Penn State University Home  

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 35-----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 -

Minutes of the October 23, 2001 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:2

 

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                         (Blue Sheets) of November 20, 2001

 

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

 

Chair Nichols:  Agenda Item J, Informational Reports.  The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, “Reserved Spaces Program” that is Appendix “E” in your Agenda and JoAnn Chirico will present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Reserved Spaces Program

 

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

 

JoAnn Chirico:  This “Reserved Spaces Program” report is one of our traditional and mandated reports.  It consists of some dialogue and four charts, which essentially highlight that the percentage of reserved spaces at University Park has decreased from 1984 to the present time so that it now represents about 5.64 percent of freshmen admits to University Park.  Are there any questions?

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay thank you, JoAnn.  Back to Laura.  The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, “Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location,” that’s Appendix “F”.  This looks more like Bob Ricketts.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

 

Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

 

Robert D. Ricketts, College of Health and Human Development:  I am Bob Ricketts and I am the Vice-Chair for the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education and each year I have the luxury of reading all these petitions and of course you know students given due process have the option to petition for drop/add, withdrawal, late registration, corrected grades, etc.  This past year we took in 1,642 petitions and we granted 1,400.  I am pleased to say that I think the colleges have done a much better job in screening them before they get to here so it is not as labor intensive as it was my first part of this task.  Any comments?

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  I would like to commend you, Bob on a wonderful job of petitions.  You have done a lot in terms of expediting the process as well as your thoughtful comments and your responses are much appreciated.

 

Chair Nichols:  Well I suppose you are wondering what is going on.  The three remaining informational reports none of the presenters are here.  We could take a short recess.  I think John Brighton will be here presently but if there is a strong preference…none of these reports are timely and people might want to hit the road so any statement of preference here?  Like to take a short recess and I suspect we will probably lose a lot of people but…

 

Senators:  Laughter.

 

Chair Nichols:  I will tell you what, let’s take a five-minute recess subject to recall.  The chair plans on starting in five minutes time.  If we do not have it resolved then we will adjourn.  Okay, the Senate is back in order.  It appears that we have a quorum.  We are at Agenda Item J, Informational Reports, The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, “Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years,” Appendix “G” and John Brighton, University Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium will present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years

 

Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

 

Laura L. Pauley:  The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education is sponsoring this report and I am pleased to introduce John Brighton who will tell us about recent activities in the Teaching and Learning Consortium.

 

