Penn State University Home




Volume 32-----OCTOBER 27, 1998-----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 1998-99.

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

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

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

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


I. Final Agenda for October 27, 1998Page iii

A. Summary of Agenda ActionsPages iv-v

B. Minutes and Summaries of RemarksPages 1-42

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to October 27, 1998Appendix I

B. Attached

Door Handout - General Education Implementation
Committee - Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)Appendix II

Door Handout - Undergraduate Education/University
Planning - Fall Semester Academic Calendar ChangesAppendix III

Door Handout - Motion by Gregory K. Farber, Senator, Eberly
College of Science - Domestic Partner Health Care BenefitsAppendix IV

Corrected Copy - Faculty Affairs - Modification of Policy
HR-40: Annual Evaluation of Faculty PerformanceAppendix V

Corrected Copy - Undergraduate Education/University
Planning - Fall Semester Academic Calendar ChangesAppendix VI

Corrected Copy - General Education Implementation
Committee - Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)Appendix VII

AttendanceAppendix VIII

III. Tentative Agenda for December 8, 1998Appendix IX



Minutes of the September 15, 1998, Meeting in The Senate Record 32:1Page 1

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of October 13, 1998Page 1

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of October 6, 1998Page 1







Faculty Affairs

Policy HR-40 - Evaluation of Faculty PerformancePages 4-17

Undergraduate Education/University Planning

Fall Semester Academic Calendar ChangesPages 17-25


General Education Implementation Committee

Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)Pages 25-34

Intercultural and International Competence Requirement (Recommendation #7)Page 34

Undergraduate Education

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or LocationPage 35

University Planning

Budget for 1998-99, Process and Outcome, Budget Planning for 1999-2000Pages 35-40

Status of Construction ProjectsPage 40





The Senate passed two Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs – "Policy HR-40 – Evaluation of Faculty Performance." The purpose of this report is to provide for an evaluation of the performance of each member of the faculty at least once each year and to also have a periodic review that would include a longer-range view. (See Record, pages(s) 4-17, Agenda Appendix "B," Door Handout Record Appendix II, and Corrected Copy Record Appendix V.)

Undergraduate Education/University Planning - "Fall Semester Academic Calendar Changes." The purpose of this report was to advise that two class-free days be inserted into the fall semester in mid-October. See Record, page(s) 17-25, Agenda Appendix "C," Door Handout Record Appendix III and Corrected Copy Record Appendix VI).

The Senate received four Informational Reports:

General Education Implementation Committee – "Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)." The purpose of this report is to provide, within General Education, a way of encouraging students to further their knowledge of a second language without establishing a specific university-wide second language requirement. (See Record, pages(s) 25-34, Agenda Appendix "D," Door Handout Record Appendix II and Corrected Copy Record Appendix VII.)

Undergraduate Education - "Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location." The purpose of this report is to convey the number of student petitions by types that this committee addressed. (See Record, pages(s) 35 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

University Planning - "Budget for 1998-99, Process and Outcome, Budget Planning for 1999-2000." This report addressed the present budget process and future planning. (See Record, pages(s) 35-40).

University Planning – "Status of Construction Projects." The purpose of this report is to summarize the status of Department of General Services and University major construction programs. (See Record, page(s) 40 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

The General Education Implementation Committee withdrew a report from the Agenda:

General Education Implementation Committee - "Intercultural and International Competence Requirement (Recommendation #7)." This report was withdrawn by the committee and not received. (See Record, pages(s) 34 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, presiding. One hundred and sixty-seven Senators signed the roster.

Chair Berkowitz: It is time to begin.


Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the September 15, 1998 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

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


You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for October 13, 1998 in the mail, and this document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. This is the last Curriculum Report that will be printed and distributed. It will be available on the Web from this point on.

I just received, as I walked into the room, a second communication. This one is from Bill Asbury regarding NCAA certification, so I'll simply read it to you. The report regarding NCAA certification will be up by Friday, October 30 for review of the narrative. Hard copies of the full report including required charts will be available on every campus of the university at the library. In addition, at University Park the full report will be available at the HUB desk. The report has been reviewed by members of the study group who are on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee and with the full committee. If you'd like to find it on the web, go to the main Penn State web page and click on sports.


Also, you should have received the Report of the Senate Council for the meeting of October 6. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.


Chair Berkowitz: I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council that are contained in the minutes attached to today's Agenda.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on October 6, 1998, and discussed the following topics: the senior administrative searches; the University Park master plan; the awards convocation; IST program articulation; the climate for change at Penn State; and faculty salaries.

The Senate Officers visited, on October 13, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College and on October 14, Penn State Beaver and Shenango. On November 5, the officers will visit Altoona College and on December 10 will visit the Dickinson School of Law. This will then conclude our visits for the fall. In the spring you should remember that we'll be visiting half the colleges at University Park.

We received two memos from President Spanier concerning implementation. From our April 28, 1998, Senate meeting, the "Final Report" from the Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation Committee--President Spanier is approving this report for implementation by asking the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to prepare for implementation in university policies as appropriate, effective Spring Semester 2000. I'd like also to note that the Senate Officers have referred that report to the Faculty Affairs Committee to develop specific legislation as necessary to implement the policy changes that require action on our part, and also to consider the 1994 report that the Commission on Undergraduate Education entitled "Improving the Climate for Teaching and Learning" in its deliberations.

From our September 15, 1998 Senate meeting, about the advisory/consultative report entitled "Faculty Involvement in the World Campus" from the Senate Committees on Outreach Activities and University Planning President Spanier writes: "I know Jim Ryan is aware of these recommendations and will assure that the world campus develops with these in mind. Jim works very closely with the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities and the World Campus Steering Committee where the Senate is represented so that opportunities for discussion as well as progress reports on these issues are built in to regular communications processes."

I'd like to comment a little bit further on two items from FAC. As you know, for the most part what happens in FAC stays pretty confidential within the room. But two items we talked about I thought were of such importance that the Senate as a whole would like to hear a little more detail, and we all agreed--faculty and administration--that these items could be brought forward. The first one concerns faculty salaries. In our discussion of faculty salaries the president and provost mentioned an initiative that some of us were not aware of. The faculty members of FAC thought it was important enough that all Senators would be interested and the president and provost agreed we could make this point public. The administration is working toward minimum salary levels for full-time, fixed-term faculty--that's fixed-term I and multi-year fixed-term, $30 thousand a year for faculty with a doctorate and $27 thousand a year for faculty without a doctorate. Central administration is contributing 50 percent of the funding necessary to bring faculty who are below that level up to the minimum, with colleges supplying the rest. The initiative that was begun in the commonwealth college is being expanded to all colleges. It will take a year or two to implement fully, but I thought it was significant that the university was addressing the needs of these lowest paid faculty.

The second issue involved procedures for the search for the Executive Vice President and Provost of the university. As you all know, John Brighton has announced his decision to step down from his post at the end of the academic year. He has done a fine job and I'm sure we'll all find appropriate ways of expressing our appreciation to him for the job he has done. What I want to address now is the search process for his successor. I'm sure you all saw the notice in Intercom that included the membership of the search committee. Eva Pell is chairing the committee, and there are six additional faculty members on the committee, three deans, one student and one senior administrator. I'm sure you can all appreciate the need for confidentiality in the search process, but I also thought it might be important to give you a general outline of the process and timeline. If you have any other questions about the search, I refer you to the chair of committee, Eva Pell, who will tell you the process is confidential. We're aiming at adding the new Executive Vice President and Provost on board July 1 of next year. That's the goal. In order to accomplish that they set the time-table internally. We had our initial meeting October 16, and we will be reviewing candidate's dossiers during the month of November. Our goal is to be able to forward a list of names to the President by February so that a decision can be made by the Board of Trustees at their March meeting. This will provide a reasonable transition time for the July 1 deadline.


We next move to comments by the President of the university. President Spanier is attending NCAA meetings today. Therefore, we will not have comments by the President at this meeting.

As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.









Modification of Policy HR-40: Annual Evaluation of Faculty Performance

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: This advisory and consultative report from Faculty Affairs results from the work of the full committee and in particular the work of the Subcommittee on Promotion and Tenure to respond to the issues raised in the April 28 forensic session on the proposed report. In particular I note the work on this report of the chair of that subcommittee, Professor Louis Milakofsky. He'll be presenting the report. And also other members of the subcommittee, Professor Victor Romero and Vice Provost Robert Secor worked very diligently to develop these changes.

Louis Milakofsky, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley: Thanks Tram. This has been a long trek, a long train ride through the process of faculty review, and I just want to bring you up to date to the present time. The Faculty Affairs Committee over the summer listened very carefully to the forensic session at the April Senate meeting. We've made the following conclusions to this final report. First of all we simplified the report. We simplified it and so re-wrote the document. We have integrated the annual review with the extended review or periodic review, as I like to call it as a chemist. We've made the review--both the annual and the periodic review--developmental, and we also instituted that the guidelines have full faculty participation. With that in mind I'd like to present to the Senate this afternoon a clarification or a friendly amendment to the section on responsibility for conducting review. After careful reading of the Council minutes and talking with the subcommittee, we are recommending the following change to the full Senate, so you'll have to bear with me with the changes in the wording. It starts out with two new words, "responsibility for" are the first two words. "Responsibility for the faculty performance evaluation review"--scratch out "is conducted by," and it's now replaced with "rests with the department/division heads." So now I'll read the first sentence for you, "Responsibility for the faculty performance evaluation review rests with the department/division heads or school directors and where appropriate, campus executive officers and campus directors of academic affairs." That's sentence one. Sentence two reads "Evaluations are"--scratch the word "conducted," replace that with the word "coordinated" by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member's--scratch the word "teaching" and replace it with "academic" assignment, with input from the department head of the disciplinary unit if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member's place of assignment. To be as clear as I possibly can without being too repetitive, I'll read the whole document as clarified. "Responsibility for the faculty performance evaluation review rests with the department/division heads or school directors and, where appropriate, campus executive officers and campus directors of academic affairs. Evaluations are coordinated by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member's academic assignment, with input from the department head of the disciplinary unit if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member's place of assignment." The reason for this clarification is it gives the document the flexibility in the guidelines to have a peer review, even at the annual level. So depending upon your college and how the guidelines are structured, you can have both types of reviews either by the administrator, the academic administrator and/or by a group of faculty members. In addition, I must also point out that this document also calls for this periodic review which is only given to you as an example of a five-year review. It could be different depending on the guidelines that are developed.

Chair Berkowitz: This is a motion that comes from a committee. So in its current form as Lou has described it as changed, it stands on the floor as a motion. Are there any comments?

James P. Crawford, Fayette Campus: The second sentence of this opening paragraph I think can lead to a little bit of confusion. I think there will be a very easy way to change it that would make the overall intent more emphatic in particular the ending qualifying clause, "if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member's place of assignment." It is implied that the department or division heads would be involved towards primary review in the first sentence, but it's not clear to me that we need that qualifying clause in the second sentence. So I would suggest that we amend it to read, "Evaluations are coordinated by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member's academic assignment, with input from the department or division head of the disciplinary unit." I think it makes it clearer and also emphasizes that there will be a disciplinary aspect to the review.

Chair Berkowitz: If you accept that as a friendly amendment, which means no vote; otherwise you'll have to make a formal amendment.

Louis Milakofsky: We're viewing it as it saying the same thing. So we would accept it as a friendly amendment.

Chair Berkowitz: Alright, then, it has been changed by the committee. So again, that second sentence... Would you read it again for the record?

James P. Crawford: Sure. "Evaluations are coordinated by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member's academic assignment, with input from the department or division head of the disciplinary unit."

Chair Berkowitz: That is now the motion on the floor. Further comments?

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: The change that we just made, does that mean, for example, that someone who is a chemist in commonwealth college, that for that review there would have to be input from the head of the department of chemistry, as a disciplinary unit at University Park. I think that's more than an editorial...

Chair Berkowitz: Let's let James explain it so that it gets on the record.

James P. Crawford: In fact, notice that I also added department or division head. So, for example, if you were in a commonwealth college, it would be your division head in your disciplinary unit.

Caroline D. Eckhardt: Then that needs to be clarified so that we don't seem to be re-instituting a review level at University Park that...

Chair Berkowitz: It's now clear on the record what it means, and this is an advisory/consultative report to the administration. If any wording changes need to be made to make it clearer in the policy, eventually, we now know what it means. Thank you. Are there further comments?

Charles F. Gunderman, DuBois Campus: I enjoyed reading the last sentence in your final paragraph, "Finally, a clear link must be established between the performance review and faculty rewards." Did you discuss any way in which this could be clearly linked so that faculty members measurably know whether in fact this is occurring and that the reward is there other than just a salary increase?

Louis Milakofsky: The answer is we have not discussed this. We're leaving it up to other committees and the administration to deal with that issue. But clearly we've made a statement where, if a faculty member is rated higher, the rewards at least for salary changes should also be greater.

