 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 35-----DECEMBER 4, 2001-----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 2001-02.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for December 4, 2001
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to
December 4, 2001
Corrected Copy – Committees and Rules –
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5;
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Attendance
III. Tentative Agenda for January 29, 2002
FINAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 4, 2001
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 13, 2001
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -
Committees and Rules
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II,
Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades
New Senate Policy 43-00 Syllabus
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Reserved Spaces Program
Undergraduate Education
Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location
Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years, John A. Brighton,
University Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium
University Planning
Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings, William J.
Anderson, Jr., Assistant Vice President of Physical Plant
Security Briefing, Thomas R. Harmon, Director of Police Services
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
One report was discussed, however, since it is a constitutional change, it cannot be voted on until the January 29, 2002, meeting.
Committees and Rules – “Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1.” If approved, this legislative report would change the Constitution to allow for retired faculty Senators to serve on the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits. (See Record, page(s) 10 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)
The Senate passed two Legislative Reports:
Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades.” This legislation specifies that faculty should provide written notification of the basis for grades to students within the first ten calendar days of a semester. (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Undergraduate Education – “New Senate Policy: Syllabus.” This new legislation stipulates that a written syllabus must be distributed to students in the first ten calendar days of a semester. Included in the syllabus is the course examination policy, basis for grades, and academic integrity policy. (See Record, page(s) 11 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
The Senate heard five informational Reports:
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Reserved Spaces Program.” This annual mandated report documents the reserved spaces at the University Park Campus reserved for academically eligible students in such categories as athletics, the arts and the Blue Band. (See Record, page(s) 12 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Undergraduate Education – “Summary of Student Petitions by Colleges, Unit or Location.” This annual mandated report provides a summary of petitions for the previous two years by college and campus. (See Record, page(s) 12-13 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
Undergraduate Education - “Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years.” This informational report, given by John Brighton, describes the strategies and efforts underway to promote active and collaborative learning initiatives at Penn State. (See Record, page(s) 13-18 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
University Planning – “Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings.” William Anderson provided an overview of three construction projects (IST, Chemistry, Life Sciences) at the University Park Campus. (See Record, page(s) 19-24 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)
University Planning – “Security Briefing.” Thomas Harmon, Director of Police Services, provided a report on how safety and security procedures at Penn State have changed since September 11, 2001. (See Record, page(s) 24-30 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding. One hundred and seventy-four Senators signed the roster.
Chair Nichols: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the October 23, 2001 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for November 20, 2001. 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 13, 2001. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Nichols: The Faculty
Advisory Committee to the President met on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 and
discussed the following topics:
Student-Centered University; General Education Course recertification;
ESACT requirement; Proposal for an Institute for Legislative Education; Penn
State’s Policy toward Federal Monitoring of Foreign Students; and an update on
graduate assistant unionization.
The next meeting of the
Faculty Advisory Committee is scheduled for January 16, 2002. If you have topics to be raised, contact one
of the Senate Officers or one of the elected faculty members.
I would like to call your
attention to a couple of door handouts that were distributed today and remind
you of the Senate’s long support for the Martin Luther King Day of
Service. This time last year the Senate
amended Policy 42-27 on class attendance by adding participation in the King
Day service activities to the list of conflicts for which faculty should offer
reasonable opportunity to make up class work.
Would you please remind your units of this new policy and make sure that
they are fully informed about the King Day service opportunities and activities
on Monday, January 21, 2002.
The chair has also
received the report and recommendations of the Joint Committee to Review the
University Calendar and forwarded it to the Senate Committees on University
Planning and Undergraduate Education for consideration. As promised, the report is posted on the
Senate web page. You are encouraged to
distribute and discuss it within your units as appropriate. The Senate has heard and will continue to
hear all points of view on this issue.
Please contact the chairs of those two committees if you have additional
comments or suggestions. And a hearty
thanks to Jim Smith and his committee for the very hard work that they have put
in on this complex matter.
Two weeks ago today, the
Senate Officers completed their visits to locations other than University
Park. The schedule of spring visits to
units at University Park is posted on the Senate web page. In a little over 14 months time, your chair
has visited 23 Penn State locations and all but six of the University Park
units; and seven of the 11 CIC/Big Ten universities. Chair-Elect Moore has been to almost an equal number. In each of those campus visits and unit
visits, the Senate Officers held extensive discussions with students, faculty
and administration. I tell you this not
to look for a pat on the back for enduring this time-consuming and sometimes
exhausting process, but rather to point out that the Senate Officers (past and
present) and a few in Old Main are among the very few people at Penn State who
have this comprehensive internal perspective and external comparison. Most of us understandably see the university
through the lens of our own unit or our own location, but because the Penn
State landscape looks quite different for those of us who have the privilege of
being Senate Officers I thought I would take just a minute or two to summarize
what I have observed in a little more than a year’s time.
A few weeks ago, the
Senate Officers were at the Fayette Campus doing what most Penn State faculty
at most Penn State locations do—looking for a parking spot. In the process, we noted that a prime
parking spot near one of the main buildings was reserved for the Chair of the
Campus Senate. Upon ribbing the Fayette
Senate Chair about this perk, she said that this admitably inducement to take
on a thankless task was not all that it was cracked up to be. It seems that the parking spot is situated
under a tree that produced a certain kind of berry. And the birds in the tree ate the berries and deposited them not
fully digested in copious amounts on her car beneath. We quickly established that this was a symbol for not only Senate
chairs, but all of us who labor in faculty governance.
But the highlight of the
fall trips came at the opposite end of the commonwealth—at the Delaware County
Campus. There the Senate Officers had
the honor of meeting a very impressive Penn State undergraduate. She was a traditional age student, a woman
of color and one with at least a couple of significant disabilities. She is an English major, she was bright,
articulate and had a sunny disposition.