John Brighton, University Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium:  Thank you, Laura, and my apologies for being late or maybe you are finishing up early from whatever happened here.  I guess it goes in a consistent way that the…it is in a consistent way that the Faculty Senate is unpredictable.  I did not have any thoughts about your being ready for me at this juncture.  In fact, I just came from class.  I left class early in order to be here, I thought on time so let me just take a few minutes and I appreciate all of those who have stayed for this to give you a report on the two years of progress of the Teaching and Learning Consortium.  I gave Graham Spanier a copy of the two-year report back in July, he read it, and was very complimentary.  He said that this is something that I ought to speak about and present to the Faculty Senate, so I am pleased to have that opportunity and I am also pleased that those of you that are here to listen to it.  My challenge was to do this in ten minutes and I am going to try to do that in something close to ten minutes and hopefully there will be questions to follow, and I encourage that.  What I am going to do given the suggestion of how crunched we were for this meeting and the fact that I had to do this in ten minutes and the fact that I prepared for two hours for this ten minute presentation is to condense it in the sense of giving you the highlights of the Teaching and Learning Consortium and point you toward the written report, which there is a lot of information there.  And then secondly, I am going to talk about the teaching and learning events that are planned for 2002.  Then thirdly I am going to talk about some of the sense of national trends in teaching and learning in universities across the country.  Lastly, I want to comment on the Penn State trends for teaching and learning.  I thought that might be more useful than just reporting about Teaching and Learning Consortium only.  So the first thing is for those of you who have the handout and I hope you all do, in the second page is the web page for the Teaching and Learning Consortium and on the web page is a large arrow pointing to the Teaching and Learning Consortium Report for the first two years.  I would encourage all of you to look in on the web page because there is lots of information about teaching and learning here for you to look at, but particularly because the report is there, I am going to refer to that in my remarks.  So let me talk about very briefly the highlights of the teaching and learning activities.  I have reported on this before and so I am not going into all the details here at all, but to remind you that the Teaching and Learning Consortium was created in July 1999 by Graham Spanier and we began with creating ten teams of people to focus on how to improve teaching at Penn State.  These ten teams have 130 members and they have been working on this diligently.  We have been working on this diligently from that time.  One of things that I would like to point out in the report on page 12, is the Methods and Practices of Active and Collaborative Learning, which is an issue very important for this university.  The second thing I would like to point out in the report for you to look at, is the Strategies for Improving Learning on pages 13 and 14 of that report.  And fourthly, I want to point out too the Overall and Individual Team Accomplishments that are laid out in this report.  Let me ask a question.  How many of you have copies of this report itself?  Let me see the hands of anybody that does here.  Okay, a few of you do.  The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education has copies of the report and I think the Senate Officers should as well.  Sorry I do not have enough copies for everyone, but it is available on the web site.  In addition to these things, I would like for you to look at, I will list here invited speakers that were brought in this past year and a half.  We had Ted Marchese, who is the Vice President of AAHE and former editor of Change magazine come here and talk from his perspective about what the trends were in teaching and learning in universities.  We have had Barbara Cambridge who is also Vice President for AAHE and the Director of the Carnegie Teaching Academy also talk about course portfolios.  George Kuh was here last spring to talk about the…from Indiana University the National Survey on Student Engagement.  There were 150 attending this keynote lecture for the colloquy that was held in conjunction with that.  Dan Apple of Pacific Crest came and gave a workshop on the Teaching Institute.  There were 87 people attending.  And Richard Light came recently from Harvard University to talk about how to be successful in college in connection with his book that he has produced and let me just comment on that.  This is Richard Light’s book.  How many of you have copies of this book?  I am doing a survey.  Many of you do, great.  Let me tell you that we have some more copies available and if any of you are teaching a freshman seminar or a first year seminar I would be glad to try to get a copy of this book to you because I think it is extremely valuable for those that are engaged in first year seminar, so I wanted to point that out to you.  An excellent book, everybody should take a look at it but particularly those people that are dealing with first year students.  The other things that have taken place in the highlights is colloquy and workshops.  Colloquy of 2000 had 156 people attending.  Last year we had 230 faculty attending colloquy in the spring.  We initiated last spring for the first time Summer Teaching Academy where we had ten different workshops during the week and 199 people attending these workshops looking at new methods of teaching and learning.  We have created an opportunity for departments to work collectively and focus on improving teaching and learning in those departments and that started earlier this year and that is continuing to progress.  To realize that a lot of the improvements of teaching and learning will occur at the department level, we wanted to encourage that effort.  Most recently we have worked with Betty Moore in doing another “Pulse Survey” in which we asked questions like, “What is your best class?”  “What has been your worst class at Penn State?”  