academic year.  You have probably noticed that the budgetary priorities for next year are similar to the priorities for this year.  We are still working to bring faculty salaries to a level which compares more favorably with our peer institutions, to improve facilities, and to enhance academic quality.  As I pointed out last October to this group, significant tuition and appropriation increases will be needed in each of the next several years.  The level of tuition increase obviously depends directly upon the level of commonwealth appropriations for Penn State in the form of base operating support.  If we do not receive the requested appropriation increase for the 2002-03 budget, we will undoubtedly have to readjust our salary and tuition increase recommendations to the Board of Trustees.  Penn State is an efficient and well-run university and I am confident that our budget plans reflect our priorities to continue to enhance the academic quality and reputation of the university.  Finally, I should say something about the commonwealth’s recent freeze of $200 million of state spending. Penn State’s share of the freeze is one percent of our appropriation or $3.35 million. Accordingly, we have implemented a 0.5 percent recycling on current general funds operating budgets from all budgetary units at all campus locations, and a 1.0 percent recycling from Agricultural Research, Cooperative Extension, and the College of Medicine’s state appropriation.  We hope that the freeze, or recision if that turns out to be the case, is a temporary phenomenon, and we will be working hard to see that our base budget is not reset to a lower level when the commonwealth’s fiscal year 2003 budget is approved.  There is, of course, the possibility that additional commonwealth spending may be frozen if state revenue collections continue to fall farther below forecast. President Spanier and I are currently working with university budget executives to consider how to best deal with such a possibility.  Thus, it is essential that all of us make the wisest possible decisions regarding the allocation of our scarce resources.  We are determined to maintain our forward momentum and to continue to improve the quality of education at Penn State in the midst of these financial challenges.  Again, my thanks to the Senate for this opportunity to share some information and perspectives on the Penn State budget.  I would be happy to take a few questions if time permits.

 

Chair Nichols:  I think we have time for a couple of questions.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  The question is we are at the bottom on a percent basis for a tuition increase.  I was wondering how it looked in absolute dollars?

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  In absolute dollars we are still right up there near the top.  For example, the University of Iowa in terms of absolute tuition in the Big Ten is down at the bottom at just a bit over $3,000 a year for their resident tuition, their base tuition.  So even though they are increasing in high percentage terms, the increase still may not be as large.  For example, ten percent on Iowa’s is not going to be any more than about five percent on ours.  But what we are seeing among the other universities is plans for significant increases in the coming years.  Iowa was at about ten percent this year and they are projecting a minimum of ten percent next year.  The University of Iowa’s budget has been cut $41 million since July 1.  The state’s economy with agriculture and insurance is just in the tank and part of the recision was just a $22 million cut that they received about three weeks ago.  I suspect that the original plans say for a ten percent increase at Iowa are just gone and we are looking at much higher.

 

James A. Strauss, Eberly College of Science:  Given the events of September 11, 2001 and an economy that has probably headed towards a recession if we are not already there and falling state tax revenues, how realistic is it to expect that we are actually going to get an increase in state appropriation this year?

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  I don’t think anyone knows yet either how deep the recession is going to be or how long.  We follow every month the revenue collections in the state to see how far they are off from forecast amounts and it is clear that they have taken a significant tumble in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.  I think it is going to vary a lot from state to state.  Obviously how fast the national economy responds, we do not know.  On the other hand, some sectors have been hit very, very hard.  Some of the service industries, the travel industry has taken one of the largest hits.  On the other hand, Congress has broken into the Social Security Trust Fund and I expect that we will see a lot of additional spending by the federal government right now.  So what the offset of those two things is, is hard to determine.  But I would say that we should be very diligent in our planning to use our resources very wisely over the next few months and the year ahead.  We will see when Governor Schweiker presents his budget plan in the early days of February, but I think early conversations indicate that it may not be the kind of budget we were hoping for.

 

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg:  Those of us who have lived under other economic environments are increasingly disturbed by the concept of becoming a more tuition dependent, or a tuition driven university.  I see the burden of salary increases on the backs of our students.  Therefore, I am wondering if you would please comment on other sources of income which we as faculty bring into the university.  For example, when I do a research grant there is a huge overhead that goes to central funds at the university far beyond the resources needed to support that research.  We also have funds coming out of faculty participation in continuing education.  Can any of these funds be allocated to relieve the burden on the tuition for faculty increases?