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: When I walked in this morning, I thought I understood this proposal, and although some of the changes in that first paragraph seem to be innocuous enough, did you have a bearing of what is later labeled the scope for review and what I assume are the guidelines? If I understood from the discussion this morning, the reason for changing these first paragraphs was, as you, Lou, pointed out, that some units may decide to have a review only by a peer group--something which I don't in reality think would ever take place, and that seems to me to change the idea that no administrative officer will be involved. If you turn to the scope of review, however, there appear phrases like, "All faculty must be reviewed annually by the appropriate administrative officer." That seems to me to be in conflict with what we just changed the first paragraph to. And then let me ask, who is in this case the appropriate administrative officer? So that's one question that raises. If you move down in the same writing it says, "General guidelines for such reviews, consistent with this policy statement" and that's a pronoun for which I really don't see much of a reference--"which may in turn ask for more precise guidelines from departments or other similar units, while keeping the responsibility of oversight." My question is, oversight for what? The general guidelines? The review process? Again, that is not clear. Then, the next to the last paragraph, "In the event that improvements in performance are necessary, the faculty member and his or her administrative officer"--again now we are back to the words "administrative officer," while as you said in the beginning it might be a total appearance. Then, again, the question becomes who then is the appropriate administrative officer? "The implementation of which should be monitored by the administrative officer," and then, again, I ask what does that term refer to? It seems to me that if you change the first part then you also change the responsibility in the scope and in the guidelines and so on, because there much of the responsibility and oversight rests with various administrative officers, while in the first part it seems that this change--and I do not, quite frankly, consider that simply a friendly amendment--I think it's a substantive change to the whole thing makes no sense. For instance, let me just elaborate for one more second. To change the wording from, "Evaluations are conducted by the appropriate administrator of the faculty member's teaching assignment," and change that to "coordinated" to an academic location assignment and then wipe out the words "if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member's place of assignment," muddles the issue. What happens to somebody like myself, who has a "teaching assignment at Abington" yet who has tenure and promotion in the department of history at the College of the Liberal Arts at University Park? What does the word "academic assignment" mean as far as I'm concerned? Is my academic assignment at Abington or is it with my department at University Park and the college? So I don't think that that is just a friendly change of wording in that first paragraph. I think it changes the use of the pronouns and the words in the scope of responsibility, and I also think it muddles up the issues for many of us who have assignments in a particular location and who have academic affiliations at University Park. So may I suggest that is not merely a change of words but it changes the impact of this whole document for many of us who are in this particular dual position, and I would recommend defeating this particular report as it stands, because I do think that there are substantive changes in it. Thank you.

Louis Milakofsky: To respond to the question with regard to the administrative officer. That is the person that is stated in the first sentence of the responsibility--department/division head or school director and where appropriate the CEO and campus directors of academic affairs. We treated this like a clarification because, in reality, had we kept the original wording then we would not have the flexibility of having, possibly depending on what the college wants, a peer review. There are some colleges who would want a peer review rather than just the administrative officer, and that's where the wording is such as to make it flexible along with the administrator's input. The other thing with regard to the paragraph dealing with, "In the event that improvements in performance are necessary," this is where the developmental aspects of this policy comes into play. The academic officer would help the faculty member to become better. That's where that paragraph comes from. I hope I answered all the questions.

Robert Secor, Vice Provost: I think you did Lou, but let me just try again, Peter. Thanks for the conversation at Faculty Affairs Committee this morning. The reasons for the changes that the administrator "coordinates" rather than simply "conducts" the review allows the possibility of the administrator having a committee of peers give advice on annual review or periodic review rather than simply conducting the review and now opens up that possibility rather than a one-person review but according to Human Resources guidelines. The reason for changing "teaching" assignment to "academic" assignment was because some people on the committee said, "It's possible to have people on a research assignment while librarians' assignments at other locations were on a teaching assignment. By location we mean, where one's budgetary assignment is. That's all that was meant by that. As far as this policy statement, it refers to this policy statement as a whole. That's the context of that. As far as keeping the responsibility of oversight, all we're saying is that the college dean can say, "I want each department to have its own guidelines." The dean can also say, "Those guidelines are not consistent with what we want for this college," whatever that oversight is. As far as the faculty member working with the administrative officer and getting a response, while it might be a peer-review recommendation on a review, nonetheless it is the responsibility of the administrator, not the representative faculty member, to talk about rewards and responsibilities. As far as what administrative officer means, it means the person working more closely with the faculty member. It might be the division head, it might be the department head, it might be the DAA, and it's just too long a list to spell out. So I would hope that administrative officer would refer to this.

Jonathan Phillips, College of Engineering: I feel this document is very ambiguous and needs to be sent back to the committees to re-write. It does read like a proposal put together by a committee where there's a little bit of something for everyone. My understanding after some discussions with people involved over the last eight months was that we're going to have something like what exists in engineering, and that would be pretty much what the first paragraph on the second page--that whole paragraph, that would be it, with the additional suggestions of my colleagues who spoke about this, that in the event that the administrative person, which would be the department head in most cases, decided that the performance was unsatisfactory. In that case a committee of peers would be put together to create a second evaluation. In the event that both of these evaluations indicated performance was unsatisfactory, some action would have to be taken. And that would be your whole document. And I would recommend to the committee that they think of simplifying this document at that point. Just that first paragraph and then a second paragraph, perhaps, with a clause that in the event that this performance evaluation is negative, a committee of peers get together to review this evaluation and come up with some sort of appropriate action. It's very simple and unambiguous. That's my recommendation.

Louis Milakofsky: My comment is that we are a university of many different colleges, and I think that if the engineering college wants to do it that way, this document will give them the access to do it under the guidelines. I think if they structure their guidelines such as you presented, it will work for engineering. It may not work for another college. I think that while this document seems to be vanilla ice cream, in reality it gives us the latitude or flexibility to do it as a university, and so I think this is where this document, although it looks like vanilla ice cream, tastes like vanilla ice cream, really give us the flexibility to do it as a university.

Jonathan Phillips: I have to disagree. It says here to be most effective an extended review every five years...

Louis Milakofsky: That's an example...

Jonathan Phillips: You need to make it clear...

Louis Milakofsky: An example. It's e.g., example. It could be two years, it could be ten years.

Michael J. Navin, The Dickinson School of Law: I have listened to Peter Rebane at lunch and was confused, and I'm becoming more sympathetic to his view as far as these changes are concerned. I would like to ask a specific question and then a more general one. My specific question deals with the first sentence that was modified and it reads, "Responsibility for the faculty performance evaluation review rests with..." My question is, if you look at where it rests, it goes "department or division head or school director" and then follows with an adjunction, "and, where appropriate." I really have no idea where it's appropriate, but it seems to suggest that there will be two persons who have responsibility. And it always seemed to me that the worst possible way to ensure that something gets done is to delegate responsibility to two individuals without making it clear. So my question is, wouldn't it make more sense if it said, "or where appropriate?" That's the question.

Louis Milakofsky: The original proposal that came to Council had the "and/or" in it, and the "or" was taken out and the "and" left in there because this seems to fit the commonwealth college model as far as "where appropriate" is concerned. In other words the commonwealth college has CEOs and campus directors of academic affairs.

Michael J. Navin: But aren't they also going to have division heads? Maybe fewer in numbers than in the past...

Louis Milakofsky: Yes, but again that's what...

Michael J. Navin: Then let me go to a general comment, because this is where it's all leading me. If you read HR-40, an "annual evaluation" is crossed out, which I think is certainly appropriate. Then you turn it over and it says, "the purpose is to provide for an evaluation of the performance of each member of the faculty at least once each year." Yet following our discussions of late last semester, really what we've tried to do is create in HR-40 two evaluations under one umbrella, and the way it's now worded it's not clear that there are two different things going on. And this now seems obvious to me when the questions were answered about the role of the administrative officer. When Bob Secor talked about the person who has to talk about your salary and other things for the next year, it has to be the appropriate academic administrative officer, and that really deals with the annual review that is conducted. And then the thing that's in the parenthetical--for example, "five years"--talks about something separate, which may be conducted in a somewhat different way and which of course gives a substitute for the old post-tenure review that didn't get a terribly warm reception, as I recall, last spring. So my concern right now is that to approve this involves improving language which does not really fully explain the dimensions of what it seeks to provide. And I don't know whether it can be altered, but right now these two competing ideas of an annual review and then a periodic one that deals with something perhaps different than a review for salary or things like that are being conducted. I am, with Peter, just a little bit confused.

Louis Milakofsky: I guess my only response would be my own personal annual review, which has always taken at least a one-year look back and a year forward. You can call that periodic, and this sort of legislates the annual review, and every once in a while--once every three years, two years, five years, ten years--whatever the guidelines call for they would do a long review back and forward. But in reality it would take place at the same time as the annual review. It may be that it's structured, maybe at that time, because it's a long review the particular college may decide on a peer review. I personally like my academic officer, and the way it's handled just with one person. But that's my own personal view.

Michael J. Navin: That's my confusion. The suggestion is that the periodic review which could be annually or biannually or triannually or five years--could be conducted without the involvement of an academic officer, I think, if I understand this. Am I correct? If a college chose to have the periodic review--which, say, it would be done on a three- or four-year basis--be strictly a peer review. From what I've heard, that was permissible under this. But it's also abundantly clear to me that the annual review could not possibly be done outside the involvement of the academic officer. And that conflict which exists is really not mirrored in the language--I mean, if that conflict isn't really recognized and therefore it isn't addressed--and that's the nature of my confusion right now.

Louis Milakofsky: Well, the key is that the guidelines of course for each college have not been seen by anybody at the present time, and it really would be developed with the input of the faculty. So it's up to the faculty to decide whether the annual review shall be done by the administrative officer, or whether the annual review will be done by a group of faculty--a peer review--and the periodic review, the extended review under those same circumstances. There are lots of different kinds of combinations, but I think that this legislation would serve the university best by doing it this way, to give the college and the faculty members who make up this college that flexibility.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I'm confused. I think this is a very illuminating conversation, but what you just said confused me. Is it required to have an annual review by an administrator for salary issues?

Louis Milakofsky: There is an annual review. HR-40 presently calls for an annual review.

Jamie M. Myers: That could not ever be set up by a college to be a peer review. This would not be possible...

Louis Milakofsky: Under the present circumstances, if there are no other legislations or modifications of HR-40, you cannot have that other aspect of it. That's correct.

Jamie M. Myers: So you're really talking about trying to create a document that provides for an additional review besides the mandated annual review with an academic officer?

Louis Milakofsky: It would mandate a look back...

Jamie M. Myers: You could not replace the annual review with...

Louis Milakofsky: That's correct. The annual review still stays in this document.

Jamie M. Myers: You have to have it every year?

Louis Milakofsky: That's right...

Jamie M. Myers: You can't replace it with a periodic that year or this year. I'm not going to have an annual review with an...

Louis Milakofsky: Well, the periodic review would be an annual review, but a look back and forward also in the same...

Jamie M. Myers: I think I support a lot of the cause for clarifying this language, because maybe it's just better to state right up front here that additional reviews, as determined by the college whatever, will be conducted by so-and-so and will be coordinated or whatever. But it's very, very muddy right now, and I think maybe it would be better to do another draft.

Charles H. Strauss, College of Agricultural Sciences: We were told that this was modeled after the program now used in Ag Sciences.

Senators: Laughter.

Charles H. Strauss: Everyone gives it a different spin. I think that the general intent of this modification is potentially sound. However, there are too many details that make me feel uncomfortable with what is being proposed today. I'll also reflect back on our Council meeting. I'm a member of Council, and as this came forward from the committee, there was no background, and we asked that the background statement be written. At our Ag Sciences caucus meeting last week, our representative from Faculty Affairs also indicated that the organization and construction has often been organized through email and has not utilized the full body of that committee for review and sounding of details, which suggests that the details that we're unsettled with today are perhaps a perplexing part and the ambiguous part that could come back and haunt us as faculty. If an administrative organization within the university makes a decision on how each college might best establish criteria, even though our faculty would have some review of that criteria, if these items leave enough of leeway in this proposal then we may have different types of reviews in various colleges and reviews that were not necessarily agreed to today. Therefore, I am very much in agreement that this be returned to committee for clarification purposes.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: If we return this to committee on the basis of what we've said here today, I don't think any clarification is going to be resolved. I think there will be massive confusion injected into what is a simple recommendation. That is to say, there will continue to be an annual review. Periodically that review will take on a somewhat different character in the legislation. Beyond that, in light of reorganization, the legislation attempts to indicate who has the responsibility for coordinating the review and seeing that it gets done. I don't know what all the resistance is, and you all seem intent on sending it back to committee, but I'd hate to be sitting on a committee trying to revise this recommendation on what's being said here today.

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware County Campus: A minor point. The next to the last paragraph, last sentence on page two: "Finally, a clear link must be established between the performance review and faculty rewards." Could you make it a separate paragraph in itself and not link it to that paragraph that exists there? For only looking at "In the event that improvements in performance are necessary," it sounds like only in the event of improvements will there be clear links.

Louis Milakofsky: Otherwise there won't be, right? Thank you, Peter.

Chair Berkowitz: Have you accepted that?

Louis Milakofsky: Yes.

Chair Berkowitz: That will be a separate paragraph.

JoAnne Chirico, Beaver Campus: Just a quick point of information. Last spring, we did post-tenure review. Does it now apply to fixed-term faculty?

Louis Milakofsky: This applies to fixed-term also, because it says "evaluation of faculty." I guess fixed-term faculty is the term that one uses. I'm looking to Bob. Is that correct? This is a policy that could be applied to fixed-term.

Jamie M. Myers: Just in case this thing passes, I wanted to get two questions.

Senators: Laughter.