On that day, she awoke at
5:00 in the morning in order to make the necessary commute to campus to meet
with the Senate Officers. She caught a
5:45 a.m. bus near her home in Philadelphia, transferred to another bus in
order to arrive at the Delaware Campus two hours later in time for an 8:15 a.m.
meeting with the other student leaders and the Senate Officers. Although she makes the same commute most
every day, she was eager to endure the early start and the considerable hassle
so that she could register two important, interwoven messages to the Senate
Officers.
First, she said she loved
Penn State. There were other colleges
and universities that were geographically more convenient, but she was willing
to make the considerable sacrifice because of the reputation and reality of a
quality Penn State education. She and
her classmates were delighted with the personal attention they received from
their faculty and delighted with the administration’s support for various
co-curricular activities—in her case support for the gospel choir.
Her second interrelated
message was that Penn State must do better.
Because Penn State is so good, it should be held to a higher
standard. If she was willing to
sacrifice, so too should Penn State.
She politely challenged us to do more and better—not so much for her
because she was close to graduation—but rather for future Penn State students.
She had some specific
complaints and suggestions that I will not go into at the present time. Although, many of them, but not all, were
resource-related problems that would be difficult for us to fix within the
current budgetary constraints. However,
many of the problems that she identified and other students and faculty at
other locations identified are within our power to fix. Secretary Jago will give a more detailed report
on our campus visits and some of the specifics. But, for the moment, our conversation with this young
undergraduate at Delaware summarized for me at least, the umbrella findings of
14 months and 23 locations overview of Penn State. In summary, it is that Penn State is an excellent university—far
better and for significantly different reasons than I would have anticipated
before I became a Senate Officer. But
there is much to be done. Indeed, the
problems we face seem to be increasing in number and in complexity.
As the challenges
increase, so do the importance and responsibility of the Senate. I previously mentioned that our last Senate
meeting marked the 80th anniversary of the first Senate meeting at
Penn State. When reaching such
historical milestones, it often is a good time for assessment and planning for
the future. The last time the Senate
undertook a wide-ranging self-examination and significantly revised its
structure and procedures was a decade ago.
Since then, much has changed in the Senate, in the university, and in
higher education. Therefore, a hard
introspective look by the Senate is once again appropriate.
Consequently, I have initiated a Senate Self Study this year to examine how the body can be updated and strengthened to meet the challenges of that delightful Delaware County Campus undergraduate. It is only slightly ironic that even before our visit to Delaware, I asked George Franz, the Director of Academic Affairs at Delaware, to chair the Self Study. George, as you know, is the senior-most Past-Chair currently active in the Senate and also is our Parliamentarian. My charge to the Self Study committee is, first and foremost, to do some "blue sky" thinking about how the Senate can do a better job and seek ways to give faculty at large a greater sense of ownership in the important work that the Senate does and, second, to make specific recommendations about how to improve Senate organization and procedures. Any suggestions that you have or people from your units might have if you would pass them along by email to George at DE-DAA@PSU.EDU, he would appreciate it.
Another, but related initiative for this year, is to expand cooperation between our Senate and other CIC/Big Ten faculty governance bodies. To this end, I have invited Dr. Joseph Massey, my counterpart at the University of Minnesota, to join us today. Joe is Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee at the University of Minnesota. He is also Professor and Head of the Department of Wood and Paper Science and a student of shared governance. Although I suspect that Joe probably has learned as much from us in this trip as vice versa, he has kindly been helping us with the self study and we have had a good exchange of ideas. Joe, will you please take a bow.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: Last, but certainly not least, I would like to introduce one more special guest. The Senate, from time to time, sets aside a moment to recognize those among us who bring honor to the university and its educational mission as a way of helping to remind us of the core values and purpose of the institution.
I would like to introduce to you this afternoon Penn State student, Jeff Hantz. Jeff is from Latrobe, PA. He is a fourth semester student in the Schreyer Honors College majoring in Computer Science. In addition to carrying 19 credits of honors, research and laboratory courses Jeff finds time to play trumpet in one of Penn State's concert bands, a jazz band and the basketball pep band. If that were not enough, Jeff is considered one of the premier wheelchair track and field athletes in the nation. Jeff competed this past summer at the National Junior Paralympics, where he won gold medals in the shot put, discus, and javelin, setting national records in all three areas. He also finished second in the bench press, lifting 275 pounds. He already is in training for qualifying for the World Championship in Paris this summer and the 2004 Paralympics in Greece. Jeff has done all this, while maintaining a 3.66 grade point average. Jeff is in the back of the room. Jeff, thank you very much for helping remind us of the purpose of the university.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Nichols: Agenda
Item E, Comments By The President Of The University. President Spanier is in attendance today and
has comments. As a reminder, if you
wish to ask a question of the president or in a later discussion comment on a
report you need to be recognized by the chair, please stand and identify
yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. Thank you.
Graham B. Spanier,
President: Thank you. Let me begin by saying
have I got a parking space for you.
Chair Nichols: I
think I have found it.
President Spanier: John
did say that the Senate Officers were not looking for a pat on the back, but I
had planned to give them one anyway and I think they really deserve it. The Senate leadership is functioning
extremely well at the present time and I just want to say from where I sit how
pleased I am with the quality of the work that they are doing, especially with
their commitment that they are showing in so many different areas. One example you have heard about visiting
the campuses and learning more about all of the needs and variations of Penn
State across the commonwealth. It has
been very impressive to see their work and of course I have the opportunity to
meet with the leadership group on a regular basis, once a month formally, and
then as needed at other times. And it
is really going very well right now and I think they do deserve our thanks.