 

Rodney A. Erickson:  They already are, Jake.  There is no magic pot of money that these other things flow into.  I share your concerns, I assure you.  I have spent my entire life in higher education in public institutions and it pains me greatly to see what is happening not just in Pennsylvania, but literally all across the country as state’s back away from their social responsibility to public higher education and to access.  But I assure you that there is no magic source of money.  Yes, the university collects indirect costs on the grants that you have but those are documentable costs.  We do not make those up.  Those are audited by the federal agencies, in this case the ONR.  We only get reimbursed for what we spend and those funds go directly back into your budgets the same as all of your budgets through general funds.  They help to support the libraries.  They help to support faculty salary increases and everything else.  There is no pot of money sitting out there.  Same thing with continuing education.  Your operation at the campuses, what you bring in some of that undoubtedly goes to provide supplemental salary to you, but some of it also goes to help support your campus college operation as a cost center there.  So there is no magic source of money out there.  If you do not have it from state appropriation and you do not have it from tuition, you do not have it.  I have not been besieged despite the original premise about…you are really right in the sense that what we are doing in the areas of trying to stay competitive with salaries to keep us competitive with other institutions does fall very squarely on the students as we saw 62.1 percent of the general funds budget is right there…I am sorry that is the tuition part of it, so clearly that is contributing to the 72 percent of our general funds budget that is tied up in salaries and benefits.  But I assure you there is no magic source of money anywhere that is lying around untapped.  If there were I would have my hands on it I can assure you of that.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, thank you Provost Erickson.  The next informational report is one that I think that you will find quite interesting.  It is on the Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.  Presenting the report is Dr. Darrell Kirch.  Dr. Kirch is a new comer to the Senate.  He is notorious for having the longest title in the university and his title is Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the College of Medicine and Chief Executive Officer of the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.  Welcome Dr. Kirch.

 

SENATE COUNCIL

 

Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

 