Jamie M. Myers: Because I think you can clear it up. If these two friendly amendments--if in "responsibility for conducting review," that section that you already changed--if you would just return the word "annual" to the first sentence, clarifying that there is an annual review and it's done by an administrative officer: "Responsibility for the annual faculty performance evaluation review, etc." And then in the second sentence, if you would just insert the two words "additional periodic" evaluations to emphasize that there may be these other types of review that take place.

Louis Milakofsky: There will be. No maybe, there must be.

Jamie M. Myers: Then I guess I don't know if there must be? Well I guess that's the intent? I think that you don't want to combine these. There will be no way to say there is one review each. There could be different types of reviews. Yes or no?

Tramble T. Turner: In that paragraph you go back to, you have the mention of evaluations in the sentence. "Evaluations are coordinated by the appropriate administrator at the location." That brings up the idea of both the annual and periodic.

Jamie M. Myers: So you don't like the idea of additional periodic evaluation?

Louis Milakofsky: No. It's part of the evaluation. That would be part of the evaluation, yes. Thanks.

Chair Berkowitz: So you have not accepted that switch.

Louis Milakofsky: Right.

Chair Berkowitz: Thank you.

James P. Crawford: To get back to the gentleman from the law school, I do think one minor change. Maybe "and" can become "or" after "school directors." Isn't it better? Because then the responsibility for coordinating the review rests with one single individual, and as a modification of the second sentence--which was already suggested that you accept it--makes it clear that there will also be this kind of review, regardless. So I think if you say, "department and division heads, school directors or where appropriate, CEOs and campus DAAs," just make the "and" an "or," and I think it becomes better.

Louis Milakofsky: We had both before. I don't know what the deal primarily is with the commonwealth college at this point. I'm just trying to think what would be better.

Robert Secor: I think I would support that suggestion under the understanding that to say responsibility stays in one place doesn't mean there can't be input from the others.

James P. Crawford: That's what the second sentence says.

Louis Milakofsky: So you would strike the word "and" and make it "or"?

Chair Berkowitz: You're about to get the instructions.

Joseph C. Strasser, Dean, Commonwealth College: I would support that. I think "or" makes more sense.

Louis Milakofsky: Okay. Thanks.

Peter D. Georgopulos: When we talk about division heads in that first part, under responsibility for conducting review, are we talking about the division heads as they exist now at the commonwealth college? Are there other division heads at the university?

Louis Milakofsky: Berks has division heads, Abington has division heads, Altoona has division heads. There are other locations, yes.

Peter D. Georgopulos: It's not like the commonwealth college has division heads and has DAAs, and the DAAs perform the performance review. It won't be the division head within that college, for instance?

Louis Milakofsky: That's why I was referring to the "or" there.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: In the "Scope of Review" in the third paragraph, where you talk about a longer range review, "must take a longer range view that is consistent with the relevant cycle of academic performance and change," does that suggest there is some longer relevant cycle? Cycle is my fear, since I've never heard of this cycle.

Louis Milakofsky: We're only suggesting a five-year cycle, but it could be...

Philip A. Klein: But that's not the point. What it implies there is some relevant cycle of review and change in every college or every...

Louis Milakofsky: I think that has to be something that the academic administrator and individual faculty member determine as they look at the annual review or as it goes along in the faculty member's career. I think this is the cycle...

Philip A. Klein: Well, let me start over. This makes the suggestion that there is now in place some natural cycle of review that's longer than one year. Is there one?

Louis Milakofsky: There could be. But I think it's individual...

Philip A. Klein: You've got to be consistent in this case because it reads "longer cycle," but there isn't one.

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering: I want to go back to the first part and explain what we want to do here. One, that the responsibility for both annual, I know we talked about annual, but that would be with the department head or the division head. The reason we changed "and/or" to "and" is that currently the promotion and tenure runs to both the campus director and the corresponding department head at University Park. And I guess we tried to do the same thing here, in essence. You have a double review for promotion and tenure coupled with a double review for the annual review as well, and I think that's being done now in a couple places. The work of the faculty--some faculty are not teaching, doing research or an extension and would therefore not have any teaching responsibilities, and this is why we changed that, because I thought this was very clear. As far as the periodic, I guess you could say "a longer periodic," because it is a little confusing. Doing an annual review would expect each college to come back and say, "every person will be reviewed every five years, every six years." Remember the last sentence says, "responsibility for overseeing the communication of this process must be discussed with the provost," which I suspect means every college has to come back with a policy, guidelines, just like we do for promotion and tenure. Those must be approved by the Provost's Office. He or she would have some sort of uniform guidelines. It can be that the departments of engineering may want to require seven years, but whatever it is it will be a longer periodic period. Now we probably should have said something like, "a longer periodic," although "periodic" means it comes every so often. So I'm sort of...people who want to go back to the word "responsible for annual faculty performance," put the "annual" back in there and don't be confused, because periodic means every so often.

Helena Poch, Student Senator, College of Health and Human Development: I think we keep going back and forth that there's more than one type of review. There is one review and every so often you would insert extra criteria into that review. Am I incorrect?

Louis Milakofsky: No, it would be a look further back and forward. Nothing additional. So you'll see the same three criteria.

Helena Poch: But there's person will only go through one review that year? They won't...

Louis Milakofsky: That's right. The one review which includes the annual review plus the look back and forward.

Chair Berkowitz: Are we ready to vote? We're not ready to vote.

Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I agree with Phil's question about the meaning of this cycle. So I'd like to suggest that you just stop that sentence which is in paragraph three of the second page, "but also take a longer range view, period." All the rest of it will come out in the process.

Chair Berkowitz: Does the committee accept that? The sentence then would say, "To be most effective, the review must, at least periodically (e.g., five years), not only deal with the previous year's performance, but also take a longer-range view, period". Is that acceptable?

Louis Milakofsky: Yes.

Chair Berkowitz: That is now part of the motion.

Peter D. Georgopulos: One more friendly amendment. Would you mind putting in the words "primary responsibility" in that first paragraph? So that it's clear that at a campus it would be the DAA or CEO or division head, but there is a primary person--one person who would be responsible for conducting the review.

Louis Milakofsky: Where would you put the "primary" in?

Peter D. Georgopulos: The first word.

Louis Milakofsky: Oh, primary responsibility. That's fine.

Chair Berkowitz: Have you accepted "primary" or not?

Tramble T. Turner: We can accept it. It seems that it's more emphatic than it resides by leaving it as is.

Chair Berkowitz: That's not the question. This is your motion. You have to decide what's in it.

Louis Milakofsky: We will not accept that one.

Chair Berkowitz: They did not accept that one. It remains just responsibility. So it's actually sole responsibility. Is that correct?

Louis Milakofsky: That's it. It's just responsibility.

Chair Berkowitz: I didn't mean the word "sole" was in there. Are we finally ready to deal with this issue? Is everyone clear what the final wording of that first paragraph is? Catch me when I read it wrong, please. "Responsibility for the faculty performance evaluation review rests with the department/division heads or school directors or, where appropriate, campus executive officers and campus directors of academic affairs. Evaluations are coordinated by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member's academic assignment, with input from the department or division head of the disciplinary unit." There were minor changes on the next page in the third paragraph under scope, which I read a moment ago. The third line in the third paragraph is eliminated and in the second to last paragraph the final sentence has become a paragraph of it's own. Have I got all the changes?

Louis Milakofsky: You got it.

Chair Berkowitz: Here we go. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Opposed, "nay."

Senators: Nay.

Chair Berkowitz: The "ayes" have it. We have a second advisory/consultative report. This one from Undergraduate Education and University Planning, concerning fall semester academic calendar changes. Shelton Alexander and Art Miller will present this report. There is a door handout which everybody should have, which simply adds a number eight. So please refer to that as the motion. Everything else remains the same. All the background, all the rationale, all the explanation remains the same, but there is an additional recommendation on our list, number eight.


Fall Semester Academic Calendar Changes

Arthur C. Miller, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Shelton S. Alexander: Hopefully the report that you have before you, Appendix "C," is self explanatory. Our two committees came to the joint conclusions that you see in the final handout and that's what we're recommending. Our report stands for itself basically in the explanation and background, etc. What you received in the handout at the door are the recommendations that jointly we agreed upon between our two committees, and that's what we are proposing we adopt today as a change in the fall semester academic calendar.

Arthur C. Miller, College of Engineering: I guess the only other thing is that the result of it came out of an Ad Hoc Calendar Committee, and also out of the Undergraduate Student Government, and also out of the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments as well. So that's where it really was initiated and then came to our two committees for this report that comes to the Senate.

Chair Berkowitz: This has come from committees. Obviously it has been made a motion with a second and so it stands on the floor ready for debate. Comments and questions?

Jamie M. Myers: I don't understand point eight on the door handout? Why make Wednesday a Monday?

Arthur C. Miller: That came out of one of the committee members saying that he teaches a number of labs with TAs, and the Monday that you miss in the beginning is made up--like this semester it's made up on December 9. So he's out of sequence because of that, and he can possibly be out of sequence for a couple of Mondays and his TAs then are running really two sequences of classes out of order. This would be made up mid-semester and be a little bit easier for him.

Jamie M. Myers: If I have a class that meets regularly on Monday evening, the class would then meet on Wednesday evening?

Arthur C. Miller: Yes.

Jamie M. Myers: Then what do I do with the class who's supposed to meet on Wednesday evening?

Arthur C. Miller: The way it is now there'll be 14 Mondays, there'll be 15 Tuesdays. If you go with Thanksgiving recess at 2:15 it's basically 14 2/3 Wednesdays, 15 Thursdays, and 15 Fridays. There would be one Monday that would be missing.

Chair Berkowitz: Do keep in mind that we do now make up a Monday. We just make it up later in the semester.

Philip A. Klein: I want to ask you a question about number three. Is it the opinion that if the students are supposed to stay till noon, they don't think it's worth staying so they go home, but if they have to stay until 2:15 they do think so?

Shelton S. Alexander: Not exactly. Before when we went to the noon recess as opposed to the entire day, which we had previously, that was in some ways arbitrary and President Spanier actually pointed out that most students could in fact get home if we went a little bit longer on that Wednesday, and therefore you have fewer classes that would not be given that day. Based on our look at the impact of the Thanksgiving break, in a separate study last year, the fact is that most students do get home in about three hours or less. Most of them live here in Pennsylvania. Second, and more to your point, I think, we found that students take off and faculty cancel their classes. So it compounds itself, so you end up then with the problem propagating back, so that students take actually--some students take more than the official holiday.

Philip A. Klein: I'm deadly serious. I've been here quite a long time and I find that students do not come to class on that Wednesday, and I think the university ought to make it clear that students are going to have class and the students are going to go or we're not going to have classes. Having an official day in class when out of 40 students five come to class, it's just kind of a hollow exercise, and I think something ought to be done about it.

Shelton S. Alexander: In that regard I think our committee, the University Planning Committee, strongly at least wants to urge the faculty to meet their classes. When we came to this schedule it was with the expectation that that in fact would happen. That students would show up until, in that case noon time, and now 2:15 on Wednesday.

Emily K. Freeman, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: I do go to my classes because they are mandatory. However, there are classes that get cancelled, and it's not the students that cancel them. It's the professors.

Shelton S. Alexander: That was the point I was referring to. In our study of the Thanksgiving break impact we learned at least anecdotally that a lot of faculty were canceling classes as early as Tuesday. The whole thing compounds itself. So if a student has one class on Wednesday afternoon but no others, then the temptation is greater to miss it. So what we're going to urge is that faculty do in fact meet their classes. And they can do what they want to about what they require at those times.

Jeffrey R. Tranell, Student Senator, College of Education: Whether you make classes until 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday or noon or whatever, you're always going to have a certain percentage of students trying to leave. I don't think there's any way you're going to fight that. If classes are until 2:15 to give the professors an opportunity to schedule them and yet still give some students enough time to drive home, they have to go to the class. It's a personal responsibility and it's up to the professors or students. If there is no need to have class meet on Wednesday, then the professor is going to cancel it. They're going to cancel it whether classes end at 12:05, 2:15 or 5:30. I think it's kind of a moot point and I recommend going with the proposal as it stands.

Jamie M. Myers: I'm sorry I'm so bothersome. I'd like to applaud our student Senators. I mean, they sound very conscientious, and I think your rationale is faulty. Many students don't have cars and they don't drive home. They take buses home, they get rides in car pools and things like that, and I often have students who need to catch a 6:15 a.m. bus on a Friday because they have to be home for the weekend with their parents and all and they work out arrangements for missing class. I think Phil's right. I think in the future look at that Wednesday before Thanksgiving and abolish it. But for today I think it is fine the way it is.

Louis Milakofsky: Just a couple of comments and one question. Exactly how many days are going to be lost when you compare it to the present calendar? Number two, did the committee consider giving a fall break like we do in the spring, a full week? Was that considered?

Arthur C. Miller: There's one day that's going to be missing and that's the one Monday, and we did not look at--at least in our committee we did not look at--a week semester break.

Shelton S. Alexander: Neither did we in the full University Planning Committee, but I also served on the ad hoc committee. It simply can't fit.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Concerning the third recommendation. Not all campuses have the problem that University Park has. We don't hold class on Wednesdays at our campus, and I don't think we should be subjected to this recommendation. I think it should be at the discretion of the unit or campus executive officer.

Shelton S. Alexander: If you go on to item seven, that's exactly what seven does.

