T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 36-----DECEMBER 3, 2002-----Number 3
The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2002-03.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports that have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for December 3, 2002
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to December 3, 2002
III. Tentative Agenda for January 28, 2003
FINAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 3, 2002
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the September 10 and October 22, 2002, Meeting in The Senate
Records 36:1and 2
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of November 19, 2002
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 19, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Revision of Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student
Curricular Affairs/Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -
Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study
Status of University Park Construction Projects
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Revision of Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student." This legislative report proposes the elimination of a provision allowing students who have been dropped from the University to enroll in Independent Learning courses. The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid believes there should be no differentiation in course delivery modes. (See Senate Record, page(s) 4-5 and Agenda Appendix "B.")
Curricular Affairs/Undergraduate Education - "Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor." This legislative report revises the requirements for the minor and limits a minor's credits to 18-21 and has the requirement of a grade of "C' or above for all courses in the minor. (See Senate Record, page(s) 5-6 and Agenda Appendix "C.")
Faculty Affairs - "Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study." This informational report provides data from the Faculty Exit Study 1997-98 through 2001-02, including themes and trends specific to University-wide and Unit-specific concerns, satisfaction measures, salary and benefits issues, potential areas for improvement, equity issues and personal reasons for departure. Based on feedback from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the University equity commissions, revisions have been made to the Faculty Exit questionnaire. (See Senate Record, page(s) 7-10 and Agenda Appendix "D.")
University Planning - "Status of University Park Construction Projects."
This informational report was not presented at the December 3 meeting but will
be on the Agenda for January 28, 2003. (See Senate Record, page(s) 10 and Agenda
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding. One hundred and eighty-two Senators signed the roster.
Chair Moore: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of both the September 10, 2002, and October 22, 2002, meetings, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to these documents? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Chair Moore: Opposed? The aye's have it, and the motion is carried. The minutes are accepted.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for November 19, 2002. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of November 19, 2002. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Moore: Before I make my prepared announcements, I want everybody to notice that the Martin Luther King Day poster is on a table in the rear of the room. If you did not pick one up on your way in, be sure to pick one up on your way out. This is calling our attention to events that will take place on January 15, 2003.
The third issue of the Senate Newsletter was distributed last week, and we welcome all helpful, as well as complimentary comments, in addition to suggestions for improvement.
The Senate Officers recently completed their fall visits to campus locations. We visited Hazleton, Penn College of Technology, Altoona College, Mont Alto, York, Dickinson School of Law, College of Medicine, Erie, Beaver, Shenango, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. Yesterday afternoon we met with Dean Disney to report on what we learned at the Commonwealth College campus visits. Next week we will meet with Provost Erickson to make a similar report. In January, Senate Secretary Blumberg will report our findings to the Senate. We want to thank all the campus locations for their hospitality, and we express our special gratitude to students and faculty who set aside valuable time to speak with us and to share their insights about what they liked about Penn State and about how we can do even better. Such self-analyses can lead only to good results.
In the spring we will visit five University Park colleges and three additional units at University Park-the Division of Undergraduate Studies, the Schreyer Honors College, and, for the first time, the Graduate School. Our visits go best when at least ten students and ten faculty show up to talk. Any help you can give us in reaching those numbers will be greatly appreciated. So let me thank you in advance for your help.
On January 14, 2003, the Senate Council nominating committee, chaired by Immediate Past Chair John Nichols, will meet to begin the process of nominating Senators for chair-elect and secretary and a faculty member for the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. Please send any suggestions to John Nichols or to a member of the Senate Council. We will be very grateful for your nominations.
In an effort to use technology and as a cost savings to the Senate Office, this is the last meeting for which Senate Agendas will be printed and distributed to the more than 600 people on our Senate Agenda distribution list. Senate Agendas will still be printed and distributed in hard copy form to Senators. All others will receive an email message that they should print the Agenda from the Senate web site.
Two hand-held cordless microphones will be used today instead of the shotgun microphone we have been using in recent years, and we are doing this for two reasons: 1) to assist in the transcribing of the Senate meeting, and 2) to enhance audibility during the meeting. If you have comments, please wait to be recognized by the chair, and then wait for a microphone before speaking.