Darrell G. Kirch, College of Medicine:  I assure you I am also notorious for having short presentations.  It will counter balance my title.  For those of you who were wondering why I care about this topic, I’ll give you three reasons.  One reason is illustrated in the budget figures that Rod showed you.  The fact is the college and the medical center represent roughly a half billion dollars a year in the overall Penn State budget.  How the college and medical center go in terms of their financial success has a very direct impact on this university.  The second reason is I would argue, and I would hope many of you agree that our aspirations to be one of this country’s greatest universities really hinge on our breadth and that includes our professional programs—medicine, law and others.  We need to be strong for our whole university to be where we want it to be and if neither of those sway you a bit, I can tell you that the odds are pretty good for all of us that someday we are going to be looking up out of a hospital bed or from an ER gurney at a doctor who may very well be in training right now at Hershey Medical Center.  So I think we all have a personal investment in the product.  I made this figure before I arrived.  After I had a lot of discussions with people on the campus and this was my outline--of what our task was last July coming off the three year failed merger with the Geisinger Health System--of our own health system.  Any of the faculty on our campus would tell you that our values have been challenged in that experience.  There was a real feeling of faculty disenfranchisement during the period of the merger and a real sense that the academic mission was being lost in the course of the merger.  In terms of balance, people felt that both the academic and the research missions had become a minor note with the dominance of thinking about what we were doing clinically.  And in terms of partnerships and teams we had burned bridges and in some cases had entered into some adversarial relationships in our region that were not serving us at all well.  It was my feeling that we had to regain the values, and focus on those elements surrounding the values if we were going to come back.  We had to create a new structure.  We did an inventory of committees.  Hospitals have lots of committees.  Universities have lots of committees.  We had over 300 identifiable committees in place on the campus when I started last July.  We then counted the number of committees that were there to unify our College of Medicine with our clinical enterprise, The Hershey Medical Center—there was no committee to do that.  That was a serious problem and that was layered over this feeling of disenfranchisement.  Our solution has been an interesting one, I will call it an experiment because it is still in progress.  We created this series of eight teams surrounding this Central Teams Council—which is essentially an executive committee for the campus.  We decided we could not get work done by meeting in small intimate groups of 50 or 100 people.  We created these eight teams to each have between 10 and 14 people.  They not only include all the department chairs somewhere and all of the leading hospital administration, but they also include many rank and file faculty members and staff members.  Our notion was to divide up the pieces of work, approach it in a very focused teams management approach and a year into the process in general the feedback has been very good.  We are not debating and failing to act, but instead the teams have become very, very action oriented in terms of removing obstacles and seizing opportunities.  The other thing we had to do was redevelop our leadership.  Because in the course of the Penn State Geisinger merger there had been a strong feeling of absentee governance in the form of a health system that was centered outside the campus.  It had really, I think, taken a lot of the sense of ownership and accountability away from the leadership of the campus.  We spent the last year in a very intensive effort of leadership development.  Not just department chairs, and not just people in the dean’s office or the hospital administration.  On a campus that employees roughly 6,000 plus people, we have had over 500 individuals move through a series of leadership development programs in the last 12 months.  You know that structure only gets you so far.  We had to create the culture of a new organization.  Our morale was by all accounts as low as it had ever been in the history of the organization and during the time when morale, especially in academic medical centers is very low that many people felt it was among the worst that they had seen anywhere in the country.   It was my belief that the way to recapture that morale was to go back to what is at the center for all of us individually.  Our core values.  We have emphasized these values organizationally.  I want to stress the point organizationally.  It is what I call the academic paradox.  The academic paradox in a medical school is that you can take people, people that we would trust with our life, with the life of our children for whom we have much respect, and trust for them, and we throw them together in a college of medicine.  We manage to create almost no level of organizational trust or collaboration or teamwork and what we have tried to do is recapture those individual values and then start to apply them down into the organization.  It has been embodied in our marketing also and I want to stress that while we talk about this notion of world class care, it has been not jargon, nor marketing hype.  Our attempt has really been to try and create a positive image of what we aspire to be.  I know we fall short.  If any of you are seen there as a patient, you can probably give me an example of some way in which perhaps our scheduling, our billing, and/or collecting was far from world class.  But what we have done is set the standard for ourselves organizationally in every aspect including our marketing, and trying to have it permeate down through the organization.  So we have these two challenges.  We had virtually no structure in place coming out of the merger and we had this demoralized and in many ways mistrustful culture at work and we have spent the last year trying to restore those.  Not just to where they were previously but to a higher level than we have ever seen and what I want to do very briefly is just look at our missions and give you what I think are some indicators of how well we are or are not doing.  First of all, in the academic mission, I know I will not get any debate here that the core of the academic mission is the faculty.  I cannot think of a better indicator of what is happening on our campus and in our faculty than that peak you see in 1999 when ten percent of our full time faculty turned over.  That was a true warning sign that we were a campus in trouble.  What I am pleased to say is that in that year at the end of which the de-merger was announced and then in the subsequent year we brought our turnover down to what is typical now for academic health centers and the four or five percent turnover rate in a situation like ours where you have a large number of non-tenure track faculty is pretty typical.  So that is one indicator that I think we turned the corner in this key part of our academic enterprise.  We have always been proud of the fact that for several years running roughly one out of six students in the United States applying to medical school, applies to Penn State, that is our marketing.  It is a phenomenal appeal that we have held.  This shows that we held on even through the worst years of the merger.  I think a tribute to our faculty is in order, because as difficult as things were, they tried to not allow that to penetrate down into the medical students experience.  Those students also did well.  These are pass rates—their first time pass rates on the first step of the series of exams that leads to medical licensure.  A very stable high rate.  It does not get much better than this in medical schools in the United States and that did not falter at all through the merger.  So I think good indicators in the academic mission that my colleagues on the faculty, despite their own personal turmoil and despite real losses in terms of faculty turnover did do their job with regard to the students.  It is not just numbers of students, it is the kind of students.  This is one of my favorite examples of the kind of people who will be looking down at us in that hospital bed.  This group of students under their own steam got the idea that they wanted to create a primary care clinic and system for those who move through the Bethesda Mission, which is a shelter for the homeless in downtown Harrisburg.  They designed the program, they recruited faculty members, including Robert Aber our Dean for Students, to run it.  They just won a national grant for the program, they put something in place that gives good primary care medicine to these homeless individuals all on their own steam.  