I also want to
second something that John mentioned.
There are really only a few of us in the university who have actually
been around to all the campuses. Now I
would not want to suggest that you all pack your bags and leave on a month long
tour of all of our campuses, but I cannot tell you how rewarding it is to
occasionally visit another campus, one that you may not be familiar with at the
university. Particularly, folks at
University Park rarely set foot on another campus and it is quite amazing to
get a feel for how Penn State operates in so many different locations. I have never run into anybody who has
visited one of our other campuses and not come away feeling more enlightened
about the university as well as even more proud than they were before about
what all we do for our students and the many other constituencies that we
serve. I think it is fair to say that
any of you would be welcomed with open arms if you had the inclination to visit
another campus. I know I always am and
I do not think it is just because I am the president of the university. I think that they would gladly welcome
anyone with open arms and you should all think about doing that at some point.
I want to report
that the state of the university in my opinion is excellent right now. And I say that despite the fact that several
million dollars of this year’s current appropriation have been frozen because
of the financial circumstances around the state. Despite that cut which we have had, I am really quite pleased
with all of the progress that we are making in so many different arenas and the
quality of the educational experiences that we are providing for our
students. I feel very good about what
is happening at Penn State right now. I
think one continuing indication of our overall health is not only the official
enrollments that you have all probably read about for this fall, but the
continuing flow of applications for this coming academic year. As of the report that I saw this morning—and
we get a weekly comprehensive report of what the applications are
system-wide—we are right on track with where we have been in the last couple of
years, maybe a little bit ahead.
Interest in Penn State continues to be very strong. There are a couple of areas that account for
what increase we see right now. They
are increases in the flow of graduate applications, which is something that
many of us here predicted of course when the economy is in a bit of a downturn
and there is recessionary indications out there, and many people as they are
beginning to complete their baccalaureate degree lean a little more in the
direction of graduate school versus competing for one of the positions in the
job market. So we do see a little more
activity in the level of graduate applications and we are also seeing
significant increase in interest in Penn College, which you also might expect
with students coming out of high school and looking for the excellent applied
opportunities that are available there.
But enrollments are strong and our following all of the assumptions and
planning targets that we had at University Park, at our campuses—graduate and
undergraduate—we feel very good about what we have achieved in that particular
area. We are however engaged in a
number of different areas associated with long range planning. Most of this occurs under the purview of
Rodney Erickson, our Executive Vice President and Provost. I think there are two things that are pretty
much on the table right now. We have a
deadline coming up pretty soon for units to have their diversity plans, the
updates, the mid-course update on the five year diversity plans coming in
currently. Those will be very carefully
reviewed, analyzed, and feedback will be reported during the balance of this
academic year. Another important area
of planning that is going on is in the area of the finances of the
university. We are unmistakably in the
middle of a long-term trend of state appropriations that are not keeping up
with our needs, let alone our aspirations.
Currently, only about 14 percent of the university’s budget comes via
state appropriation and while we are going to continue to make our very best
case and work very, very hard with the legislature on meeting Penn State’s needs,
we cannot assume that the state is going to be able to do for us what we need
to do. Given that our other principle
source of revenue, besides appropriation is tuition, we are engaged in a
long-term analysis of tuition pricing at the university. Looking at our needs in relation to the cost
of operating the university, and again Rodney Erickson is the person overseeing
that task force--we are working towards involving the university Board of
Trustees very substantially in that discussion in the coming months. The task force has had the benefit of input
from students, faculty, staff and members of the administration so we are very
eager to see how that turns out. But
certainly we need to take a long-term five, ten, twenty-year kind of look at
how we are going to support the quality of education, research, and service
that we expect at the university.
I know that many of
you are on committees that are busy at work on giving input into the
discussions about the university calendar.
John Cahir reported to me on the way in that there were some discussions
this morning and that there continues to be progress and feedback in that
area. At some point, I am not exactly
sure when, but at some point soon, I think all of that input and any further
Senate discussion will be forwarded to us and Rodney Erickson and I as well as
other colleagues will then try to make some sense out of it and do the right
thing, whatever that is. I do not know
what the right thing is. You know I am
not bashful so if I had this figured out at any point I would have told you or
the committees working on it in the beginning.
But it is a very complex issue because there are many, many different
perspectives, many different opinions, and I dare say there are also probably
some variables that we might not even be giving sufficient weight to in the
discussions. I am hearing from campus
executive officers, from students, and others about what should go into the
discussion. So all I can say about the
calendar is that all input is welcome. We
really do look forward to receiving the Senate recommendations. About the only thing that I have concluded
is that the current calendar is not optimal.
There are just too many problems around the edges of what we are trying
to do right now and so some things have to change. I am just not sure what the better system is right now and I say
that as I have said in my State of the University Address only to point out
that I am very receptive to receiving what recommendations you have and then
trying to come up with a better mousetrap for that situation.
You have all heard
if you have read the newspapers or perhaps heard directly that John Cahir has
announced his retirement. It is not
imminent. It is coming sometime next
summer at the end of the summer and I must say we have very mixed feelings
about that because I think John probably has tenure and longevity on just about
all of us in this room. I say that in a
nice way John. Yeah, he is old I
guess… I have known John for a very
long time. We served as associate deans
together and I thought he was old then…and that was more than twenty years ago
so you know I guess we got to give him a break and let him retire at some
point. The good news is that it is
still a few months off and I know John is not going to be a lame duck, he is
going to continue to work very closely with the many Senate committees that he
works with through this academic year and we will have a chance I am sure to
thank him later. But for those of you
who are in the mode of wanting to commiserate about this and express your
concerns, why, you can start on that any time.