Louis F. Geschwindner, College of Engineering: No one has stood up and taken a position. I recommend that we turn this recommendation down. The discussion has centered around, "Well we're only losing Monday." But in fact if you happen to have class Monday, Wednesday, Friday after 2:15, you're losing two out of your 45 classes. If you happen to have a class that only meets on Monday, regardless of how many credits it might be--and there are three credit classes that meet on Monday--you'll be losing an entire week's worth of three credits of lectures, work, and material. It seems to me that the idea of a student break might be appropriate from a student perspective, but at least with the system that we had prior to cutting out Wednesday afternoon, a student could make a judgement as to whether they needed to go to class at a particular time. A faculty member still had the opportunity to hold the class, to present material. The student's responsibility was to get that material, and I think we were able to accommodate those kinds of arrangements. I don't think it's appropriate to have an apportioned curriculum--one in which some semesters we teach 45 classes, some semesters we teach 43 classes. I strongly recommend that we reject this proposal.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: I have not seen anything in the recommendation that addresses the issue of orientation. Because with this kind of proposal you would be decreasing the orientation period by one day?

Arthur C. Miller: That's correct.

Jean Landa Pytel: And what happens then to those activities that use those days or are necessary for orientation?

Arthur C. Miller: Can I call on John to answer that? Because we discussed it at...

John J. Cahir, Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education: This proposal was taken to ACUE in July and that point was discussed, and they said there was no difficulty in shortening the period of orientation because we have launched a very extensive new orientation program which involves a lot of use of information technology and a lot of other things, so we're actually doing more in orientation. The associate deans did not believe there was serious loss of that other day. We also checked with the encampment people because encampment begins on Tuesday, and we were told that was not going to be a problem.

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts: I have to say that while I think that there can be loss of the orientation day, many departments have no choice but to hold their own departmental orientation after the more general university orientation for new students and international students who haven't had any, which means we have been using this Tuesday. We started the Friday prior. Monday and Tuesday we will now be forced to, what, possibly go to Saturday, as we have done in the past sometimes. We will lose--it's the departments that will lose--an orientation day.

Terry J. Peavler, College of the Liberal Arts: I share Lou's concern on graduate courses. This is an undergraduate document and thought of in those terms. In my department we teach graduate seminars on Monday and Wednesday evenings and they meet for three hours and one cancelled class could mean a loss of a week. So I think we do need to have some sort of a system that allows us to accommodate those classes.

Shelton S. Alexander: Let me just say to both your remarks and Lou's, that nothing precludes a faculty member from scheduling a make-up time, and that would be particularly possible in a graduate course. I realize it's tougher otherwise, but it is possible to do so, and even with large classes we understand from the Registrar that he would work with individual departments or individual faculty members to make that happen if you chose to do a formal make-up for that one extra period.

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I would like to underscore the points that Lou Geschwindner made. I think the implications of this particular proposal for break and for the academic implications have not been properly analyzed. I think that there can be significant impact on the instruction of individual courses. I think we lose time, and it impacts on the connection between labs and lectures that some of us very carefully try to construct. With this introduction of another break, the schedule will provide us with another opportunity to see a great exodus of students prior to the break and tardiness in coming back. There's no information in your report on these matters at all, and so I would vote that we should turn this report back so that we properly can understand.

Shelton S. Alexander: Let me make just one remark in response to that, as to the way our courses are offered. In some of the background work of the ad hoc committee, we looked at schedules for other institutions, in particular, also, the Big Ten, and there is significant variability. In fact, our total number of class contact time is greater than any other in the Big Ten. Even with this reduction we would still be tied with the highest other one. The other schools don't have symmetric semesters. The lengths of the semesters are different in the fall and the spring at several of those institutions. And finally, in that respect, if you look at Michigan for instance--I think we'd all regard that as a good institution--they have 100 minutes less class in the fall and 250 minutes less in the spring then we do under this proposal. I would submit that the quality of our courses is not 100 percent dictated by the number of minutes that we spend lecturing in class.

Jennifer A. Belzner, Student Senator, Smeal College of Business Administration: While I do agree that it's difficult for instructors and students to have interruptions and rescheduling class time, I think that the objective by having to learn is the sort of thing that 43 efficient days of learning is better than 45 inefficient days, because you have students that get sick from the constant pressure and stress on them. They don't come to class because they're so burned out. So I'd rather have 43 days when I would want to be there learning then 45 days that I don't.

Robert D. Minard, Eberly College of Science: I just think that if you do point eight here, where you lose one day of classes on Wednesday, you'd better have Old Main tower blaring out: THIS IS MONDAY! THIS IS MONDAY! I can see in labs that are normally scheduled on Wednesdays two sets of students showing up. It's going to be utter chaos.

Arthur C. Miller: We do the same thing now on December 9.

Robert D. Minard: At the end of the semester you get by better because we don't want our labs right at the end of the semester.

Dennis S. Gouran: I would submit that it's not the responsibility of this committee to figure out how faculty should enforce attendance. It's the responsibility of the faculty member to establish what's appropriate. I'm also having considerable difficulty with the concern being expressed about what are the implications of having one less 50 minute period of instructional time. I would hope the people who teach are flexible and knowledgeable enough in their subject matter to be able to make appropriate accommodations and adaptations to the calendar rather than consider a formula which under other circumstances I'd expect they have very little difficulty in violating, like attending a professional meeting or whatever. They do what they want. We know how to make these adjustments.

S. Diane Brannon, College of Health and Human Development: I am generally in support of this, in part because I think it will afford a lot of opportunities for the real world experiences--reality checks for a couple of days as well as some R&R--so perhaps more internship, externship opportunities then we have now. But I also wanted to address concerns people have. I wonder if we could add a sunset clause to this such that it is evaluated again in three years, five years, to see if we've been able to work out the bugs?

Shelton S. Alexander: Actually we were divided on this between our two committees and we talked about that in fact today. Art's committee was in favor of putting in a formal evaluation after three years. The University Planning Committee demurred on that based on our experience with trying to evaluate the Thanksgiving break and how difficult that was in doing after-the-fact kind of assessments when there's no before-the-fact baseline. And secondly, in this case, one of the primary motivations for the break is the stress that students are experiencing and we weren't exactly clear on how we were going to be able to measure that in any simple way. And I guess finally I would say that we do in fact review the calendar a lot, and so there's nothing to preclude changes in the calendar. We aren't necessarily adopting this and setting it in concrete forever. If there are given sufficient reasons why we should go to a different system, we can certainly do that.

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development: I think that any changes in dates and lifestyle contribute to stress. Giving more breaks gives more stress to students in a way. I'm serious. The more times we have breaks contributes to more stress than they would have before leaving. Then they have problems with coming back to normal life.

Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: There are two features here. One from personal experience: my sons are both going to schools that gives these breaks and neither of them falls apart. The second is that this is clearly part of a national trend, and people are moving towards it in recognition of changing conditions, and I think there are very strong reasons for it, especially when you have with it this feature that is supported so strongly by students who are ultimately the people who most feel impacted by the calendar situation.

Charles F. Gunderman: Looking at all these things--and they have a lot of merit--I'm sure you considered a 14 week semester, which a lot of our Big Ten schools have, and that would satisfy a lot of the concerns to a break. It would involve extended class period of time in that other five minutes that is there. Have you considered that 14 weeks?

Shelton S. Alexander: The ad hoc committee has looked at that, and it would be possible to do that with perhaps changing in the links of the class periods and so on. It's not totally out of the question, but there are other factors politically that made that decision not quite as appealing. I don't know if John wants to add to that.

John J. Cahir: Only one other institution we could find has 55 minute periods--that's Rutgers. We thought that Berkeley had 60 minute periods but when we checked with them they said, "no, we always start 10 minutes after the hour anyway...

Senators: Laughter.

Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development: Just to support Sam's idea. Actually why don't we think about--if I might throw a wrench into the work--extending the Thanksgiving break a little bit, since people want to take off earlier anyhow? I guess it's a long stretch from August until November, but that would seem to make more sense and not give a break right in the middle.

Emily K. Freeman: Right now I'm extraordinarily stressed out. I'm inundated with work. I have no time. I can't go home. And this is the time where I would want a fall break. It's great I can go home at Thanksgiving, but that's 13 weeks into the semester, and that's a long time without a break. Labor Day is right at the beginning, the first or second week of school, so I think this is an optimum time to have it right at the middle of the semester.

Jeffrey R. Tranell: I've never seen a proposal with the student body that gained so much support as this. I think as faculty and students if we turned our back on what everybody is saying it would be a travesty to everybody who spoke up so far. I took this back to my college student council and I said, "is there any one person in this room, faculty or student, that has any reasons to go against this?" and not one person spoke up. I've asked around trying to see if there was anybody outside of what makes up this room and I couldn't find any. It just has such wide support that if this was turned down there would probably be some kind of outbreak.

Senators: Laughter.

Chair Berkowitz: In light of that let's just turn to our school of law.

Michael J. Navin: We actually have had a fall break for as long as I've been associated with the law school, which is 11 years. It comes in the early part of October. It is a Monday and a Tuesday. I hate to tell you that we have classes on Labor Day. Workers of the world unite. I think it works much better from the point of view of the students, and from my point of view as a faculty member, that they do have that break. We also do not have classes on Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving. One of the interesting things is what I describe as the bizarre nature of having the university open on the day after Thanksgiving for the staff. I don't know what they do or who's here, but we managed to solve the problem, because when we work on Labor Day we can substitute a holiday which is the day after Thanksgiving, which I must tell you is vastly appreciated and enormously welcomed by the staff. So I intend to vote in favor of this because I think it has been demonstrated to me that it works. You might think about Labor Day because we start--our faculty years ago made a determination it's senseless to begin class the Monday before Labor Day and then send people home for a three day weekend when many of them can't get home. So if you are around the school on Labor Day you see a fair number of students hanging around who are just plain aggravated that they have to be there and they're not in school.

Chair Berkowitz: It is now five after 3:00. I'm thinking about asking committees to consider a two-day break during Senate meetings.

Senators: Laughter.

Shelton S. Alexander: I thought that's what we did now.

P. Peter Rebane: I just want to ask the committee one question that has piqued my curiosity. In the background, who the heck is Alexander Aston who has recorded sharply increased stresses of students since the late 1960's? And why is it since the late 1960's. Obviously I've missed this because I'm before the late 1960's. Why didn't I have stress?

Senators: Laughter.

Shelton S. Alexander: Wrong institution, I guess. I don't know, someone else will have to answer that.

Chair Berkowitz: Do we have someone who can testify to Alexander Aston's credibility? Alexander Aston is a widely-published, widely-respected researcher in higher education. I've heard him speak and he's been accused of never having an unpublished thought, but aside from that...

Emily K. Freeman: I'd like to stress the administration's support of this. If we don't pass this today, then it won't be implemented next year and it's extremely important. I'd like to call for the question.

Chair Berkowitz: Calling the question in a formal way is a call for closure to the debate. It is itself non-debatable and takes two-thirds of a vote. Let's see if we can get near unanimous so we don't have to count. This is just to end the debate. If this passes we will then go to the motion without any further debate. All those in favor of the motion to end debate, please indicate by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Opposed? You could have done that by not raising your hands. We now move to the motion itself. Keep in mind the motion involves the recommendation and the door handout, which are the seven you had plus the eighth. All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Berkowitz: Opposed, "nay."

Senators: Nay.

Chair Berkowitz: The ayes have it. That concludes our advisory/consultative reports. We have general education now. Our first General Education Implementation Committee report involves the Second Language Report which was Recommendation #8 from the special committee, and here to present that report are John Bagby and John Moore representing the General Education Implementation Committee.



Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)

John W. Bagby, Chair, General Education Implementation Committee

John W. Moore, Vice-Chair, General Education Implementation Committee

John W. Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration: Thank you, Len. We're back! Expect to see us with dribs and drabs over the next few meetings but I can tell you that the GEIC process is winding to a close. We hope to do that with one informational report we have for you today, and that is Appendix "D". Before we move on with Appendix "D," I'd like you to take a look at that three page document right now. There are a couple of modifications. First of all, at the bottom of page one, the last full paragraph, the essence of this informational report: after the words in the first line, "baccalaureate degree candidates," please delete all the words starting with "in programs" and moving to "foreign language." To re-state, delete the phrasing "in programs not requiring 12th credit level proficiency in a foreign language." The second update for you appeared on the door handout, if you would take a look at that please. The door handout has some capped underlined language that will replace the second full sentence on the third page, which is our proposed revisions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures. Thus, to re-state, the deleted portion is the second full sentence of the second paragraph which begins in all caps "Baccalaureate degree candidates in programs" and ends with the "categories in the student's general education program." Please substitute as you see it now in its proper form with the door handout as the underlined and capped section. With those changes, we are as ever very interested in your comments and listening to you as you advise us about this.

Chair Berkowitz: Remember this is an informational report on the Implementation of General Education.

Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering: On the second page of the report, number two in the middle of that, it talks about not using advanced placement. I understand that. Then it says, "rather it refers only to the third course in foreign language or higher taken at Penn State." That seems to be a very self-serving statement, and that's one of the things that many of our students can take at other universities during the summer, and I want to know why that's in this report?

John W. Moore, College of the Liberal Arts: I think the reason it's there is that, if you go up to the paragraph before that about five lines from the bottom, it says, "rather this legislation seeks to encourage additional foreign language study." In other words, the intent of the committee was to pick up on the special committee's intent, which was to do what we could to encourage foreign language study among the students who are here at Penn State. And we began then to be flooded with a whole series of exceptions, and we decided for that reason to take this stand at the current moment. It is certainly open to discussion, but as you're saying, that's why we came to it.