All out of their own ideas, their own energy.  On the research mission I will just say that again I feel especially proud of the basic science faculty who I think held the course through the turbulent period of the merger and did very well.  I will show you some numbers later.  But, where I think we were most stressed was on the clinical side.  For any of you who know anything about medical schools, you are perhaps aware that the physician scientist, or the research oriented clinician who has become very much an endangered species in our country now because of the pressures on clinical faculty to do clinical service to cover their salary.  So we held our own on the basic science side, all was not lost on the clinical side, we have had a lot of strides.  This is Governor Ridge talking with the gentleman Ed Dzurishin.  Ed was very near death’s door last winter when he was implanted with the LionHeart--designed by Penn State engineers here in collaboration with cardiovascular specialists in Hershey.  A heart assist device took him from literally being within days or a few weeks of his death to taking the first shower he was able to take in many months.  Unfortunately, he did not live the years he would have hoped.  He died six months after that LionHeart transplant.  In subjects who are perhaps better candidates in Europe, we have had LionHeart patients now who are almost two years out from a successful implant of this device.  I just want to say a few words about the clinical mission.  I want to put this in terms of clinical faculty.  This is what we did last year, our first year after the merger.  A half million outpatient visits and you see the increase.  This was done essentially with no major increase in faculty/physician component.  What this translates to is faculty members in the clinical departments are working harder and harder to attain this level of activity.  I think even better than the increase in activity is the fact that we are starting to get back to that appreciation for how the patient experience feels.  We are now tracking, for the first time in our history, our patient satisfaction scores.  If you come into the hospital or clinic you are very likely to get the survey after your visit asking what the experience was like.  Our aspirations are very high in this regard.  At least the trends in the clinical mission both in terms of activity and in terms of patient satisfaction, seem to be up.  I give medical students a book.  It’s called Through The Patients Eyes.  This is the bottom line.  What I am more and more impressed with, with all the turmoil not just in academic medical centers but in health care in this country, we still have physicians teaching medical students and residents how to look at the world through the patients eyes so that the experience is what you and I want it to be when we are that patient.  I just want to finish with a few observations about where we are.  We had a terrible transition.  Last year going from the merged health system to the first year of the new health system in which nobody—college or medical center in Hershey—was given salary increases.  That was a tough situation.  We were able in formulating the budget for the year we are in now to actually have a significant budget increase and embedded in that were some much needed, very, very well deserved and long over due salary increases for both faculty and staff.  The reason we were able to do that is because a lot of people working very hard turned this ocean liner around.  The last year of the merger the medical center component in Hershey registered a $22 million loss.  The first year coming out of the merger with all the challenges we faced a corroded culture, no organizational structure, with all those challenges, bursting at the seams in the clinics and hospital we had a $1 million…actually the audited statements will show higher than that surplus for that first fiscal year out.  We restructured our debt with the help of the people here in University Park.  In fact, Penn State, and this is very directly relevant to all of you, Penn State’s overall bond rating improved this last year because, among other things, the improved performance of the medical center financially in its first year out of the merger.  On the development side our fund raising as part of the campaign has gone up significantly coming out of the de-merger.  And similarly our research supports that the first year out of the merger increased 20 plus percent and for the first quarter this year we are showing again another 20 percent increase in our sponsored research funding at the college.  The challenges are still there.  Everybody who pays for health care and that includes employers is trying to figure out a way to try and cut cost.  Premiums are going up again.  Health care costs are going up and one of the ways to cut cost is to not reimburse hospitals and doctors including medical school hospitals and doctors as much.  And we are caught in that crunch.  The other crunch we are caught in is the costs are going through the ceiling and it is not just Cipro.  Our drug costs already this year are running significantly over budget.  This is our malpractice insurance cost and this slide is now out of date because we had a subsequent adjustment and now our malpractice premium increase will be closer to $6 million for the Hershey campus.  This is just for malpractice insurance and that is just the increase.  The increase in our malpractice premium this year is greater than our entire appropriation from the state.  How are we going to find our way through this?  Unfortunately, I appreciate your comments about tuition, our medical students even the resident pays tuition well over $20,000 a year.  Our average medical student now graduates over $100,000 in debt.  This is not a tenable situation.  We are not going to be able to solve this one through increased tuition or we will have a situation in which only the truly wealthy will be able to become physicians.  We have really appreciated the support from the provost and the president in the budget process going to the state.  I can tell you that they seemed very disinterested in increasing their direct support for medical colleges and we have not had any positive responses yet on that front.  We are working very hard to advance our sponsored funding but I would go back to the point that as universities we do not make money on research.  Hopefully we manage ourselves well enough that we do not lose money for our university in terms of the research we do.  We have to be very active in the Grand Destiny Campaign and sadly because this again is one of the roots for the reasons that we are not seeing as many physician/scientists, we have to see more patients to keep our clinical revenue up.  This is our formula for continuing the turnaround that we began last year and it is a very, very challenging one.  We are entering the next generation then.  I would argue that it has to be values based, not just individually but organizationally.  We are trying to create a picture of a much brighter future, an action oriented future, and the thing I want to stress here is that we believe a lot of our future lies in collaborations with this campus and the other Penn State campuses.  If you look at our portfolio of research as a research university, it is impressive, but we have not seized the areas of the life sciences, behavioral sciences, social sciences for lack of a better heading, the things typically funded by NIH in the way other research universities have.  So a great part of our future in Hershey, we believe, is focused on strengthening collaborations that have existed—bioengineering and the LionHeart being an example.  And making them even stronger.  We have shared interest that are emerging in numerous areas—neuroscience, geriatrics, environmental health in which we hope to partner with University Park.  So I am here to say that I believe we have made progress on these counts.  I believe we have created a structure which is working and is better.  I believe our culture has improved but I will leave it to my faculty colleagues to be the final judge of that.  I think we are much more balanced.  We do not have meetings now where the only topic is the clinical enterprise.  We do talk again about research and teaching.  We are building a stable financial platform but as fast as we build it there are people out there trying to tear it down and it is quite a challenge.  And we are now looking forward to our next generation.  I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you.  I especially want to thank many of my colleagues from Hershey that I see here because it was their hard work, their sweat equity that created this turnaround here.  And on behalf of my family, I thank you for welcoming us to Penn State.  This is a great university and we are extremely happy to be here.  Thank you.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  I told you that would be an interesting report.  Dr. Kirch has agreed to answer a few questions if they are forthcoming.