John is here and I will say now as I will say at every opportunity
throughout the year how much John Cahir has meant to this university and where
it is at today.
The last thing I
would like to say before I take your questions is get those final exam grades
in on time, please. And get those
papers graded and then after you are all done with that I wish you a very happy
holiday and hope you rest up over the break and come back ready to go for the
spring semester. And now your
questions?
JoAnn Chirico,
Beaver Campus: Many students at my campus as well as myself
are concerned about our perception from national news stories that a student on
campus was convicted of either rape or sexual assault and is still present on
campus. Could you please fill us in to
the picture of what the actual conviction was, what the student’s status is and
could I take a message from you back to my students about your concern for
their safety?
President
Spanier: Let me say first of all that I hope it is true that everyone in this room
associated with the Penn State community abhors sexual assault and will not
tolerate it, condone it, or accept that it should be present on any of our
campuses. I think that should go
without saying and I wanted to say that first.
Having said that I am going to tell you very little. I am not going to attempt to answer the
questions you have asked for a couple of reasons that should be obvious to
people in the university community and beyond but, for some reason are
not. First of all, there are a lot of
people who have popped up as experts about what is going on who think they know
what all the facts are and I am not sure that they do. This university will do its best to follow
our judicial affairs procedures. Allow
them to work. Allow due process to
work. Allow the process to come to an
expeditious conclusion and do everything we can to ensure what would be fair
and not subject to outside influences.
I am not surprised, but I am troubled by some of the mail I have
received, email I have received, people showing up in my office demanding to
argue a case one way or another. We
cannot run a university on the basis of public opinion polls, on the basis of
political forces who choose up sides on the guilt or innocence of a particular
student conduct violation. We cannot
have legislative resolutions or editorial writers to tell us how to act in a
particular case. Some of the attempted
interference in the university judicial affairs process is very
surprising. It would be akin, I
suppose, to jury tampering or someone barging into a judges chambers and
telling the judge how to rule on a particular case. We just cannot go down that road. I hope you understand that.
I hope you understand that we have a judicial affairs system within the
university. Maybe some people do not
like parts of it, some people do, some people think we try too many cases, and
some people have lots of different opinions about it. Every year we reassess it, we fine-tune it, we study it—we
actually have one of the better judicial affairs conduct systems that exist at
a university. It operates under a
director of the Office of Judicial Affairs and that person is overseen by the
Vice President for Student Affairs. We
have to follow certain processes that are in place and we will do that. We cannot let outside influences interfere
with judgments that are made during that process. I say all of that to you now without even knowing the outcome at
this moment. We will have a problem in
that there are federal laws which govern what we can say about student conduct
matters, and people who want to know things that cannot be and never will be
public, just have to accept that.
Perhaps there are some things that can become public or that some people
involved in the process can themselves choose to make public. So we just have to ask your understanding
with that and allowing that to happen and I will trust our staff in the Office
of Judicial Affairs to do this right.
And whatever they end up with, I assume they will end up with something
pretty soon, and my inclination would be to be supportive of it. I should also say that the process does not
call for the president of the university to insert himself into the process at
some point along the way. This decision
is actually made by that office and if there are appeals along the way they
will go to the Vice President for Student Affairs. I do not have a role in this personally, but I am prepared to stand
up, defend the process, and to do everything I can to make sure that the
integrity of the process is maintained.
So for those of you who would be inclined to write me an email, save
your breath so to speak, it will not enter into the decision of the
process. For anyone who is involved in
letter writing campaigns on the different sides of this matter, it will not
influence the process. We will not be
granting appointments to people to come in and argue the case from their
perspective. We will follow the
processes in place. Nor will I be
responding to further media inquiries on this matter. I have said just about everything I can think of to say, so for
reporters who are here, do not bother sending me an email two hours from now
saying, “I want to ask you further to explain the nuance of what you said
there.” I have spoken extemporaneously,
not from a script, so I hope somewhere in there you will kind of get the
message.
Chair Nichols:
Other comments and questions for the president?
Stephen M. Smith,
College of Agricultural Sciences: This is sort of a mundane question. Back to your issue of budgets, can you give
us an estimate of how many of these millions we lost and an assessment of how
permanent this is and how these losses were distributed among colleges and
departments?
President Spanier:
Well, let me say that on many days I love the mundane questions given
some other things that are out there.
But that is actually a very important question. We have had frozen and do not expect to
receive back approximately $3.5 million out of this year’s appropriation. It is about one percent of our
appropriation. In addition, we believe
that some additional amount, it is hard to identify exactly what it is but we
have some estimates, it might be a comparable amount was actually lost because
it was in some other budget that was part of the $200 million that Governor
Ridge identified before he left. It was
money that had not yet been allocated but in the normal course of events would
have come to Penn State but perhaps through a different state agency or a
different process yet to be determined.
So it was a multi-million dollar hit for us. Now the way it has unfolded is that it is a temporary pull back
out of our current budget and we have treated it that way. So we have not pulled permanent money back
from anybody on campus. Centrally and
within the different academic units of the campuses, colleges and so on, we
have asked people to just deal with their fair share of that amount. When the legislature begins the budgetary
and appropriation process in February, we anticipate we will go back to the
base that we saw last year and that further decisions will be made from that
point. But it does not appear based on
current revenue projections that the state is going to have a huge amount of
new money to deal with. So we expect to
be in this somewhat constrained economic environment for the university for
awhile to come, and that of course puts more pressure on us on the tuition side
and we worry about that for obvious reasons.
That’s it? Okay, this could be
your last chance for the year 2001.
Okay, thank you very much.
Chair Nichols:
Thank you, President Spanier.