Thomas E. Daubert: But that's saying that the languages given at other universities are not as good.

Chair Berkowitz: They are the same languages...

John W. Moore: Maybe what we should focus on here is what our intent was: to encourage students to take additional foreign language courses, and I guess we were concerned about having them take them here. That's right the way it's phrased.

Jean Landa Pytel: On the same issue. I think that what the recommendations and guidelines comes up with in number three contradicts the policy on transfer of credit from other institutions, because basically you're saying that someone could get transfer credit for level-three language from another institution. The credit would appear on the transcript as being taken at another institution but a student could then not count that but they could count the same course even if it's taken here, even have the same title. And so I think that's a contradiction that may not have been suggested if the sentence could be changed to the following: "Rather it refers only to the third course in foreign or higher."

John W. Moore: Okay. Well, perhaps we should change it then.

Chair Berkowitz: Where do we stand on this?

John W. Bagby: I would like the committee to have a chance to review the comments, and I expect we'll get some more from you. And we appreciate that, and I don't think we're willing or able at this moment to simply accept that as a friendly amendment. This is not a report to be voted on, but I assure you we will...

Jean Landa Pytel: This is an informational report. It's my understanding that, if this is accepted, this goes forward as an implementation. Is that right?

Chair Berkowitz: My understanding of what just happened is this: that the committee has said they will take what you've said under advisement, and I am going to ask them to report back to us at the next meeting about the results of that consideration.

Beno Weiss, College of the Liberal Arts: Just a question of clarification. If a student has already satisfied the language requirement by college--for example a student has studied Spanish and the student then takes a third-year level in another foreign language--does that student have the same privilege of substituting?

John W. Moore: Right. The answer is yes.

Louis F. Geschwindner: It is my opinion that the committee does not have the authority to make the recommendation that they are making, because they are posing a change in university policy on the acceptance and use of transfer credits. And if the committee does not agree to withdraw it at this time, I'm prepared to make a motion under new business that this should be withdrawn.

John W. Moore: I think that what we've agreed to do is to reconsider this phrase.

Louis F. Geschwindner: If that's the case, I believe you should withdraw this report at this time.

John W. Bagby: And we appreciate that suggestion, Lou. And I would ask you to allow us to do the same research that you have claimed to do and we will get back to you immediately. And if you would allow us that leave, we will make that effort with great diligence.

Louis F. Geschwindner: I don't think that can be allowed. I think I will still be forced to make my motion under new business.

Helena Poch: How would you deal with someone who went on an abroad program and took languages over there or actually used the credits over there as a diversity requirement or as something in that manner? Would that be able to be substituted for a Gen Ed?

John W. Moore: My understanding is the student who studies abroad by virtue of that fulfills the diversity requirement. The question here is, this has to do with foreign language study. So, for example, if a student were to spend a year in Australia or England, that wouldn't be the issue right? So the question is, what we're trying to focus on here is... Let me sort of back up here. Why are we even talking about all this? The reason we're talking about this is that, when the Special Committee on General Education met, what it was trying to do was to provide some sort of place inside the general education program for foreign language study. That's the intent, and everything we do is guided by that principle. So we could not have a foreign language requirement inside the current 45 credits of general education. So we went to the tactic, shall we say, of allowing students to substitute a third course in a foreign language for any other general education course. So, that's always been our focus, how do you get foreign language study to substitute for something inside general education? And that's really why you're reading something different today than what appears on the program, because the document that appears in the agenda does not extend to all Penn State students the substitution privilege that the Senate voted in last year. And so what we're saying is that, if you're in a degree program that does not require you to reach 12th credit level proficiency in a foreign language but on your own initiative you actually do that, you take a course that sends you to that level, then you can take that course, three credits of that 12 credits and apply it someplace else. But as the language today says, in the last sentence of the underlining, "only if those three credits are in language study beyond their degree requirements." If you happen to be in a degree, say you happen to be an Italian major but on your own independent of that degree program you then choose to take three courses in Russian, then you can take that third course in Russian and use that to substitute for some other course. And by coming up with this procedure, we've figured out a way of extending then to all Penn State students the privilege that the special committee had in mind last year. Now the predicament we're in today is that in the last 48 hours we have had to re-think this whole thing but we didn't have time to re-write the rest of it. And that's where the objections have come from, so what we would appreciate today is if we could focus on the actual recommendation, and we will take under advisement all the things that you said, and we'll bring this back to you next time.

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering: I agree to virtually every aspect that was in here broadening the international general education requirement. But the statement does not, this substitution does not, apply to credits earned elsewhere. However, we don't want to let it get out of here in that form. I'm not sure what the procedure is?

Chair Berkowitz: The committee has agreed to reconsider that and will report back to us.

Wayne R. Curtis: Whatever that means.

Chair Berkowitz: Well, it's an informational report and will not go into effect this way until they tell us it will, and I hope that will be at the next meeting. They've agreed to that, and that's what we will do. You may still make a motion under new business which would lay on the table to next month anyway. It would be ready to be voted on if it should go the way you want it, so that's just fine.

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus: I guess I just want to reiterate. I don't want Lou to make his motion. I've not heard anything against the intent of this proposal. The only opposition I've heard is the very egocentric view that Penn State's language courses are in some sense better. If you just strike the two references to Penn State, I don't think you'll have a single person here have any problem with that. Now I may be wrong, but I guess I don't see a need to take this back to committee. The chair and the vice-chair have seemed to say, "Okay, we screwed up."

Senators: Laughter.

John W. Bagby: While John and I are usually quite ready to mia culpa, we're not prepared to do it at this moment.

Kenneth Thigpen, College of the Liberal Arts: Let's not be hasty. We spent three weeks discussing this very point. There are interpretations that perhaps we don't need to consider without simply erasing this clause from the information: advanced placement tests; language that the students come with competence from childhood. These are kinds of things that are recognized as language competence within certain restricted language requirements. However, as the legislation that we voted on last year glosses, this proposal says clearly, "this is an option rather than a requirement." It allows a student--think about what it does--it allows the student to substitute any course in general education in skills, in knowledge domain, in any area where it does not totally eradicate one of the skills or knowledge domain areas by this proposal. So I think we should be very careful in making sure that, as the original legislation that we voted on declared, this would be a very small number of students who would qualify for this, that we keep this in mind as we're making proposals to change something that would have a meaning other than I think what we thought we were voting on last year, which was to open the door to students to have more flexibility but not to fulfill any requirements. This has nothing to do with requirements. It has to do with substitution of certain courses. And I think if we're careful about this, we won't rush to culminate today.

Jean Landa Pytel: On a slightly different issue here. It was my understanding that the Implementation Committee would also give us guidelines of how to implement something like this in terms of managing students' records. And I was hoping that we would be getting some guidance, if nothing else, on how a student could indicate or should indicate in the process how and if such a substitution is desired, and how that could then be translated to their degree audit? So, I would appreciate some help with that.

John W. Moore: I think then on today's agenda on page two of Appendix "D," what it says there under Item four, "General Education Implementation Committee agrees with the Special Committee that students will need to consult with an adviser about where to make any such substitution. Since certain General Education courses apply toward accreditation criteria in some programs or serve as pre- or co-requisites for other courses in General Education or in a specific major, care must be taken." That care must be taken so the student doesn't use the language to trump a required class. Then in Item five, "Substitution process. A student who has reached the 12th credit level proficiency or higher in the study of a foreign language should secure a Course Substitution Form, complete it with the assistance of an adviser, and submit it to the appropriate college dean's office." In other words, the students can substitute the course as the student substitutes any other course but it has to be done with the advice, of course I understand that it's not approval, but it has to be done with the advice of an adviser so the student doesn't make a mistake and substitute it for a course which is required someplace else. We had a meeting this summer actually with Jim Wager and assistants from the Registrar's Office, and the method as quoted here was the method that was discussed that day and is seemingly the simplest way of actually having this thing implemented.

Jean Landa Pytel: Is there going to be a sort of check-off to make sure there is no error made in terms of substituting? I just wondered about that.

John W. Moore: What we're asking is that the student consult with somebody of authority inside their college, and as Ken said our estimates so far are that there are probably going to be like 25 to 50 students a year who will qualify for this substitution. And so we're hoping that, if there is such a number, first of all there's not going to be a deluge of this. But secondly, we're hoping that the substitution process here will be well explained to academic advisers throughout the campus and people will use it properly. It's very similar to the substitution process which is now in effect for nine credits in arts, humanities and behavioral sciences and there also we have to trust the fact that they're properly used, the proper substitution takes place.

John J. Cahir: Jean was really raising a larger question about substitution in general. Under the degree audit process--which Jim Wager may want to comment about--which we recently strengthened, this body legislated the language that requires the substitutions to be entered into the degree audit and into the student's record. And when that is not done, whether it's in this context or in another context, that's a serious problem for the students and probably our biggest source of advising error. And so it's good to have a reminder not just for this but in all of the areas to be sure that the substitutions are done and entered into the ISIS data base, so that once they're made they're there for all time and part of the degree audit.

Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: John I think you weren't quite responsive to the question about foreign study. There are students who take third course-level foreign language courses during residence abroad. They receive Penn State credits. Does that count toward courses taken in Penn State? Say third semester of modern Greek in the Athens program.

John W. Moore: You're right. I'm getting an education.

Sabih I. Hayek: May I make a friendly suggestion to the committee? I don't understand why you are willing to discuss it. Why don't you take it out now, discuss it with your committee, and if you believe this should be there, bring it back as an amendment to this for next time. We know the system of keeping it there.

John W. Moore: What would happen then if we revised number two to read, "The term study means that this substitution option exists in order to encourage students to take additional foreign language study and to do so within General Education" and delete the term, "at Penn State." "This substitution option does not apply to Advanced Placement credits. Rather"--as we delete the entire next line, so the paragraph reads-- "the term study means that this substitution option exists in order to encourage students to take additional foreign language study," delete the three words 'at Penn State,' "and to do so within General Education." This substitution does not apply to Advanced Placement credits," period. Then you delete the next line down to "Rather." "Rather it refers only to the third course in foreign language or higher."

Chair Berkowitz: "Taken at Penn State," that point as well?

John W. Moore: Okay, we'll leave...

Caroline D. Eckhardt: I think I'd like to support that clarification. I think it's within the spirit of the Special Committee on General Education. I think it will save endless hassles as to whether study abroad in China on a Penn State program counts for study abroad in China, while the same place, same time on a CIEE program would not count. But also I think prevents this committee from being in a position of making a policy on transfer that would be in violation of university-wide policy on transfers that we get elsewhere.

Louis F. Geschwindner: I wonder if someone in the languages would explain what the current policy is in terms of AP credits for languages? It seems to me, because I don't know, that we are still changing university policy on transfer credit. Certainly in math if you come in with advanced placement in math, right, you get credit? And you don't have to take it over again, right? If we leave the advanced placement restriction in here, unless there's already an established policy we don't give an advanced placement in the languages, then we are changing the policy and I still have the same objections.

Jamie M. Myers: I think you're right, Lou. A question I have is this the Guide to Curricular Procedures? Isn't that that document that has all those numbers like AE-1, 2 etc.? That's not? That's a different document? So this document in curricular procedures is never a legislative item? It's always a kind of an informational thing, it's an implementation thing that's never voted on by the Senate?

Chair Berkowitz: Peter Deines should be able to answer this question.

Peter Deines: The Guide to Curricular Procedures is developed on the basis of policies that are adopted by this body. What is in this particular policy is not part of the Guide to Curricular Procedures and wasn't intended to be and will not be. The only part that will become part of the working part Guide to Curricular Procedures is the part at the very end. So if there's any changes in the policy that would have been attempted, we would have to go a different route. So, if there is or would be an attempt to make changes to the awarding of credit for certain activities, it is not something that Curricular Affairs would be involved in.

Jamie M. Myers: Then given that understanding, why don't you guys just pull this thing off the floor after you've gotten all the response that you want and come back with that type of thing. This is the meat, right?

John W. Moore: This is it right here.

Beno Weiss: I hate to point out that in fixing one thing we are damaging something else. We create confusion. At Penn State each language course carries a load of four credits so the total is 12 credits. At other institutions the typical language sequence is one, two, three and four and each course carries only three credits. So Italian III let us say at Rutgers University would be equivalent to Italian II here at Penn State.

John W. Moore: That's why we use the phrase 12th credit level of proficiency.

Beno Weiss: But in number two you...

John W. Moore: But what we're suggesting appear in the Guide to Curricular Procedures we use the phrase 12th credit level.

Beno Weiss: But since we're making a couple changes in number two, that point should be reflected.

John W. Moore: Right. Okay.

Jean Landa Pytel: Just to clarify. It's my understanding you're talking about transfer credits, that credits taken at another institution would show as a number of credits, and I think in the legislation it says to the 12th credit level. It is very clear because that's the way those credits would show up on their transcript.

Chair Berkowitz: Have we provided sufficient information and feedback?

Louis F. Geschwindner: Can I just clarify. I believe based on the striking that you did on page one that you also then intend to strike the entire first paragraph on page two.

John W. Moore: Lou, which paragraph?

Louis F. Geschwindner: Well you struck "in programs not requiring 12th credit level proficiency in a foreign language." First paragraph on page two is dealing with programs not requiring 12th credit level proficiency. So, are you striking that paragraph also?

John W. Moore: No, I don't think so. Because...