 

Darrell G. Kirch:  As long as they do not involve Anthrax.

 

Gordon F. De Jong:  At the bottom of every one of your slides there is a strip across the bottom that says Penn State, but the second part says the Milton S. Hershey.  Now across the street from you is an organization that runs tremendous profits.  As a very well endowed philanthropy, we are getting none of it.  Whereas in other states, and other major organizations such as theirs are giving $500 maybe $800 million to medical schools such as Stanford and so forth.  What is the history?  What is the opportunity there that the Hershey Foundation will in fact figure out that their name ought to remain on that or maybe we ought to take it off?

 

Darrell G. Kirch:  Quite honestly the prospects are minimal and it is because it is a trust and it is not a foundation.  It is the second largest trust on the planet.  With assets now greater than all but five American universities.  Their total assets are in the $6 billion range.  But as a trust it has a very restrictive use where those funds can go to and in fact, it took a special court action to allow them to give the $50 million gift in the 1960s that built the medical center.  The prospects for a similar second action are currently very dim because ultimately the person who rules on it, believe it or not, is the judge of the Orphans Court of Dauphin County.  And all indicators are that they are very inclined to interpret the trust very narrowly.

 

Gordon F. De Jong:  Can he be replaced?

 

Darrell G. Kirch:  He said it.  I did not.

 

Patricia A. Book, Outreach and Cooperative Extension:  Could you comment at all on your outreach activities both here in State College and partnerships that you might be running with other providers or elsewhere?

 

Darrell G. Kirch:  I think one of the problems with the merger that was very interesting was that it restricted our degrees of freedom around outreach, because Geisinger was not only a health system but also a health insurer.  It suddenly strained a lot of our partnerships with other providers.  It has been very interesting to me now coming out of the merger, how we are in a better position to partner and in some ways actually a better position to partner even with Geisinger itself.  And in a community like this, the Geisinger physicians are very, very prominent.  Many of you I am sure see Geisinger physicians which are partnered with Centre Community Hospital around things like the cancer program.  But there are other not so apparent outreach efforts and probably one that is the least known but I think one of the most powerful is…we are the leader of Pennsylvania’s state wide AHEC.  The AHEC is Area Health Education Centers programs.  It is a federally supported program to establish health outreach statewide and we are the lead entity for the state of Pennsylvania.  We also want to get more focused on public education.  We have had a very successful mini medical school.  Mini medical school is an eight-week series of lectures in which you can essentially get a medical school-like experience but tailored toward a non-physician.  It has been very successful in Hershey.  We are looking at the potential to conduct that up here in State College and then elsewhere too.

 

Chair Nichols:  All right, thank you very much.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  We are near the end folks.  The last of the informational reports is the Annual Report of the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits.  It appears in Appendix “D” in the Agenda.  George Franz will answer your questions.

 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS

 

Annual Report

 

George W. Franz, Chair, Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

 

George W. Franz, Delaware County Campus:  I do not have any prepared presentation other than at Senate Council there was some suggestion that I get answers to two questions.  One was the retirees or potential retirees and their medical coverage and how the requirements for coverage into retirement are handled at Penn State.  Employees may qualify to continue their medical plan benefits into retirement by meeting one of two criteria.  One is they have to have 25 years of regular full time service, the last 10 years immediately preceding retirement must be consecutive and the employee must be enrolled in benefits for those last 10 years.  And that is one of the issues that apparently some people are confused over.  So before you retire you must be in the medical plan for 10 consecutive years before you can carry coverage into retirement.  Or an employee who is at least 60 and has 15 years of continuous full time service can also participate in the plan.  Those requirements are summarized in the Summary Plan description that goes out.  They are also included in the Employee Benefits Division web page and at the meeting we had yesterday the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits where some suggestions were made on making that more prominent so that people understand that.  You should also be aware of the fact that if an employee elects to end medical coverage, the Human Resources Department contacts the person to make sure they understand what the implications are.  So big brother or big sister, and Human Resources is there watching.  The second question that was asked at Senate Council was whether we have ever taken any efforts to pool with other groups to obtain better rates.  And the university has explored working with other groups although we have not done it lately.  The simple fact is that Penn State is so large, that going with other groups would probably reduce our flexibility and where we have had discussions with pooling with other groups, the decision has been that keeping the flexibility was more beneficial to the university than what would have been the very modest savings.  And the third point that came up and was discussed at yesterday’s meeting was it has been reported in the press that AETNA US Healthcare is pulling out of Lehigh and Montgomery County for Medicare eligible programs.  We are aware of that.  The Human Resources Office has checked into that, and there are six current retirees who are affected by that plan and we will deal with that.  They will be given other options.  So with those comments I am here to answer any questions you might have.