May I now ask Professor George Mauner to join me at the podium.
The College of Arts and Architecture's Department of Art History has long been recognized as one of the brightest jewels in Penn State's academic crown. And one of that department's brightest lights has long been and continues to be George Mauner, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Art History and Fellow Emeritus of the Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies, whose accomplishments we acknowledge today. We do so because the government of the French Republic has officially identified him as an eminent writer who has contributed significantly to furthering the arts in France and throughout the world. In recognition of his devoted commitment to French culture in the United States, he will receive at a ceremony to be held at the French Embassy in Washington in February a medal admitting him to the rank of Officer in the Order of Arts and Letters. (L'ordre des Arts et des Lettres).
Professor Mauner's scholarly contributions to French culture began with his first book, published in 1975, entitled Manet, Peintre, Philosophe. In it, he shows how classical philosophical ideas portrayed in seventeenth-century emblem books form the basic structure in many of the most famous Manet paintings. These influences together with familiar elements from older works of art explain many details that otherwise seem puzzling or remain hidden. As Professor Mauner once observed, most of us have received little training in how to read a painting. His singular achievement has been to make the world read Manet better.
Many of you will recall that two years ago the Walters Museum in Baltimore presented an exhibit devoted to Manet's still lifes. The exhibition of paintings from museums around the world first opened in Paris only after several years of intense diplomacy on Professor Mauner's part to secure agreement from reluctant museums to contribute their treasured Manet holdings. The Paris exhibit was an international triumph with lines circling the museum. When it arrived in the United States, the New York Times devoted a full page to a discussion of the exhibit's significance. Time magazine gave it two complete pages with several vivid color photos. Still lifes had never before achieved star status. But Professor Mauner's conviction and perseverance opened the eyes of many people both here and in Europe to the rich significance of this form and to Manet's masterful achievements in it.
During his term as Director of Penn State's Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies, he organized many symposia bringing together various forms of the arts. Cocteau's World in 2000 featured the world premier of an opera whose libretto was composed in part by Cocteau. Music of the American Theatre took place in 1993. Lorenzo da Ponte in 1995 traced the unlikely career of Mozart's librettist in central Pennsylvania.
The French Ministry of Culture has credited Professor Mauner with the rediscovery of the Swiss painter Cuno Amiet. Professor Mauner is currently organizing an exhibition of the work of Alice Bailly, a member of the original cubist circle who, he believes, was probably neglected because of her gender. The exhibition will open at Penn State's Palmer Museum of Art in 2004 before moving on to the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C.
When Professor Mauner asked who had nominated him for the rank of Officier dans L'ordre des Arts et des Lettres, the Minister of Culture replied, "France nominated you." France nominated you, Professor Mauner. The University Faculty Senate applauds you. Congratulations.
George L. Mauner, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, College of Arts and Architecture: What can I say. Thank you. As an art historian I have long been aware of the fact that some great personalities among them Matisse, Picasso, Monet, Vuillard and others like them turned down honors of this kind in the belief that the government had no ability or business to make judgments in areas of creativity. Well, these are mighty big role models, so they gave me pause for a moment, and then to my relief and delight I realized I am not that big. And so I accepted it in good conscience. I thank you all.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Moore: President Spanier is serving this year as a member of the United States Department of Education Commission on Opportunities in Athletics. He is at a meeting of this commission today in Philadelphia discussing Title IX. For that reason, he sends his regrets that he is unable to be with us today.
Chair Moore: As we begin our discussion of these reports, I remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. Also, please wait for a microphone before speaking.
We have two legislative reports today. The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid will present the first legislative report. It appears as Appendix "B" in today's agenda. Chair Mark Casteel will present the report that recommends that the Senate revise Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student. Since the report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Revision of Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student
Mark A. Casteel, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Mark A. Casteel, York Campus: Thank you, John. Senate Policy 14-10 deals with conditional nondegree students. These are students who have been dropped from normal degree status due to grade point deficiencies, and, under this policy as it is currently written, they are limited to 40 credits. If, in those 40 credits, they do not abolish their grade point deficiency, they are no longer allowed to take university courses. In the original Senate Policy 14-10, however, one exception was made to this. That was Note "D," which allowed these students to take independent learning courses. The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid viewed this as a loophole and we intend to close it, and that is the purpose of this legislation.