Louis F. Geschwindner: Can you give some indication as to what it refers to then?

John W. Moore: It refers to only one segment of the students who would enjoy this substitution option. Let me if I can ask you to go back to page one, way at the top of page one where we quote the legislation, "an option to substitute study in a second language at the third semester or higher levels." This is what we voted on last year. Now inside the committee we were very concerned with working on the concept of how to extend privileges to students who had studied a second language at the third-semester level. In our zeal, our concentration to achieve that, what we overlooked were the implications of the two words, "or higher." And only after Senate Council did we begin to grasp what we had overlooked there, and that then led to a series of moves to the language which we have now in the door handout, which provides the opportunity for the "or higher" that doesn't exist. So what you're reading on page one is the beginning, that which aligns the paragraphs that are causing you difficulty. They're the beginning of an analysis of this situation. As it stands it is correct, but it is only partially correct because we at that time had not fully understood how we were going to get that "or higher" phrase in.

Louis F. Geschwindner: That's not what I'm referring to.

John W. Bagby: Lou, there is a purpose for number one at the top of two. I think you have correctly recognized that in striking the words at the bottom of page one that the underlined section of paragraph number one at the top of page two, it now has less meaning. The rest of that paragraph however, is the justification statement--as I think John was trying to make the point--that in defining first, second, third courses or recognizing the difference between some universities having three credit courses versus some universities having four credit courses. We were satisfied with the use of the 12th credit level of proficiency as an indicator of where this option kicks in. But I grant you that the first sentence in one now becomes ambiguous given the deletion on the bottom of page one. But the rest of that paragraph stands and has an important purpose as a background.

Louis F. Geschwindner: But then why didn't you strike it on the first page?

John W. Bagby: Well, now that's a slightly more complicated answer.

Louis F. Geschwindner: Page two, there's a list of five definitions. Does it not--it says, "several of these terms require further explanation." And so one would assume that several of these terms would mean, we have already seen these terms on page one and now we need to explain them. Wouldn't that make sense?

Chair Berkowitz: We have now hit the hour of three-forty. This is an informational report. The purpose of our discussion is to provide comments and information. A number of changes have seemed to have satisfied a lot of these problems, but others have arisen, and I think it still makes sense as chair for me to request the General Education Implementation Committee to take all of this under advisement and to bring back a more finalized version. We do not need to implement this next month, so they can bring this back to us in a form we can look at. They can consider more carefully including the comments that were just made. So I would like us to move on, except if there are other things they need to hear in order to complete their work more fully.

Barton W. Browning, College of the Liberal Arts: One thing I think that has been implicit in the discussion by its absence, and that is the fact that we appreciate the amended form that you brought in to us here. That does recognize those programs that already require 12 credits of a foreign language, and says that we will not allow students in those programs special privileges, but they will be allowed the same privileges that all students should have of substituting three credits beyond that level for another general education requirement. And I think that's very helpful and a great improvement over the original statement. I'd like to thank the committee for that and commend them for their actions.

Helena Poch: I'd just like to know if you can respond to the early discussion about AP credits. Not all AP credits come in and substitute for something. I got three credits in English literature proficiency that do not count for anything. My minor's world literature. It didn't count for anything. That's fine. It counts as far as my total number of credits. Just because someone comes in with AP credits in foreign language doesn't mean it should necessarily substitute for the general education requirement.

Chair Berkowitz: We are completed with our discussions of Appendix "D". It is my understanding that the General Education Implementation Committee is withdrawing its report on Intercultural and International Competence Requirement. Is this correct?

John W. Bagby: That's correct.

Chair Berkowitz: So we expect to see that sometime in the near future. Thank you very much. We now move to Undergraduate Education and the Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location. Steve Arnold is here to answer any questions anybody has, and the danger we have is nobody is going to have any questions and you'll have walked all the way down here with no other purpose except to get some exercise.


Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

Arthur C. Miller, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Steven F. Arnold, Eberly College of Science: This is Appendix "F," I guess, and the thing I would note about it is it seems just about like it was last year. I don't think much has changed. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Oh, we got one good--first time ever!

Thomas N. Jackson, College of Engineering: I understand that a portion of the withdrawals could immediately be re-enrolled, that it's used as a way to bypass the drop/add restrictions. Is it possible in future reports to indicate which numbers of withdrawals are followed by immediate re-enrollments?

Steven F. Arnold: If I may say, this is not talking about that sort of withdrawals at all. These are people who retroactively withdraw. They wait a semester and they say, "Oh gosh I wish I could have withdrawn from that a semester ago." So we're not talking about the people who are withdrawing at the end of a semester. They don't even petition.

Thomas N. Jackson: That's not here?

Steven F. Arnold: That's not here at all. Those people just do it, and I mean this is something we do want to take up at some point as to whether we can get some limitation on the number of withdrawals people can have. But that's not these people at all. It's a completely different set of people.

Chair Berkowitz: Any other questions? Thank you very much. We have two reports from University Planning. The first is our annual report on the budget.


Budget for 1998-99, Process and Outcome, Budget Planning for 1999-2000

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Shelton S. Alexander: Each year we ask John Brighton to come and tell us about key points about this year's budget, and especially also to highlight some of the priorities in the current thinking about next year's budget. So he's here to do that today, and so I'll turn it over to John.

John A. Brighton, Executive Vice President/Provost: Thank you, Shelton. I thought the Senate Officers were leaving there for a minute, but...

Senators: Laughter.

John A. Brighton: I really appreciate the opportunity to give you a summary of the budget for this year and a little bit of what we're proposing for next year, and I appreciate the people who have remained to hear it. You're not going to get all of the details because we're talking about how we get and spend the $1.5 billion which make up the budget for the year. What I'm going to do is to review the highlights of the 1998-99 budget, and I'm also going to share some information about the university's budget plan and appropriation request to the Pennsylvania Department of Education for 1999-2000. This year's budget includes the largest increase in four years in the university's state appropriation, an increase of 3.25 percent, and while the increase in state support is not at the level that we had requested--and it never is--it does give us some new opportunities for this academic year. The budget for 1998-99 provides for implementation of the new general education curriculum. It adds new faculty positions and it funds new interdisciplinary program initiatives. It enhances information technology with a special focus on student access, and it continues the President's Excellence Fund established last year to provide support for each unit's highest priorities. It expands and enhances student activities, and the budget continues the approach of internal budget reductions and reallocations that has been in place for several years, and it helps to concentrate our resources on academic priorities and the university's most critical needs.

The state appropriation for this fiscal year is $299.1 million. The increase from last year's appropriation is $9.4 million or, as I said, 3.25 percent. The university's total budget is just under $1.5 billion and this includes general funds from our state appropriation as well as income from tuition and fees, contract and grant funds, other restricted funds and all of the auxiliary enterprises. The general funds budget is crucial because it supports most of the university's teaching, research and service activities as well as the academic and administrative support functions and the maintenance of the physical plant. General funds income is primarily made up of our state appropriation and tuition and fees. This year tuition and fees make up 59 percent of the general funds budget and the state appropriation represents 34 percent. And I think, as most of you know who have watched budget changes in the past several years, the relative percentages here have done a flip flop over the past eight or ten years. The other category of seven percent includes income from investments, recovery of indirect costs on grants and contracts and departmental sales and services. This slide summarizes the allocation increases to various categories in the educational and general component of the general funds budget. The largest category is $15.6 million which is budgeted for salary increases and related benefits. The next largest category is $15.2 million which is for program adjustments or the money that goes into all of the academic and non-academic units. These are funds that are used for program needs in the 32 budgetary units and I'm going to discuss program adjustments more fully in the next few slides. The University Planning Council, which I chair, recommends distribution of the funds for the program adjustments based on the strategic planning process. We are in the second year of a five year strategic planning process for the years 1997 to 2000. This year budgetary units completed brief strategic planning updates to refine their goals and then to identify the resources necessary to meet their second year initiatives. Based on review of the strategic plans, 66 percent of the $15 million for program adjustments is planned for the university's academic colleges and campuses. This shows the importance placed on supporting the university core academic functions in hiring new faculty. In fact, through internal budget reallocations and the proposed new funding for academic programs, the university plans to add approximately 105 new faculty positions during the academic year. Twenty-four percent of the $15 million for program adjustments is used for libraries and information technology and 10 percent is allocated for other support units. I think it's pretty significant that a significant amount of the funding each year goes into the library and technology, both of which costs are increasing considerably faster than the cost of inflation. Here's another way to look at the breakdown of the $15 million allocation for program adjustments. It is made up of two parts--first, in the cost-center budget model, all campuses were asked to reallocate internal resources to areas of greatest need. At University Park the amount that was reallocated is $3.1 million. That is, we've asked every unit within University Park to give up a certain amount in order to create this fund. And, second, a group of allocations have been made in the four categories of colleges and campuses, libraries and information technology, the President's Excellence Fund and other program adjustments, and I want to talk about each of these categories. The $9.6 million allocated for program adjustments at the colleges and campuses can be further divided into four main elements. $2.5 million has been allocated for meeting the new general education requirements and for new faculty positions. The general education requirements, as you recall, were passed by the Senate last December following one and one-half years of study, and $1 million has been allocated as the third year in a five-year plan to add faculty positions and enhance academic programs in the life sciences consortium. An additional $1 million has been allocated for new academic program initiatives, which I will also explain in a minute. The remainder of the funds--$5.1 million-- will be used for additional faculty positions and other high-priority academic needs in the colleges at University Park and other campus locations. Libraries and information technology, as I mentioned earlier, are certainly critical areas that support every part of the university and community. We have $2.55 million that have been allocated to address student needs in computing and information technology. Funds will be used to expand student access to computing resources, improve microcomputer laboratories and provide the latest high speed modem connections. Funds will also be available to university libraries for life-cycle funding for equipment replacement and for licenses to electronic publications and databases used by students. $1.2 million will be used for other high-priority library and information technology needs, for example, support of library acquisitions and for operation of technology classrooms. The President's Excellence Fund, started last year, provides additional support for whatever are decided are the highest- priority needs within each college and administrative area. Use of this fund is determined by the units. A total of $3 million has been allocated for this year. The remaining program adjustments include $1 million each for major maintenance, for facilities and for support unit needs. Penn State's back log of major maintenance projects is estimated at over $180 million and we've increased the funding in this area by 27 percent over the past three years. Through the strategic planning process we've identified four interdisciplinary areas of growing importance at Penn State and to our students. The four areas are: information sciences and technology; children, youth and families; materials science; and environmental studies. Start-up funding in the amount of $1 million has been allocated in this year's budget for these particular programs. Information Sciences and Technology is moving ahead rapidly after being approved as a new school by the Board of Trustees in September, and, just to mention, George McMurtry has returned from retirement to lead the planning effort. An implementation committee chaired by Jim Thomas from the College of Business is developing a baccalaureate curriculum and another committee chaired by Joe Lambert from Computer Science and Engineering is developing an associate degree curriculum. All of these activities are going on at one time as this new school emerges. I'd just mention that these last two committees are coordinating their efforts in trying to provide articulation, which is pretty important here between the associate and the baccalaureate degrees in this new area. In addition there's a faculty recruiting committee co-chaired by Joe Lambert and Ed Reutzel from Management Science, which is hard at work, and other committees and subcommittees are working on space issues and linkages with industry and seeking funding sources. Children, youth and families appears to be an excellent match for Penn State expertise across several colleges and campuses. Four working groups have identified priority topics that represent critical areas for the next decade. A conference was held in October to introduce Penn State faculty and staff to this consortium to announce the first request for proposals to be funded and to provide a forum for networking among faculty in this area. The consortium is searching at this point for a director this year. In the area of materials science a committee chaired by Carlo Pantano developed a comprehensive report which includes strategic initiatives to stimulate new research within the materials-related disciplines. A task force is working on the topic of environmental studies, the fourth proposed academic program initiative and another area of strength at Penn State. We've held the basic tuition rate increase this year to 3.7 percent for the second year, and we've incorporated the second year of the phased differential tuition plan. Under this plan upper-division students and graduate students pay a small amount of differential more than the lower-division students at all Penn State locations. There was a 3.7 percent inflationary increase in laboratory and clinical surcharges, and we implemented the second phase of surcharges approved last year for students in science and in nursing. A surcharge was added for inter-college graduate programs in acoustics, bioengineering and quality manufacturing management. There also have been increases in the four other student fees: the information technology fee, the student activities fee and the application and enrollment fees. So, to summarize, with the budget for 1998-99 we're adding new faculty positions, we're funding new interdisciplinary academic programs and we're enhancing information technology. We're implementing the new general education requirements. We are moving resources to areas identified as important in the strategic planning process. So, that completes the report for 1998-99, and I'll move now to the university's budget request to the Commonwealth for 1999-2000.