 

Patricia A. Book:  I wanted to say that I was pleased with your recommendations regarding proposed enhancement to the Healthpass program to include preventative health care coverage.  I think that is very progressive.  I just wanted to comment that I see that the issue of long term care was discussed in 1998 and discussed again, but found that there was not enough interest to look into it any further and I question that conclusion and if you would comment?

 

George W. Franz:  There are plans available.  If you call and talk to the Human Resources Office and I believe they will encourage you to go talk to TIAA-CREF.  We do not see any, at least from the information that we gather, sufficient evidence that there is a substantial number of people in the Penn State system that would like that kind of coverage that would provide the pool necessary to provide any kind of substantial reduction.  Except for TIAA-CREF there are not plans…I am making sure I am saying this right so I do not get in trouble…there are not plans out there that we feel comfortable recommending.  When we looked at it four or five years ago there were a number of plans out there and most of them have disappeared.  The issue is that we do not think there is enough actuarial information out there, with the exception of TIAA-CREF, and with their substantial backing we are not convinced that there is anything out there that we want to encourage.  And we just simply have not had that kind of overwhelming requests for long-term care.  It comes up, we talk about it and we sort of say we’ll go back and look at it in a couple of years.

 

Dennis C. Scanlon, College of Agricultural Sciences:  I was wondering if there was any discussion related to the dental plan?  It seems increasingly that since United Concordia has been dealing with that plan, the service from them has gotten so poor that even the dental providers do not want to deal with the company any more.  They certainly want to have the benefits reassigned and you pay the money up front and they will reassign someplace else.  So I have been experiencing this for at least the last couple of years.

 

George W. Franz:  Dental care in State College is an interesting phenomenon.  I have been watching dental coverage in State College…I have been on this joint committee for 15 years.  I think dentists in State College have a real racket.  There are a lot of boats that have been paid for by this university for dentists and it is in my opinion a monopoly, that the university has on occasions tried to address without success.  The suggestion of several of us a couple of year ago was the university should go out and hire a couple of dentists and bring them in.  They chose not to do that.  I would be interested in hearing though if you have problems with United Concordia I would like you to email me and we will address those issues (GWF1@PSU.EDU).

 

James L. Mcdonel, Eberly College of Science:  The biggest problem with dentists is there is only a couple on the program and if you do not like them, you are out of luck.

 

George W. Franz:  Yes, I agree.  The dental society in State College has a monopoly.  I agree with you.  You can also go to Tyrone and get the same coverage for about half of the cost.

 

William A. Rowe:  Actually what occurred with the Geisinger merger with the medical center predating Dean Kirch--is a boycott.  The dentists in this area are boycotting the insuring plan just as physicians in south central Pennsylvania boycotted the combined in-state Geisinger plan merger.  This is one reason why the merger did not succeed.  You may bring in outside dentists or set up dentists in practice…

 

George W. Franz:  In my next life, I want to be a dentist in State College.  Just to alert you at the end of this week “Time To Choose” letters will go out in campus mail.  You should have them sometime next week.  The information will go up on the web site November 1, 2001.  Depending on what plan you are in you should expect a fairly substantial increase.  That is due in large part to the increased costs of the provider.  A small portion of that increase is also due to our seven year plan to bring the costing into an 80/20, 70/30 split.  Maybe I should not have said that, Dennis has a question.

 

Dennis G. Shea, College of Health and Human Development:  I just wanted to make one point that faculty do have some power to change the behavior of dentists.  And if many faculty go out and switch their dentists to those that are participating in the plan, dentists in State College will get a message.

 

George W. Franz:  Right.  I know we have addressed dentists.  We monitor the reasonable and customary.  So when they are confronted with the fact that they are substantially higher than the reasonable and customary charges in this region—not for the state but for this region—their response is, “oh, but I’m good,” and that is it.