Chair Moore: Are there any questions? Seeing none, are we ready to vote? It has been moved and seconded that the Senate approve the recommendation made by the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid that Senate Policy 14-10 should be revised by striking Note "D" from that policy. All those in favor of the recommendation, please signify by saying, "aye."
Chair Moore: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye's have it. The motion is carried. The Senate has approved the recommendation that we strike Note "D" from Senate Policy 14-10. The recommendation of the Senate will now be sent to the president for his approval. Thank you, Chair Casteel. Thanks also to all members of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid for your hard work and valuable contribution.
The second legislative report is jointly sponsored by the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. It appears as Appendix "C" in today's Agenda. The report will be presented by Laura Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, and Judy Ozment Payne, Vice-Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs. The report asks that the Senate approve their recommendation-Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor. Their suggested revision is found in the last paragraph of page three of Appendix "C." Since the report comes from two committees, it has already been moved and seconded.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: This proposal originally came from the subcommittee on minors through the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs. It was then reviewed by the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and then reviewed by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, and you can see the recommendation on page three. The main change here is to put a range of credits for a minor-18 to 21 credits. That all courses for the minor require a grade of "C" or better is something added, and also that there may be some requirements for entrance to the minor, including some additional courses, an audition, or other documentation.
Ronald L. McCarty, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College: It is not addressed in the policy, but a lot of these minors are at locations other than University Park. For example, Behrend has minors that University Park does not have, and we are often asked by students at University Park if they can do our minor substituting University Park courses for any that we have that are specifically Behrend. And I was just wondering if there is a general feeling or consensus on whether that should be allowed or not allowed? It does mention making them available across colleges, but what about locations?
Laura L. Pauley: We did not discuss that in the committee, so this does not change that guideline.
Ronald L. McCarty: So that is basically up to the location to decide.
Gary L. Catchen, College of Engineering: Does this legislation affect minors that are in place or just newly formed minors?
Judy Ozment Payne, Penn State Abington: Minors that currently exist will continue to exist as is. Any minor that comes up for changes would be subject to this policy but any minor that is in place now would remain in place as it is now.
Chair Moore: Any other questions? Are we ready to vote? It has been moved and seconded that the Senate approve the recommendation that we revise Senate Policy 59-00 requirements for the minor as stated in the final paragraph on page three of Appendix "C" in today's Agenda. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."
Chair Moore: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye's have it. The motion is carried. The Senate has approved the recommendation that we revise Senate Policy 59-00 as stated on page three of Appendix "C." The recommendation of the Senate will now be sent to the president for his approval. Thank you Chair Pauley and Vice-Chair Payne, and thanks to all members of the Senate Committees on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education for your good work.
Chair Moore: We have two informational reports. The first informational report comes to us from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, and it appears on today's Agenda as Appendix "D." It is entitled Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study. Kim Steiner, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, will introduce Mila Su, who will present the report. Senate Council has set aside ten minutes for Senators to ask questions. If we run out of time, Chair Steiner and Senator Su will be pleased to answer questions after our meeting formally adjourns.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study
Kim C. Steiner, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
Kim C. Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences: Thanks John. For about five years, the Office of the Provost has been systematically gathering the attitudes and opinions of faculty leaving the university for retirement or other reasons. The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was asked to look at this process last year. As part of our fact-finding for the assignment, we asked Mike Dooris to prepare a summary of what the university has learned from these faculty who have left over the last five years. That summary is attached to the Agenda for this meeting, and Mike Dooris, who is here, is attending because I asked him to in case there were questions that arose about those results. Our committee proposed several modifications to the exit interview process as a result of our inquiry into this, and Mila Su, Chair of the Faculty Development Subcommittee, is here to present that report. I should say that this process began last year, and actually the bulk of the work was done by this subcommittee under the leadership of Sallie McCorkle. I do not know if Sallie is here or not; I suspect she is. So it has been kind of a joint effort, and we are playing clean-up on it.