Agenda Item F, Forensic Business there is none. Agenda Item G, Unfinished Business there is
none.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Nichols: We are down to H, Legislative Reports. Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, Changes in Constitution, Articles and Sections as listed regarding retired and emeritus faculty. Jean Landa Pytel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will present the report. This is a proposed Constitutional change and therefore the report must lie on the table until the January 29, 2002 meeting. What that means is that we will have a discussion today but no vote will be taken.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: Thank you. You have all had a chance to look at the report as it is part of your Agenda. It came directly from a proposal that is included here as part of the introduction. This was a Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs report that was titled, “Recommendation for Emeritus/Retired Faculty,” that was passed in January of this year. Before I forget, we had a slight two-letter editorial correction. On page four that is procedures number 10 that says, “If a retired Senator cannot fulfill his/her term,” will you please change the word “the” to “an”. “An alternate from the last election will be appointed to do so”. The idea here is if the alternate is not willing to serve then we would go to the next alternate. Thank you. I will stand for questions as you should have read it yourselves.
Chair Nichols: Questions for Jean? It will be on the Agenda for the next meeting.
Jean Landa Pytel: Thank you.
Chair Nichols: Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. “Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades” that is Appendix “C” and Laura Pauley, Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education has two related policies to be reviewed today. The first policy is “Basis for Grades”. The “Basis for Grades” is Policy 47-20 currently printed and we have made the modification that students should be notified in the first ten calendar days of basis for grades. This wording mirrors the wording in other policies including, the examination policy that students must be notified in the first ten calendar days. Are there any questions?
Chair Nichols: Docile group today. No questions? All right, it is a committee report so it is moved and seconded so we are at the question. All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. The next one is “New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus” that’s Appendix “D”.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley: The “Syllabus” policy is a new policy and what it states is, the place where written notification should be given to the student is the syllabus. So we have put together several different policies including the one just approved “Basis for Grades,” “General Examination Policy,” “Non-Final Examinations Policy,” and “Academic Integrity,” altogether into this one document. There is a phrase, “changes to the syllabus may be made during the semester shall also be given to the student in writing”. So this is not a permanent contract, but it can be modified during the semester. Any questions?
Dan T. Brinker, College of Arts and Architecture: A couple of concerns that came up is if we could define written and distributed. The question is, that an online course for example, on the web considered written? And is distributed, simply can it be made available is that considered distributed? And I think that is the biggest issue that we have in fact and that I am concerned about with this policy.
Laura L. Pauley: We discussed this in the committee and our view was that by saying a written syllabus we considered electronic web sites to also be written text.
Dan T. Brinker: Does that also include the distributed portion? If it is simply made available is that…
Laura L. Pauley: Right. That was our interpretation. That it was an inclusive word.
Chair Nichols: Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we are at the question. This is a vote on whether to approve the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education report for “New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus”. All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. Thank you, Laura. Agenda Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports there are none.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning
So let us begin. The first portion of my presentation is going to focus on the Information Sciences and Technology Building. This building is designed to bridge Atherton Street and safely connect the central core of campus to the west campus. Then I will show you plans for the Chemistry Building and the Life Sciences Building, which are in the vicinity of the Thomas Building, Eisenhower Auditorium and Fenske Laboratory. I have combined the presentation on the Life Sciences Building and Chemistry Building and you will see why in a few minutes.
So to begin with the IST project, here are some quick facts about the project. The project will cost $56.9 million and it has three funding sources: State Funds, Tuition Capital Improvement Plan, and monetary gifts. The new facility was designed by a joint venture of Rafael Viñoly out of New York City and Perfido Weiskopf out of Pittsburgh. It will be three stories tall and will entail about 200,000 gross square feet. Construction and relocation of utilities as you know from driving around here is already underway and the whole project is scheduled for completion in November of 2003.
This next slide shows the list of program elements for the project. The IST Building will house the School of Information Sciences and Technology as well as the Computer Science and Engineering Department of the College of Engineering. The building will also include a Campus Crossing, which I will elaborate on in just a moment, a Cybertorium, laboratories, offices, workrooms and even some retail space.
To get a flavor for the project and to understand what we are trying to accomplish, we will start by looking at the Campus Master Plan. This plan was approved by the Board of Trustees in March 1999 and was intended to form a framework for campus development. This plan is now serving as a starting point for all of our campus planning and design decisions. The master plan’s recommendations for West Campus, shown here on the screen, has similarly served as a good starting point. To orient you, Atherton Street runs north south, College Avenue is on the bottom of the screen. The master plan identified future building opportunities in light blue. The darker blue, red, yellow, purple and gray rectangles indicate existing buildings. The master plan delineated some key use areas: housing to the far west, and academic quadrangles closer to Atherton Street. The master plan also indicated two building opportunities on the east side of Atherton Street on both sides of Pollock Road. It also indicated some sort of pedestrian connection, indicated by the red arrow. This was the early stage of what has evolved into a design of the IST Building. As we began to develop this land use plan into physical design, we identified five key challenges.