 

Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College:  George, I would like you to tell us the statistics of what percentage of United Concordia are outside State College.  I would view that as very small in any area…

 

George W. Franz:  That is not true…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Also…

 

George W. Franz:  United Concordia has between 62 and 65 percent…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  Can I finish my statement?  There were also a lot of problems with United Concordia as they came on board and I would like to know how many of those problems have been solved?  Because this is a two-way street…

 

George W. Franz:  Well I can tell you…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  …one way street, but I live in an area that is not State College and many employees of Penn State University live outside State College and I find competent dentists who are not members of United Concordia for the very reason that some people in State College believe this.  So I am going to get the other view and they were not very conducive to the employee in how they dealt with recovering costs and when you went to a competent dentist that you had for many, many years that was serviced by other plans.  So I just want to know what the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits is looking at in other areas?  I cannot imagine there are not any other competent dental plans that we can look at?

 

George W. Franz:  Well of course Penn State…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  …look at it in terms of bringing in front of the Senate other plans to debate so that we can at least look at the possibility of looking at other dental plans.

 

George W. Franz:  We will be happy to look at it…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  …because there were a lot of problems…

 

George W. Franz:  I agree.  Initially I do not think…

 

Louis Milakofsky:  …get the idea that it is always the dentist’s fault.

 

George W. Franz:  I did not say it was only the dentist’s fault.  I said there was a problem in State College.  My understanding is United Concordia has between 62 and 65 percent of the dentists in the state of Pennsylvania.  I believe it is accurate to say that in the first year or two there were some problems with United Concordia on the processing of claims and dealing with issues.  From email that I got or from reports that are given to us as the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits, I do not have a sense that that is a big issue any more.  If it is, email me and we will check into it.  But in terms of the complaints that come to the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits or to the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, I am not aware of there being substantial disenchantment with United Concordia outside of State College.  But we will be happy to look into that if that is in fact the case.

 

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington:  George, just like you said that those letters would go out to the six retirees affected by the withdraw of AETNA US Healthcare with their wrap around.  If the university comes up with some other arrangement to that, for those perhaps who are about to retire, could some general letter be sent out reassuring them that there are optional plans…

 

George W. Franz:  There have always been optional plans.  You did not have to take AETNA US Healthcare.  You could always take Plan A.  That plan is still available for anybody that is Medicare eligible.

 

P. Peter Rebane:  My point is if you are a person like myself that uses AETNA US Healthcare and if I were to retire next year, what steps should I take to—I would be Medicare eligible—what steps would I take or what could human resources help me with in picking the right plan before I retire so that when I do retire and go on Medicare that I will have coverage?

 

George W. Franz:  We can tell you what is available at the time you make a decision.  This AETNA US Healthcare is a decision that was made a month ago.  And so it is very possible that you could make a decision now and two months later your provider is not going to provide for you in your county.  In the case of AETNA and Lehigh, one of the reasons that drove them out was that they failed to get a contract with Lehigh Valley Medical Center.  That could happen…you could be in a hospital in Bucks County and that might happen and AETNA may decide to pull out of Bucks County.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you, George.

 

George W. Franz:  May I make one final comment? 

 

Chair Nichols:  Yes.

 

George W. Franz:  Nancy Hensal is retiring the end of December as the Manager of Employee Benefits after 35 years of service.  That is going to be a huge loss to this university, faculty, and staff of this university and certainly to the members of the Joint Committee On Insurance And Benefits.  Those who have served with her know the expertise and enthusiasm that she brings to the committee, and we wish her well, but we are really sorry she is leaving.

 

Chair Nichols:  Certainly agreed.  Thanks to George and the committee for doing some important and sometimes thankless work on behalf of their colleagues.  Although I think George is going to have to work on being more direct and forthright in his presentations.  I lied, there are two more informational reports but they are quick.  The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid has two reports and JoAnn Chirico will present both.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus:  Thank you.  I will present both of these together.  These are both mandated and traditional reports that the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid gives every year.  You will note on the Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students that there was a significant drop in the number of petitions from 1999 to 2000.  That is because we increased the credit limit from 10 credits to 12 credits.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Awards and Scholarships

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico:  On the Awards and Scholarships report you will note that we had more money to distribute, but it is distributed to fewer students.  That is because we increased the amount of two of the awards to adjust for inflation and those are the only outstanding things.  Are there any questions?

 

Chair Nichols:  Questions for JoAnn?

 

JoAnn Chirico:  Thank you.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you very much.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The October 23, 2001 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:57 PM.