Mila C. Su, Altoona College: Thank you. The information is in Appendix "D." There are actually five pieces of information. You have the informational report that the Faculty Development Subcommittee has presented, Mike Dooris' Faculty Exit Study, the survey instrument itself and, at the request of Senate Council, the suggested guidelines and questions that are suggested to the actual exit interviewers, as well as a list of the current officers for this academic year.
The Faculty Development Subcommittee, as Senator Steiner has said, worked closely with Dr. Secor and Mike Dooris to discuss this process and reviewed the information that had been collected. In addition, the Faculty Development Subcommittee also met with Judd Arnold, who has been an exit interviewer since the beginning of this process. We gained a lot of information from the discussions that way. From the initial review, the Faculty Development Subcommittee also suggested that the information in the study be shared with the three equity commissions so that we could get additional feedback and get some other perspectives to see what kind of information would come from these different perspectives.
From there, the committee was able to make some recommendations for the actual instrument, and this would be on page two where we asked for four additional questions to identify for gender and racial issues, if there were any. In addition to having these questions added to the instrument, we also asked that a couple of additional safety mechanisms were put in. So the exit interviewer had a way to send their information, not only to Dr. Secor's office, but also to the dean. Then we have asked for some follow-up regarding response rates. It was a very useful and a very interesting process. I certainly believe that this information will increase the awareness of what the exit interview has the potential to do, and also will provide an opportunity for the faculty who are leaving, for whatever reason, to request an exit interview if that process has been overseen.
Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine: I am looking at the introduction and it says, "This is an effort to better understand the experiences of faculty members at Penn State and respond to concerns." In the first line it says, "The Office of the Provost has coordinated an annual effort to offer every tenured and tenure track faculty member leaving the university the opportunity to participate in an exit survey." In the College of Medicine, the majority of the faculty are neither tenured nor tenure track. Am I to look upon this as an error, an oversight or an indication that the university is not interested in the comments of these people?
Mike Dooris, Center for Quality and Planning: It is not an error. That is the correct group that has been surveyed in the past. I think there are a number of mechanisms that the university uses to gather input including faculty/staff surveys and other means. This particular effort has been tailored to tenured and tenure track faculty members. Perhaps an additional effort could be made to look at other cohorts as well.
Kim C. Steiner: That issue has already been brought to our attention.
Craig M. Meyers, College of Medicine: It is nice to have all this information and this awareness, but I am trying to understand the purpose-what is going to be done about it, I guess? As one that announced to my chair last year that I was going to leave this year if something did not occur to stop the discrimination my wife was facing and human resources' answer was just to get her a new job within the hospital. I am personally interested in what this is going to do or, if, in a year or two, I am going to have to put in my resignation and leave because of these types of problems. It is good to have this information, but the information is pretty useless if it does not move to action.
Mila C. Su: I am going to defer the answer to Dr. Secor.
Robert Secor, Vice Provost: All of these responses go directly to the dean's office unless the faculty member being interviewed says that he/she does not want the dean to know. But that is very rare. Usually they want the dean to know, to know real good what the problem is. So what you have in these surveys are generic responses that Mike Dooris has put in, but they are usually very specific. So if there is an issue of harassment it is that so-and-so in such a department was harassing me since the day I came, then that goes directly to the dean. If there are three faculty members who are leaving a department in a couple of years who are all saying there is a problem of harassment, the dean gets that information and we assume the dean knows what to do with that information. So for the most part you have got specific concerns going back to the dean. Now at the same time we will get in our office the generic responses, and, if we see that there is a large university-wide problem that we should be dealing with, we have the opportunity to do so. For example, in the first few iterations, what Mike Dooris found was that one of the main concerns of people who are leaving, and particularly with women and minorities, was a lack of mentoring. So we had an effort where we had a seminar for all department heads and deans to talk about mentoring and mentoring efforts-what we can do about them, and a survey has been made last year about mentoring possibilities. So it is those ways in which we are making responses. But there are a lot of problems here that we have not been able to fix, and any suggestions for better responses are always welcome.