The first was traffic and transportation: we must be very careful that cars do not overload Atherton Street or the neighborhoods south of West Campus. Second is pedestrian safety: we must provide a way for pedestrians to safely cross Atherton Street—ideally not just in one location but in multiple locations. Third is the IST Building itself. The building’s design must reflect its exciting function in order for it to be a future landmark for Penn State. Fourth is the issue of connection: it is essential that West Campus be visibly and symbolically linked to the core campus. It cannot be perceived to be a remote outpost. Our fifth challenge was good design: we must ensure that the design of West Campus emulates the qualities that we value most in the physical environments on the core campus. To assist us in addressing these challenges and in refining the West Campus Master Plan, we hired Sasaki Associates of Watertown, Massachusetts, which is a landscape architecture firm nationally renowned for campus planning. And because of the special challenges with traffic and transportation, Sasaki worked with McCormick Taylor Associates, traffic planners and engineers, to ensure that our design solution worked for traffic. You have seen this plan before, so I will not go into great detail in describing it, however, I will point out some of the key components. The ingenious solution to combine the program elements of the IST Building with a safe crossing of Atherton Street resulted in a building footprint in this configuration. The building not only connects the West Campus to the core area physically as a bridge but also academically. The School of Information Sciences and Technology and the Department of Computer Engineering links the historic part of campus to the engineering oriented academic part of the West Campus. As in the Master Plan, housing for graduate students and families is located to the far west portion of the West Campus. In order to build the eastern portion of this 200,000 square foot facility on Pollock Road, the campus needed another vehicular entrance. We determined the best spot for this was to extend Curtin Road on the north side of Rec Hall. Very briefly that is an overview of the West Campus portion of our Master Plan. So now, let us look at some of the design issues and the solutions for both the IST Building and the Curtin Road extension.
To get you oriented, this aerial photo shows Atherton Street running north and south, Pollock Road running east and west and West Halls visible in the upper right. This is the approximate footprint of the IST Building. It gives you a better feel for the magnitude of the project and the real estate that it covers. The Lions Gate, a Pioneer Gift of the Class of 1903, located at the intersection of Pollock and Atherton, shown here, they will be moved one block east to the intersection of Pollock and Burrowes. This photo taken this past winter shows the existing intersection of Pollock and Burrowes looking east toward Old Main. Now watch the screen carefully. This photo simulation shows the relocation of the Lions Gate pillars and stone seating walls. The new location will serve as the entrance to the historic core of campus. Looking at the site plan, Atherton Street runs north south through the center of the screen. Walker Building is located at the bottom, the Water Tunnel is located just across Atherton Street, Noll Lab is to the north of the site, and Burrowes Road runs north south along the right-hand side of your screen. The IST Building helps in linking west campus to the core campus. The spine of the IST Building will comprise a “campus connector” for pedestrians and for bicycles, to that will be an extension of the Pollock Road mall. Along the way, people will encounter classrooms, IST displays, an atrium, and a café. It will be an effective and enjoyable way to get people safely across Atherton Street. A park-like setting with curvilinear walks, lawn areas, and trees will provide an inviting campus landscape surrounding the IST Building. To better understand this idea of a “campus connector,” it is helpful for us to look at the building’s design in a cross-section format. Beginning at grade on the east and west sides, the connector rises at a four percent slope to meet the second floor and cross over Atherton Street. Comparing the cross-section with a plan view, the “campus connector” highlighted in red, study carrels, computer classrooms and meeting rooms flank this ramped pedestrian path to the south and to the north. The Cybertorium, a high-tech auditorium, is accessed from a large lobby space on the second floor. The ramps meet in the center over Atherton Street at an atrium, which contains a small café and is open to the floor above. Moving up to the third floor, the third floor houses faculty, support staff and graduate student offices along with perimeter, research laboratory spaces along the central core, and meeting rooms are interspersed between the office spaces. The IST Dean’s Suite faces the south above Atherton Street. Looking at the First Floor Plan, entry to the building occurs at various locations throughout the ground level. Atherton Street divides the building footprint in two. On the eastern side of Atherton Street, a computer classroom, meeting rooms, and administrative offices for IST, E-Government, and The Solutions Institute are located. Administrative offices for the Department of Computer Science and Engineering are located across Atherton Street along with computer classrooms and access to the Cybertorium. The remainder of the floor plan is reserved for mechanical and support facilities. The following two images are computer-generated perspectives that view the IST Building from Atherton Street looking north, and from Burrowes Road looking west. Standing on the west side of Atherton looking north, this perspective shows the IST Building spanning across the road. The Water Tunnel Building is visible on the left. Next standing near West Halls, this rendering shows the proposed IST Building looking westward. To the left you can see the “campus connector” rising to meet the second floor and eventually crossing over Atherton Street. This structure will have an exterior faced with brick, glass and metal.
As I said earlier, we are really excited about this project and believe that it will become a signature building for the University Park Campus. The next several slides I will show you are photos of the Curtin Road extension project. Standing with our backs to the golf course and looking across Atherton Street, this photo shows the Curtin Road extension. By keeping the road as close to Rec Hall as possible, we were able to retain the wooded area visible on the left. This is another photo of the improvements nearing completion. Taken from the roof of Rec Hall, this photo shows the enlarged civic space that replaced the parking lot that was in front of the Nittany Lion Shrine.
Okay, now moving on to the Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings, here are some quick facts. Construction has already begun for this $63.5 million project which will encompass approximately 182,000 square feet. Bower Lewis and Thrower of Philadelphia and Payette Associates of Boston joint ventured to design both the Chemistry and the Life Sciences Buildings. The Chemistry project is slated for completion in November 2003. The Chemistry Building will include research space for Synthetic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Instrumentation, and Mass Spectroscopy. The program also includes an NMR Facility, meeting spaces and offices for faculty, graduate students and administrative staff. As I mentioned earlier, I will show you plans for the Chemistry Building along with the new Life Sciences Building. Bower Lewis and Thrower and Payette also designed this project. The footprint is smaller than Chemistry’s at about 150,000 gross square feet. The project cost is $41 million and completion is planned for October of 2003.
Programmed for the Life Sciences Building are research spaces for Animal Development, Neurosciences, Toxicology, and Plant Research. The Life Sciences Building will also include faculty, graduate student and administrative offices as well as several general-purpose classrooms and an auditorium.