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 23, 2001

 

Senate Council - Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – Initial Findings (Forensic)

 

Senate Council – Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (Informational)

 

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits – Annual Report (Informational)

 

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

 

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

 

 

RESOLUTION FOR GEORGE J. BUGYI, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

 

Whereas Dr. George J. Bugyi has served The Pennsylvania State University as Executive Secretary of the University Faculty Senate since 1983 with dedication and distinction, and

   

Whereas George Bugyi served for more than 32 years as a faculty member in the College of Health and Human Development, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi, in his capacities as Executive Secretary of the Senate, has distinguished himself through wise decision-making and judicious counsel, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi has effectively served the community through his many generous contributions of time and expertise, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi has displayed true unselfishness, by always putting this University and the Faculty Senate first in his professional actions and concerns, and

 

Whereas George Bugyi is a respected colleague and friend, a man of loyalty and constant civility,

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on this 23rd day of October, 2001, expresses its gratitude and appreciation to George Bugyi for all of his accomplishments on behalf of the institution and its faculty, and recommends that the President of the University bestow upon him the rank of Executive Secretary Emeritus of the University Faculty Senate.

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

OCTOBER 23, 2001 SENATE MEETING

 

Abmayr, Susan M.
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Andaleeb, Syed S.
Atwater, Deborah
Aydin, Kultegin
Balog, Theresa A.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barbato, Guy F.
Barnes, David
Barney, Paul E., Jr.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Bazirjian, Rosann
Berner, R. Thomas
Bernhard, Michael H.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John P.
Bonneau, Robert H.
Book, Patricia A.
Boothby, Thomas E.
Brasfield, James E.
Breakey, Laurie Powers
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan T.
Brown, Douglas K.
Browning, Barton W.
Brunsden, Victor W.
Burchard, Charles L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Calvert, Clay
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carlson, Richard A.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chellman, Alison C.
Chirico, JoAnn
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Cowden, Eric B.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
Dawson, John W.
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
DeJong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
DeVos, Mackenzie L.
Diehl, Renee D.
Disney, Diane M.
Donovan, James M.
Eaton, Nancy L.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Egolf, Roger A.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Erickson, Rodney A.
Eslinger, Paul J.
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Fisher, Charles R.
Floros, Joanna
Flowers, Sally L.
Fosmire, Gary J.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Frecker, Mary I.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Glumac, Thomas E.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gray, Timothy N.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hanes, Madlyn L.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harrison, Terry P.
Harvey, Irene E.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Hill, Robert S.
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hurson, Ali R.
Hurtz, Timothy
Jacobs, Janis E.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Johnson, Karen E.
Jones, Billie Jo
Jones, W. Terrell
Jurs, Peter C.
Kennedy, Richard R.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Koul, Ravinder
MacDonald, Digby D.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, Wayne K.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Maxwell, Kevin R.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarney, Michelle H.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McDonel, James L.
McGregor, Annette K.
Medoff, Howard P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Mueller, Alfred
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Nistor, Victor
Noga, Dawn M.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pell, Eva J.
Perrine, Joy M.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Powell, Molly A.
Preston, Deborah
Propst, Ronald W.
Pugh, B. Franklin
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ricketts, Robyn A.
Ritter, Michael C.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Rowe, William A.
Russell, David W.
Sachs, Howard G.
Sandler, Karen Wiley
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Shea, Dennis G.
Shouse, Roger C.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Simons, Richard J., Jr.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol A.
Smith, James F.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Stace, Stephen W.
Staneva, Marieta
Sternad, Dagmar
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Su, Mila C.
Tachibana, Reiko
Thomson, Joan S.
Tingo, Jennifer
Tormey, Brian B.
Troxell, D. Joshua
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Walker, Joshua D.
Walters, Robert A.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Wardle, Anthony
Watkins, Marley W.
Webb, Sunny M.
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
Ziegler, Gregory R.

OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
Youtz, Susan C.

 

171  Total Elected
    5  Total Ex Officio
  11  Total Appointed
187  Total Attending

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 4, 2001

 

Committees and Rules - Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules,

Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1 (Legislative)

 

Undergraduate Education - New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus (Legislative)

 

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades (Legislative)

 

Undergraduate Education - New Senate Policy 44-55: Make-Up for Unavoidable Absences (Legislative)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Reserved Spaces Program (Informational)

 

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

 

Undergraduate Education - Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years, John A. Brighton, University Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (Informational)

 

University Planning  - Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings, William J. Anderson, Jr., Assistant Vice President of Physical Plant (Informational)

 

University Planning  - Security Briefing, Thomas R. Harmon, Director of Police Services (Informational)