Robert Heinsohn, Retired Faculty Senator: I am the representative for the retired faculty. I have been an exit interviewer for about five years since this program began, along with Judd Arnold. The report certainly conforms with the experience I have seen and had with retirees. Basically, people leave for three reasons. The obvious one is they are retiring, there are better career opportunities and salaries elsewhere, or they wish to find employment for their spouse. These are the few basic reasons. I compliment the committee for the candor in publishing the italicized comments you see on page three of the report under equity. They did not pull any punches, nor do they flatter. The italicized comments agree rather accurately with what I have seen reflected in faculty who have retired and faculty generally. I submit the inequities identified are the unfortunate consequences of the policy of affirmative discrimination. On page one of the report it states that only 60 percent or so of the retirees are contacted. Please do not interpret from that that 40 percent do not wish to participate. The main problem with the thing is that, by the time the human resources people hear about someone leaving and the information comes back to us as the interviewers, it is normally late in the spring semester, the individuals have either left or are planning to leave or are involved in leaving, and it is very hard to contact them. So it is the difficulty in timing-no fault of human resources or anyone else. It just takes time for this to happen, and human resources should not even act on it until an official statement is received that the individual wishes to leave. So in any event, I compliment the administration on this policy. I think it is a good one. I have enjoyed participating in it. It can be refined and indeed it will, but basically it is quite good. Thank you.
Chair Moore: It is nice to hear Senator Heinsohn's voice again in the Senate. Any other questions?
Gary L. Catchen: I just wanted to comment on the earlier comment from the College of Medicine calling our attention to the fact that, like most colleges of medicine, most of the faculty are not tenured or tenure track. We also have a large contingency in the research track on campus, especially at University Park-Applied Research Lab, Materials Research Institute and so forth. I want to reiterate the importance of including these people into the database, especially the people who have been at Penn State for say five years or more on fixed term appointments. This is valuable information, and it really should be collected.
Chair Moore: Any other observations? Thank you very much Chair Steiner, Senator Su and Mike Dooris, and all members of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs for putting together this valuable and interesting report. The second informational report comes to us from the Senate Committee on University Planning. It appears as Appendix "E" in today's Agenda and is titled Status of University Park Construction Projects. In the spring we will hear a report on construction projects at other locations. The report will be presented by Steve Maruszewski, Director of Design and Construction Services. Senate Council has set aside ten minutes for presentation and ten minutes for questions and answers. If we run out of time, Mr. Maruszewski will be pleased to answer questions after the Senate formally adjourns.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Status of University Park Construction Projects
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning
Steve Maruszewski, Office of Physical Plant:
Chair Moore: Is he here? Apparently Mr. Maruszewski is not here. We will receive this report in January.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
May I have a motion to adjourn? The December 3, 2002, meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 2:07 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 3, 2002
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Revision of Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student (Legislative)
Curricular Affairs/Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor (Legislative)
Faculty Affairs - Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study (Informational)
University Planning - Status of University Park Construction Projects (Informational)
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
DECEMBER 3, 2002, SENATE MEETING
Althouse, P. Richard
Bridges, K. Robert
De Jong, Gordon
DeCastro, W. Travis
Holcomb, E. Jay
Jones, Billie Jo
Jones, W. Terrell
Marshall, J. Daniel
Oliver, Mary Beth
Rebane, P. Peter
Troxell, D. Joshua
172 Total Elected
2 Total Ex Officio
15 Total Appointed
189 TOTAL ATTENDING
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 28, 2003
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Reserved Spaces Program Fall 2002 (Informational)
Computing and Information Systems - ANGEL Course Management System: (Informational)
Senate Council - University Faculty Census Report - 2003-04 (Informational)
Senate Council - Report on Fall 2002 Campus Visits (Informational)
University Planning - Status of Construction Projects (Informational)
University Planning - Proposed Sale of Circleville Farm (Informational)