I will now show you the sites that were chosen for these projects. This aerial shows the location of the two sites outlined in blue. The former Robeson Cultural Center was still standing at the time of this photo. Pollock Road runs east west at the bottom of the screen and Shortlidge Road bisects the two sites. The plan reveals the L-shaped footprint of the Chemistry Building on the left and the Life Sciences Building on the right. The two buildings are physically connected across Shortlidge Road. Four different community spaces will be developed with vegetation and hardscape materials: a Life Sciences Courtyard; the “pedestrian-first” Shortlidge Mall to the south; a space connecting to the Eisenhower Auditorium’s raised plaza; and a peaceful, green Chemistry courtyard. Starting on street level of Shortlidge Mall, we are looking at the first floor of the Chemistry Building, faculty offices are located along the south facing side of this facility, administrative offices near the building’s entrance along Shortlidge Road, and a majority of the research labs along the north side. The support facilities are located mostly along the central corridor through the building. A large seminar space is located in the wing that parallels Shortlidge Road. Floors two through five have similar configurations as this floor.
In designing the first floor of the Life Sciences component, office and meeting spaces are located along the south side, administrative offices near the building’s entrance, research labs are interspersed with the faculty offices. The support facilities are located along the central corridor. An auditorium is located in the wing that parallels Shortlidge Road. The second through the fourth floors have similar layouts. Moving down one floor, the Life Sciences Building has a ground floor that opens onto a courtyard. Here the architects have located a student commons space, general-purpose classrooms--all accessible from the Life Sciences courtyard and the Thomas Building. At the same elevation as the Life Sciences ground floor, the basement of the Chemistry Building will house laboratories and office space. I should mention that the Life Sciences Building will also have a basement, which I do not show here--one level below the ground floor plan that is shown on the right. This basement area will contain animal research laboratories. A physical connection between the Chemistry and the Life Sciences Buildings occur at both the third and the fourth floors, through a glass-enclosed space that is a common area. It will be used for poster sessions, informal gatherings, and for of course, the movement of scientific researchers from one building to the other. The architects have prepared a series of renderings that I will show you now. We will begin by seeing the Chemistry Building from this angle, followed by a rendering of the Life Sciences Building looking west and then the proposed Shortlidge Mall from this direction. This slide shows a view looking northeast through the outdoor space created by the L-shaped Chemistry Building. Here you can see the architectural style of the building with its brick veneer on the west facing façade, and a predominately glass façade on the south, which takes advantage of natural sunlight. Spruce Cottage is visible on the left. The curved block wall on the right contains the NMR facility. Here we are standing on Pollock Fields looking west with Eisenhower Auditorium in the background on the right. This view shows the Life Sciences’ south facing façade across the courtyard from the Joab Thomas Building on the left.
Finally, this rendering shows the proposed Shortlidge Mall, with the glass connection of the Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings visible in the middle of this slide. The facades of both buildings parallel Shortlidge Road and will be made predominately of brick, designed to be harmonious with the Thomas Building in materials, colors, and massing.
This concludes my presentation. I hope that you are as excited about these three projects as we are and I would be pleased to entertain any questions that you might have.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Security Briefing
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
None
ADJOURNMENT
May I have a motion to adjourn? The December 4, 2001 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:42 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 4, 2001
Committees and Rules – Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5;
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II,
Section 6(f)1 (Legislative)
Undergraduate Education – Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for
Grades (Legislative)
Undergraduate Education – New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus
(Legislative)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Reserved Spaces
Program (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Summary of Petitions by College, Unit or
Location (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and
Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years (Informational)
University Planning – Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings (Informational)
University Planning – Security Briefing (Informational)
C O R R E C T E D
C O P Y
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5;
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6 (e)1; and
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
(Legislative)
(Implementation Date: Upon approval by the President)
Introduction
The Committee on Faculty Affairs report entitled “Recommendations for
Emeritus/Retired Faculty” was passed on January 30, 2001 (Appendix “E”) and
approved by the President. Recommendation #7 of the report reads as follows:
“The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules should propose the establishment of representation of emeritus faculty in the University Faculty Senate by having a voting member elected from and by emeritus faculty.”
Rationale and Recommendations
The recommendation from the Committee on Faculty Affairs suggested that one
(1) emeritus Senator be given membership on the University Faculty
Senate. After extensive discussion in the Committees on Committees and
Rules, it was decided that not one but rather two new members be
included. It became clear that both the Senate and the retired population
would be better served if there were a retired faculty Senator on the Committee
on Faculty Affairs and the Committee on Faculty Benefits. In both cases,
there are agenda issues addressed in these committees that have implications
for retired faculty.
The decision to become more inclusive and have these new faculty Senators not
only from the emeritus faculty ranks but rather from all of the retired
population was based on the fact that there are many retired faculty who would
be very effective Senators but were never in a position to be granted emeritus
status.
Recommendation #1
Change Constitution, Article II, Section 5 as follows:
Section 5
(a) The following persons shall be ex officio members of the Senate: the President of the University; the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University; the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; the Chair of the Academic Leadership Council; the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education; the University Registrar; the Director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies; and any elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee who is not an elected faculty Senator.
(b) The President may appoint other University personnel to membership in the Senate on an annual basis. The total number of appointed and ex officio members (not including any member of the Faculty Advisory Committee) shall not exceed a number equal to ten (10) percent of the elected faculty Senators.
(c) The full-time, degree-seeking students at the University shall be represented by elected student Senators as follows:
1. One undergraduate student from each of the ten (10) colleges at University Park.
2. One student from each of the following locations or units:
Penn State Abington
Penn State Altoona
Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley
Penn State Erie-The Behrend College
Penn State Capital College
Penn State College of Medicine
Penn State Commonwealth College
The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University
The Division of Undergraduate Studies
The Graduate School
Penn State Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies
Whenever comparable units are added to the University or created through reorganization, each new unit shall elect one student Senator. The term of a student Senator shall be one (1) year.