For the next budget year I will show you the frame work for the university's budget plan and the appropriations request that was submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education last month. The highlights of our planning for the next year include continuation of internal budget reductions and reallocations. I think this is at least the fifth or sixth year in a row that we've had such reductions/reallocations to create additional funds--funding for salary adjustments, funding for program needs, a tuition increase, a basic four percent appropriation increase for each of our line items and a request for special appropriations in key areas. Information Sciences and Technology, work-force development and agricultural research and cooperative extension are other areas. We plan to provide $1 million for the life sciences in the fourth year of our five year funding commitment. The children, youth and families initiative is gaining momentum, and we wish to provide $500,000 of funding for the next year, and we would like to provide $400,000 each to the other two areas of materials science and environmental studies. There are three key areas for which we are seeking special programming from the state. We've made a special funding request for $4.5 million to launch the new School of Information Sciences and Technology. Funds will be used for hiring new faculty, for start-up costs such as computer labs and equipment, and this initiative will result in more graduates with strong information technology skills and will support the governor's goal of attracting high technology companies to Pennsylvania. We've also made a special funding request of $3 million for work-force development, and Penn State is the largest provider in Pennsylvania of professional, baccalaureate and associate degree graduates in technical areas. We plan to extend these programs across our campuses and also to capitalize on the opportunities for increased collaboration between Penn College and the university's other locations. And the third special appropriations requests is for catch-up funding for agricultural research and cooperative extension to restore the cuts that occurred between 1990 and 1996, and we've requested a $2.5 million increase beyond the basic increase of those two line items. This is going to take us about half way to catching up, and we plan to make similar requests in the following years. We are planning ahead to ensure that Penn State will always have quality academic facilities to support our academic programs, and we recognize that the state capital funds already approved for the next five years will not be sufficient to meet the university's needs. And as a result our budget plan for 1999-2000 includes the establishment of an ongoing general funds budget to support the capital improvement program. We plan to allocate $2.2 million per year for the next five years funded from a small portion of the tuition increase. This fund will allow the university to incur additional debt for capital construction projects as well as to provide for the associated operating expenses for facilities built from these funds. To summarize Penn State's appropriation request for next year, we are asking for a four percent basic increase in each of our line items, or $11.8 million. We're seeking a total of $10 million for special program funding in three key areas: $4.5 million for the School of Information Sciences and Technology, $3 million for work-force development, $2.5 million in catch-up funding for agricultural research and cooperative extension, and we've requested a total increase of $21.9 million. The total proposed state appropriation for Penn State for 1999-2000 is $321 million. All of our budget plans result from the strategic planning process as guided by the vision for Penn State's future and our goal of achieving the highest levels of academic excellence. So, that concludes my report. I'd be happy to answer questions.

Chair Berkowitz: Are there any questions for the Provost?

Emily K. Freeman: Do you foresee an increase in the student activity fee and student computer fee?

John A. Brighton: In the student activity fee, I think there is a small increase in the student activity fee that's perceived here, yes.

Emily K. Freeman: Do you expect it to increase continually as it has been, or do you expect it to cap?

John A. Brighton: The thing that we are heading toward, I think, in most fees--as we are in the basic tuition--is probably something like an annual increase of an inflationary level for any of these. The cost in all of these areas typically would at least match the typical inflation, and we would expect--rather than to have no increases for several years and then a large jump--that we would prefer to have the small inflationary increases.

Helena Poch: Do you also foresee an increase in the surcharges? Do you expect them to be increasing? I know Nursing has an increase up to $750 in the next couple years. Do you foresee it going up after that, or do you see that as the highest amount that it's going to increase too?

John A. Brighton: My inclination is that we're not increasing those differentials on the same percentage basis. But we would increase the overall tuition increase as an inflationary amount, or something close to an inflationary amount, on an annual basis.

Chair Berkowitz: Any other questions for the Provost? Thank you very much. We will now move to our last informational report of today from University Planning, Status of Construction Projects. Shel Alexander is here to present that report.

Status of Construction Projects

Shelton S. Alexander, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Shelton S. Alexander: Okay, those of you stuck here to the bitter end, Appendix "G" contains the construction report, one of two mandated reports for our committee each year, one in the fall and one in the spring. Bill Anderson has provided gory details which are presented here, and unfortunately he wasn't able to attend this afternoon. But I think that the detail here gives you maybe more than you want to know about the construction. As you know, it's a very ambitious program of construction which is on the books, totally, for about half a billion dollars, and many, many projects are underway or planned or in some stage of activity right now, and this gives you a glimpse of what those are. With that, I'll open it up to any comments. I have to defer specific questions to Bill, and I can get you the answers. I doubt that I know them myself.

Chair Berkowitz: Anything for Shel? I see nothing. Thank you very much. This concludes all scheduled reports for the Senate meeting and we now move to new legislative business. Lou Geschwindner.


Louis F. Geschwindner: Since the General Education Implementation Committee did not agree to withdraw their report for reconsideration but left it on the floor, we have no assurances that in fact they will address the concerns that were raised. Therefore, I move that the informational report, Appendix "D" for the October 27, 1998 University Faculty Senate meeting be withdrawn, since the General Education Implementation Committee has gone beyond their authority in altering policy at the university on the acceptance and use of transfer credits.

Chair Berkowitz: Is there a second to the motion?

Senators: Second.

Chair Berkowitz: There is a second. This motion, as any new legislative business, will sit on the table until next month and then it will become old legislative business and be taken up at that point.

Gregory K. Farber, Eberly College of Science: I also have a motion to offer as new legislative business. I want to thank the people in the Senate Office for getting this out to you as a door handout. It concerns the domestic partner health care benefits, and I'll read it for the record. I should read it in the record?

Chair Berkowitz: It's not necessary since it's a door handout we have it on record. Is there a second to this motion?

Senators: Second.

Chair Berkowitz: There is a second. This too will sit on the table until next month and it will also be an item for old business. I think I've been in the Senate for some 22 years, and I happen to know that we went many a year without any new business and here we are in one meeting with two items of new business. What? Sabih.

Sabih I. Hayek: I hate to write legislation on the floor. This is not the place for this at this time, but shouldn't this have gone to Faculty Benefits and also been reviewed by University Planning?

Chair Berkowitz: This report was referred to Faculty Benefits. They have it on their agenda, and discussion along those lines can proceed both between meetings and on the floor here as we discuss this motion next month. But certainly any Senator has the right to make a motion on his or her own, and that's what has occurred. Thank you for not making a third motion. Is there any other new legislative business?




May I have a motion to adjourn? The October 27, 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:09 PM.


Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of October 13, 1998

Faculty Affairs - Proposed Revision of HR-40: Evaluation of Faculty Performance (Advisory/Consultative)

Undergraduate Education/University Planning - Fall Semester Academic Calendar Changes (Advisory/Consultative)

General Education Implementation Committee - Second Language Report (Recommendation #8) (Informational)

General Education - Intercultural and International Competence Requirement (Recommendation #7) (Informational)

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

University Planning - Status of Construction Projects (Informational)


Suggestions for Modifying the Guide to Curricular Procedures

Taking these understandings into account, the General Education Implementation Committee suggests that the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs amend page 24 of the Guide to Curricular Procedures to read as follows:




Fall Semester Academic Calendar Changes

(Advisory and Consultative Report)


It is recommended that commencing with the Fall 1999 semester, the following changes be implemented:

1. Start classes on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.

2. Schedule two class-free days on Monday and Tuesday in mid-October; all other operations of the University would continue as usual.

3. Commence the Thanksgiving break at 2:15 P.M. on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

4. Retain the present schedule of two study days (Saturday and Sunday) before a five-day final exam period.

5. Schedule Commencement ceremonies on Saturday at the end of finals week.

6. Schedule no formal makeup for the net loss of one day of Monday classes occasioned by the two class-free days in October.

7. Consistent with current policy, modest exceptions to the academic calendar can be made at non-University Park locations by the Chief Academic Officer of the Unit, with the approval of the President.




Domestic Partner Health Care Benefits

In the past five years, a number of academic institutions have offered domestic partner benefits to their employees. Over that same period of time, Penn State has adjusted, as allowed by law, all of its policies and procedures for an inclusive benefits program - with the exception of the extension of medical benefits to same sex domestic partners.

A review of trends in the business, government, and higher education communities indicates that the extension of medical benefits to same sex domestic partners is more typical now (see the July, 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits). The costs involved in extending these benefits are minimal when viewed within the total cost of the benefits program. In addition, there is some evidence that Penn State is now placed at a competitive disadvantage in its efforts to attract and retain high-quality faculty, staff, and students without health benefits for same sex domestic partners.

Therefore, the Senate recommends that the University modifies its current policies and extend medical, dental, and vision benefits to same sex domestic partners.



Modification of Policy HR-40: Annual Evaluation of Faculty Performance

(Advisory and Consultative)



At the April 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate, there was a forensic discussion about faculty undergoing post-tenure reviews in addition to the annual reviews described in HR-40. In response to comments made during that discussion, it was decided to discard that approach. This new proposal recommends that an extended review be made a part of HR-40. It should be a constructive review, that is, one which would look at what the faculty member had done as well as his/her future goals. Guidelines for the reviews will be established with "the participation of the unit’s faculty by each college or school, which may in turn ask for more precise guidelines from departments or other similar units, while keeping oversight responsibility."

Reasons for including the extended review as part of HR-40 include: 1) the need to achieve faculty development and when desirable to promote different career emphases over time, and 2) the desire to constantly improve program quality and the learning environment of students.


The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends that Policy HR-40 be modified as indicated below.







Responsibility for Conducting Review


Scope of Review


To provide for an evaluation of the performance of each member of the faculty at least once each year.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR the faculty performance evaluation review RESTS WITH THE department/division heads or school directors and OR, where appropriate, campus executive officers and campus directors of academic affairs. Evaluations are conducted COORDINATED by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member’s teaching ACADEMIC assignment, with input from the department OR DIVISION head of the disciplinary unit. if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member’s place of assignment.


Critical review is a natural element of a productive academic career. A faculty member's work is reviewed regularly in many different ways. Teaching is evaluated by peers and students; proposals for funding are evaluated by individual reviewers or panels of specialists; papers and books submitted for publication are reviewed by authorities in the field; published books are reviewed by other scholars; a faculty member's contributions in teaching, research and scholarship, and service are carefully scrutinized when the individual is considered for hiring or promotion.

In addition, the annual performance review is not only necessary for the process of determining merit salary increases; it also provides an occasion for self-evaluation and reassessment of the role a faculty member is playing, which may evolve significantly during the course of a career. It is an opportunity to acknowledge and recognize good work, point out areas for improvement, and, in a few cases, identify productive new uses of a faculty member's talents. It is a means of ensuring that the diverse talents of the entire faculty are productively applied to the many responsibilities of the University. In addition, performance reviews can help identify resource targets—places where additional resources could re-energize a faculty member whose energy or morale has run low or could lift an already productive member to new levels of achievement.


All faculty must be reviewed annually by the appropriate administrative officer. Each review should include the faculty member's written annual report and evidence of teaching effectiveness, and may involve thorough one-on-one discussions with the administrative officer of the faculty member's teaching, research, service, future plans, assignments, and salary.

The evaluations are made by using elements listed in HR-21, Definitions of Academic Rank, and HR-23, Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations, and are conducted in accordance with procedures developed independently within each college. Each faculty member's evaluation is related to his or her area of assignment and responsibility, with maximum weight given to the area of major emphasis in the individual's assignment. Disciplinary heads or comparable administrative officers will provide written documentation to the faculty member of the results of these reviews.

To be most effective, the review must, at least periodically (e.g., 5 years), not only deal with the previous year's performance, but also take a longer range view., one that is consistent with the relevant cycle of academic performance and change. General guidelines for such reviews, consistent with this policy statement, must be established with the participation of the unit's faculty by each college or school--which may in turn ask for more precise guidelines from departments or other similar units, while keeping the responsibility of oversight.

In the event that improvements in performance are necessary, the faculty member and his or her administrative officer should work on an appropriate response, the implementation of which should be monitored by the administrative officer.

Finally, a clear link must be established between the performance review and faculty rewards.

Responsibility for overseeing the implementation of HR-40 rests with the Executive Vice President and Provost.

Louis Milakofsky, Chair
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner
Syed Saad Andeleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Veronica VannHala Burns
Wayne R. Curtis
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair



Fall Semester Academic Calendar Changes

(Advisory and Consultative Report)


The following excerpt from an informational report to Senate Council in July 1998 by the Ad Hoc Calendar Committee summarizes the basis for considering several changes in the fall semester academic calendar.

"For the last year, an ad hoc committee has studied the calendar to see if there was sentiment for changes. Participants have been Desha Girod (President of Academic Assembly), Shelton Alexander (Chair of the Planning Committee), Gene Melander, John Romano, Ingrid Blood, Eric White, Jim Wager, Robert Secor and John Cahir, chair. The committee did considerable benchmarking and interviewed faculty and others about whether the calendar was inhibiting the faculty, especially in this information age. Three discussions were held with the Senate Committee on University Planning and others with the students on four topics: (1) how to handle the Thanksgiving Break in a safe and reasonable way that preserves academic value; (2) a student proposal for a Fall Break; (3) ending the practice of holding Fall Commencement on a Sunday; and (4) getting a better use of the Summer term, at least at University Park.

To summarize, compared to other semester calendars, Penn State is very much in the mainstream. Most start about when we do, most complete the spring about when we do, most have a study day or two, most have a finals period similar to ours. Within the Big Ten, of the eight semester schools, Penn State holds classes for the most minutes of all in the fall and is tied for the top in the spring with Purdue mainly because most of the rest do not run strictly symmetric calendars, with fall being shorter. Within the Big Ten, Purdue offers a Fall Break and we understand that Michigan State is seriously considering one; however, outside the Big Ten, it is not uncommon. There is considerable interest in experimental or non-typical schedules within any given calendar, and we learned that the Registrar supports that approach. In fact, the conclusion is that Penn State already has the policies in place but needs to make the faculty more aware of those possibilities.

The Committee supported the student request for a Fall Break, of two days' duration, always on Monday and Tuesday of the eighth week of the semester. This would not be a University holiday, but no classes will be scheduled. Among the reasons for supporting this well-researched and well-supported proposal are that national data collected by Alexander Astin record sharply increased reports of stress by students since the late 60s and numerous complaints to us from students this last fall about stress. Further, we do give a Spring Break.

The Senate Committee on University Planning's (De Jong) report on the Thanksgiving Wednesday experiment of closing at noon was not encouraging; many classes were not held on Wednesday morning. The President suggested an end of classes at 2:15 PM with the idea that the bulk of the classes have met by then. According to the Scheduling Office, about 70 percent of classes are completed by that time, but there would still be time for Pennsylvania students to be home for dinner that evening.

One of the two days for the Fall Break can be rescheduled by starting one day earlier in the fall. A concern about the scheduling of Encampment was unfounded. There was considerable opposition to starting on Monday, however, since the University Park Arrival Day would have to be on a weekday, and that would be a parking and traffic nightmare. Accordingly, this schedule is one day short of our past practice, but even with the loss of that day, we continue to be in first place in the Big Ten (tied with one school) for the most minutes taught. We also believe that the 2:15 PM closing on Thanksgiving Wednesday can recover much of a day that has not been well used. Two consecutive six-week sessions, beginning right after Spring Commencements, will be offered in the summer. Departments can schedule 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12-week courses, and if they wish to offer a four-week intersession course, they can, but it would start a week later than now. New freshmen would continue to report for the six-week session beginning in late June.

Finally, there is a strong agreement that the Fall Commencement should always be on Saturday, not Sunday. Strictly, our finals period now is 5 and 1/2 days, and we can continue that by using Saturday morning, but the Registrar reports that little use is made of the sixth day, so we can schedule all finals on M-F and hold Commencement on Saturday, uncomplicated by morning finals.

While this is keyed to University Park, the policy is that the campus colleges follow the broad outlines of the University calendar, with modest adjustments for local needs. Summer offerings at campuses would seem to fall in that area, as do small differences in arrival days, commencements, and the like.

We have not had an official five-year calendar for over a year, and many people who schedule things, both within the University and in our communities, have been concerned. When we consulted with the President, he judged that we should go ahead and publish a five-year calendar which shows the changes discussed above.

The Committee is desirous of continuing discussion on flexible scheduling to accommodate new approaches to teaching and learning, including collaborative group work, asynchronous courses, use of information technology, different types of presentations, the need for feedback at the end of courses, and the desirability of differently-packaged courses, say for seven or eight weeks, and so on, especially for off-campus work."

At their respective committee meetings on September 15, 1998, the Undergraduate Education and University Planning Committees considered possible changes in the Fall semester calendar. Both reached consensus on the recommendation that is stated below as our joint recommendation to the Senate.

It should be noted that the University Planning Committee will continue to address calendar issues and the need for added flexibility in the delivery of courses that are prompted by new technological advances, the World Campus initiative, and evolving learning paradigms.


It is recommended that commencing with the Fall 1999 semester, the following changes be implemented:

1. Start classes on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.

2. Schedule two class-free days on Monday and Tuesday in mid-October; all other operations of the University would continue as usual.

3. Commence the Thanksgiving break at 2:15 P.M. on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

4. Retain the present schedule of two study days (Saturday and Sunday) before a five-day final exam period.

5. Schedule Commencement ceremonies on Saturday at the end of finals week.

6. Schedule no formal makeup for the net loss of one day of Monday classes occasioned by the two class-free days in October.

7. Consistent with current policy, modest exceptions to the academic calendar can be made at non-University Park locations by the Chief Academic Officer of the Unit, with the approval of the President.

8. On the Wednesday after Fall Break the students will follow a Monday schedule. The Fall calendar will dispense with the "make-up" of Labor Day Monday during Wednesday of the last week of the semester.


The committees concur with the arguments for these recommended changes put forward by the Ad Hoc Calendar Committee, which has studied the issues and alternatives for more than a year. The major change recommended, the introduction of two class-free days in October, was initiated by a petition signed by a large number of students during the Spring 1998 semester requesting this Fall semester calendar change. The Administration, the Ad Hoc Committee and our joint committees were impressed by the arguments made by the students and the background research they did to support their petition (see attachment for a summary). The net effect of the recommended calendar changes would be that there would be no formal makeup scheduled for the Monday classes that would not meet on the class-free Monday in October. Inasmuch as Penn State has more class contact time in its courses than all other Big Ten institutions except Purdue, one less class period in the subset of courses affected would still keep total class contact time within the Big Ten norm. Although no formal makeup day would be scheduled, faculty members individually could arrange to make up the Monday class in whatever manner they choose. Recessing at 2:15 PM rather than 12:05 PM on Wednesday before Thanksgiving has the advantage that approximately 70 per cent of Wednesday classes would meet, decreasing the motivation for students to skip all of their Wednesday classes and leave on Tuesday while allowing sufficient time for a majority of students to reach their homes during daylight hours.


1. USG Petition: Fall Break Proposal

2. Council of Commonwealth Student Governments’ Class-Free Break Proposal

Steven F. Arnold, Vice-Chair
James G. Brasseur
George J. Bugyi
John J. Cahir
Dennis D. Calvin
Santa Casciani
Joseph Cecere
James P. Crawford
Terry Engelder
Thomas A. Frank
M. Margaret Galligan
Gary L. Hile
William C. Lasher
Janet A. May
Kenneth P. McGraw
Arthur C. Miller, Chair
David J. Myers
Deanna Puryear
Eric R. White
Robert Zelis
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta
Gordon F. De Jong, Vice-Chair
William M. Frank
Kevin Gleeson
Rodney Kirsch
Larry J. Kuhns
Philip Masters
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Rajen Mookerjee
Richard C. Pees
Deborah Preston
Robert D. Richards
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Donald Schneider
John Swisher
Jeffrey R. Tranell
Linda K. Trevino
Richard A. Wilson
R. P. Withington


General Education Implementation Committee

Second Language Report (Recommendation #8)



In December 1997 the University Faculty Senate adopted Recommendation #8 of the Report of' the Special Committee on General Education:

"an option to substitute study in a second language at the third semester or higher levels for any three credits in the general education curriculum" (p. iv).

The purpose of this recommendation is to provide within General Education a way of encouraging students to further their knowledge of a second language without establishing a specific university-wide second language requirement. Such encouragement supports the international dimension within General Education and fosters a greater awareness of globalization. The legislation allows students who have completed 12 credits of introductory second language instruction, and who thus can be said to have reached 12th credit level proficiency, to substitute three of those course credits taken at Penn State for any other three credits of General Education requirements. Substitution of another sort is already permitted within General Education. Students who wish to take an additional course in Arts, Humanities, and Social and Behavioral Sciences may substitute that third course for a course in one of the other two areas. The General Education Implementation Committee approves of such substitutions, but it wants to make sure that students take at least one course in each General Education area. For that reason, it stipulates that substitutions may not eliminate an entire area of General Education.

The committee is also sensitive to the fact that some degree, college, or major programs have specific course requirements within General Education which this substitution policy may not eliminate.

Considerations of the General Education Implementation Committee

The General Education Implementation Committee has carefully considered Recommendation #8, and for purposes of guiding implementation it understands the recommendation in the following fashion:

Baccalaureate degree candidates may substitute three credits in foreign/second language study at the 12th credit level proficiency or higher for three credits in any of the categories of General Education. This substitution may not lead to the complete elimination of any area within the Skills or Knowledge Domains categories in the student's General Education program.

Several of these terms require further explanation.

1. Baccalaureate degree candidates in programs not requiring 12th credit level proficiency in a foreign language. The committee has adopted this phrasing for the following reasons. Since some degree programs require students to reach the 12th credit level proficiency in foreign language study as part of their degree program, permission to substitute credits taken within such a degree program for 3 credits of General Education would automatically reduce the General Education requirement for those students from 45 to 42 credits, which is not the intent of this legislation. Rather this legislation seeks to encourage additional foreign language study and not to weaken General Education by allowing students to take a reduced number of credits. Such a policy would lead to an unacceptably weakened General Education program for those students. For that reason, the substitution option may not apply to degree programs which already require 12th credit level proficiency.

2. The term study means that this substitution option exists in order to encourage students to take additional foreign language study at Penn State and to do so within General Education. This substitution option does not, therefore, apply to Advanced Placement (AP) credits or to credits earned elsewhere nor does it allow students to test out of a foreign language. Rather, it refers only to the third course in foreign language or higher taken at Penn State, e.g., French 003, Japanese 003, or Swahili 003, and it allows a student to substitute that third course, e.g., Arabic 003, German 003, or Russian 003 for some other General Education requirement, just as we currently encourage General Education students to develop strength in either the Arts, Humanities, or Social and Behavioral Sciences by allowing them to substitute 3 credits from one of the other two areas not in their major field of study.

3. 12th credit level proficiency. Penn State introductory foreign language courses are typically four-credit courses. A student completes the sequence when he or she successfully passes the third course and thus achieves 12th credit level proficiency. Although the third course earns four credits, the student may apply only three credits toward another General Education requirement.

4. Any three credits. The General Education Implementation Committee agrees with the Special Committee that students will need to consult with an adviser about where to make any such substitution. Since certain General Education courses apply toward accreditation criteria in some programs or serve as pre- or co-requisites for other courses in General Education or in a specific major, care must be taken.

Since one of the purposes of General Education is to involve each student in a wide range of academic disciplines, this substitution option, alone or in combination with the substitution option mentioned on page 1, may not lead to the complete elimination of any area within the Skills or Knowledge Domains categories of the General Education program.

5. Substitution process. A student who has reached the 12th credit level proficiency or higher in the study of a foreign language should secure a Course Substitution Form, complete it with the assistance of an adviser, and submit it to the appropriate college dean's office.

Suggestions for Modifying the Guide to Curricular Procedures

Taking these understandings into account, the General Education Implementation Committee suggests that the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs amend page 24 of the Guide to Curricular Procedures to read as follows:

A student may, in consultation with the adviser and the approval of the student's college dean, develop a sequence of 9 credits in either the Arts, Humanities, or Social and Behavioral Sciences by substituting 3 credits from one of the other two areas not in the student's major field of study.


General Education Implementation Committee
Frank Ahern
John Bagby, Chair
Ingrid Blood
George Bugyi
Peter Deines
Donald Fahnline
Gary Fosmire
Scott Kretchmar
John Moore, Vice Chair
Dennis Scanlon
James Smith
Kenneth Thigpen


Abendroth, Thomas W.
Abromson, Henry
Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Anderson, Albert A.
Arnold, Steven F.
Askari, Morad
Bagby, John W.
Bakis, Charles E.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Belzner, Jennifer A.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blumberg, Melvin
Book, Patricia A.
Brannon, S. Diane
Brasseur, James G.
Brenneman, Scott S.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brighton, John A.
Browning, Barton W.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Burns, Veronica
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Campbell, J. Louis III
Cardella, John F.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Chirico, JoAnne
Clariana, Roy B.
Conrad, Cristin
Coraor, Lee D.
Crawford, James P.
Daubert, Thomas E.
Davis, Dwight
de Hart, Gretchen Kline
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
Dempsey, Richard F.
De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn E.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Engel, Renata S.
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Farber, Gregory K.
Ferriss, John A.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Freeman, Emily K.
Friend, Linda C.
Frost, Tracy A.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Haner, William E.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harmonosky, Catherine M.
Harrison, Terry P.
Harwood, John T.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hill, Charles W.
Holt, Frieda M.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Kristine, Frank J.
Kunze, Donald E.
LaPorte, Robert
Lasher, William C.
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M.
Limric, Sean C.
Lippert, John R.
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Lyday, Margaret M.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, Louisa J.
May, Janet A.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald
McGraw, Kenneth P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Minard, Robert D.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Murphy, Lucia Rohrer
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Oz, Effy
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Patterson, Henry O.
Peavler, Terry J.
Pees, Richard C.
Phillips, Allen T.
Phillips, Jonathan
Poch, Helena
Power, Barbara L.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Ricketts, Robert D.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor
Scaroni, Alan W.
Schneider, Donald P.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Brady P.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Stoffels, Shelly M.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Strauss, Charles H.
Stuart, Jessica L.
Sutton, Jane S.
Testa, Donna M.
Thigpen, Kenneth A.
Tranell, Jeffrey R.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Vickers, Anita M.
Wager, J. James
Wanner, Adrian J.
Weiss, Beno
White, Eric R.
Wilson, Richard A.
Withington, Robert P.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Zavodni, John J.
Ziegenfus, Ted
Ziegler, Gregory R.

Bugyi, George J.
Cunning, Tineke J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

155Total Elected
4Total Ex Officio
8Total Appointed
167Total Attending

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

Curricular Affairs - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of November 24, 1998

Faculty Benefits – Voluntary Phased Retirement Program -- First Year Report (Informational)

General Education Implementation Committee - Foreign/Second Language Report (Recommendation #8) (Informational)

Research - Report on Graduate Education (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Grade Distribution Report (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Mid-Semester Evaluation Report (Informational)

Motion by Louis F. Geschwindner, Senator, College of Engineering -General Education Report on Second Language Report (Recommendation #8) (Legislative)

Motion by Gregory Farber, Senator, Eberly College of Science - Domestic Partner Health Care Benefits (Legislative)