(D) THE RETIRED FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE REPRESENTED BY TWO (2) ELECTED RETIRED FACULTY SENATORS.
Recommendation #2
Change Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1 as follows:
(e) Committee on Faculty
Affairs
1. Membership
(i) At least twenty (20) elected faculty Senators including at least one (1) faculty Senator from each college at University Park and one (1) faculty Senator from each of the following: Abington College, Altoona College, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College, Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Capital College, Commonwealth College, Dickinson School of Law, The College of Medicine, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, and University Libraries.
(ii) ONE RETIRED FACULTY SENATOR
Recommendation #3
Change in Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1 as follows:
(f) Committee on Faculty Benefits
1.
Membership
(i) At
least seven (7) elected faculty Senators
(ii) The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources
(iii)
ONE RETIRED FACULTY
SENATOR
Procedures
It is proposed that the following method for fulfilling these
recommendations be used:
1) The Senate Office will obtain, from the Office of Human Resources, a list of
retired faculty members from the last ten (10) years who are living in
Pennsylvania and the contiguous states,
2) This list will be cross-checked with the names of those who served on the Senate prior to retirement,
3) From this list of former Senators, the Committee on Committees and Rules
will establish a list of candidates and the Executive Secretary will then
contact the individuals and ask if they would stand for election to the Senate,
4) A ballot will be established with the individual former Senators (the order
of names on the ballot will be determined by lot) who have consented to serve,
5) This ballot will also have a line marked “Other” for write-in votes so that
other members of the retired population can be included in the voting,
6) The ballot will be made available to all retired faculty,
7) A simple plurality vote will determine the winners (the first year of the
election two retired faculty Senators will be elected). In the case of a tie the Committee on
Committees and Rules will determine a winner,
8) Two retired faculty members will be elected. The Senate
Committee on Committees and Rules will appoint one to serve on the Committee on
Faculty Affairs and one to serve on the Committee on Faculty Benefits,
9) The term of office will be four (4) years. In the first year of the
election, one Senator will be elected to a four (4) year term and one to a two
(2) year term,
10) If a retired Senator cannot fulfill his/her term, the
AN alternate from the last election will be appointed to do so,
11) The elected retired faculty will be full voting members of the Senate.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Joseph J. Cecere
Dwight Davis
Terry Engelder
Joanna Floros
Sabih I. Hayek
Deidre E. Jago
Arthur C. Miller
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE
IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
DECEMBER 4, 2001 SENATE MEETING
Abmayr, Susan
M.
Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard L.
Atwater, Deborah F.
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie D.
Balog, Theresa A.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Barbato, Guy F.
Barshinger, Richard N.
Bazirjian, Rosann
Bernhard, Michael H.
Bise, Christopher J.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blumberg, Melvin
Bonneau, Robert H.
Book, Patricia A.
Boothby, Thomas E.
Borhan, Ali
Breakey, Laurie Powers
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan T.
Brown, Douglas K.
Browning, Barton W.
Brunsden, Victor W.
Burchard, Charles L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Calvert, Clay
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carlson, Richard A.
Carter, Arthur W.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chirico, JoAnn
Clariana, Roy B.
Coraor, Lee D.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
Dawson, John W.
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
DeJong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
DeVos, Mackenzie L.
Disney, Diane M.
Donovan, James M.
Eaton, Nancy L.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Egolf, Roger A.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Bill
Erickson, Rodney A.
Eslinger, Paul J.
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Floros, Joanna
Frank, Thomas A.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Geiger, Roger L.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Glumac, Thomas E.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gray, Timothy N.
Greene, Wallace H.
Gutgold, Nichola D.
Hanes, Madlyn L.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harvey, Irene E.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale A.
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hunt, Brandon B.
Hurson, Ali R.
Jacobs, Janis E.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Johnson, Karen E.
Jones, W. Terrell
Jurs, Peter C.
Kennedy, Richard R.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Koul, Ravinder
Lakoski, Joan M.
Li, Luen-Chau
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, Wayne K.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Master, Andrew K.
Maxwell, Kevin R.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarney, Michelle H.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
McCollum, Gwenn E.
McDonel, James L.
Medoff, Howard P.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Minard, Robert D.
Mookerjee, Rajen
Moore, John W.
Morin, Karen H.
Mueller, Alfred
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Nistor, Victor
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pazdziorko, Nicholas J.
Pearson, Katherine C.
Pell, Eva J.
Perrine, Joy M.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Preston, Deborah
Pugh, B. Franklin
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ritter, Michael C.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Rowe, William A.
Russell, David W.
Sachs, Howard G.
Sandmeyer, Louise E.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schott, Adam A.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, James F.
Smith, Stephen M.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Staneva, Marieta
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Strauss, James A.
Strickman, Mark
Su, Mila C.
Tachibana, Reiko
Thomson, Joan S.
Tingo, Jennifer
Tormey, Brian B.
Troester, Rodney L.
Troxell, D. Joshua
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Wager, J. James
Wanner, Adrian J.
Webb, Sunny M.
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
Ziegler, Gregory R.
OTHERS
ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
Youtz, Susan C.
157 Total Elected
7
Total Ex Officio
10
Total Appointed
174 Total Attending
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 29, 2002
Committees and Rules - Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules,
Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1 (Legislative)
Faculty Affairs – Best Practices for Recruitment & Retention of Women and Minority Faculty (Informational)
Libraries – Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation (Informational)
Outreach Activities – Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus (Informational)
Senate Council – University Faculty Census
Report – 2002-03 (Informational)
Senate Council – Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits (Informational)
University Planning - Update on Classroom Conditions (Informational)