And talk about what were the characteristics of those classes to help guide us in terms of what the students believe about what is good teaching and what is not good teaching, in addition to looking at how much active and collaborative learning is done in the classroom and this survey has just been completed.  Now for the upcoming events for 2002, I am going to go through this fairly rapidly, but I think it is really important that you know about this so you know what the opportunities are this year.  For the first time this year there will be a Winter Teaching Academy from January 2-4, 2002 prior to classes starting in spring semester.  One of the workshops will be on Readiness Assessment Testing and Scott Kretchmar is going to facilitate that workshop.  Scott is doing this for the second time.  He did a great job last spring and the workshop was overflowing.  We had to turn people away and the results in this one and the others that I am going to mention here were very highly rated from those attending.  The second one in on Problem Based Learning by Carol Whitfield from Hershey where they have been doing problem based learning and teaching in medical schools for a number of years and she will work with some people from the Schreyer Institute to facilitate that workshop.  We are going to bring back Richard Yuretich from the University of Massachusetts who is going to do a workshop on Active Learning in Large and Small Classes.  Again, this was a highly rated one that was done last year, which I would encourage everybody who can to spend a half a day in a workshop of this type.  And then fourthly in connection with all of this, there will also be a workshop that is done by John Harwood and I think he has already sent the information out on this in which they will present a new Course Management Software for people who are teaching various courses.  This is a new and exciting opportunity for people to use technology to assist in your teaching in a very effective way.  We have coming up this year as well the Undergraduate Research Exhibition which will be in April sponsored by Undergraduate Education, the Schreyer Honors College and NASA.  We have a Summer Teaching Academy again, which we did last year.  This will repeat at least in some variation of the last one for May 7, 9, and 10 following the week of final exams.  We also have not shown here but you might make a note of it, the First Year Seminar Conference that the Office of Undergraduate Education is sponsoring is a two-day conference on May 6 and 7 for dealing with first year seminars.  Also, during that same week we will have Colloquy on May 8, 2002.  So the week of May 6 there will be a lot of opportunities for people to engage in discussions and learning new methods in teaching and learning.  Then lastly, but very importantly, is a new thing that we are dealing with here, which is focusing on learning assessment so we will have a Learning Assessment Institute and that will be a four-day workshop August 19-22, 2002 this coming year.  You will hear a lot more about that workshop as it comes along.  I wanted to talk very briefly about some national trends in teaching and learning that people of the consortium have been engaged in and interacting with others in the university.  I want to mention a few of these at least.  The Boyer Commission Report of 1998 is a report which focuses on criticisms of teaching and learning in research universities and many criticisms that you could add to or know about already.  But it also lists a blueprint for things to do to improve teaching and learning in research universities.  I think this is a landmark report  that many of you perhaps have seen, but I would like to encourage those who have not seen it to get acquainted with this report and also to encourage those that have seen it to look at it again.  Let me show you the report.  I have four copies up here, but I have more back in the office if anybody writes me and says they would like to have a copy of this report, I will find a way of getting more reports and getting a copy to you.  I strongly encourage you to look at this because all the things we are doing now were actually laid out in many ways in the blueprint back in 1998 by this commission.  Along those lines the American Association of Higher Education is doing a conference this coming June on Assessment.  They are also focusing on launching electronic portfolios and a website for such.  They are continuing the Carnegie Teaching Academy where faculty teams go from schools to talk to each other about teaching and learning.  Members of this university have participated in that even though at this point we are not a member of that group.  Change magazine is another example of indications of change and new ideas and active learning, student engagement and assessment.  I would just call your attention to the fact that Larry Spence has an article in this current issue of Change magazine titled, “The Case Against Teaching” and if you know Larry Spence and many of you do, you really know what he is talking about and you know his style of relating his ideas on those issues.  The National Science Foundation has a new initiative a major funding effort in promoting assessment as a way of improving teaching and learning.  Penn State has jointly tied in with SUNY Stony Brook to put forth a proposal in this opportunity to NSF.  If we get that, we will have lots more opportunities for doing workshops focusing on improving teaching through assessment.  I will just call your attention to the National Research Council book that has been put out on How People Learn.  It is really a bible on the scholarship of teaching done by the solid fundamental work of researchers and scholars in putting that together and I would recommend that to you.  The National Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities has also been engaged in student engagement and other issues around teaching and learning.  The Kellogg Foundation has funded a number of projects along with the NASULGC and President Spanier has been leading some of the efforts in this area.  I mentioned George Kuh and the National Survey on Student Engagement and I will also mention that Zemsky from the University of Pennsylvania and his work in what he calls deep learning which is funded by Pew Foundation.  I want to conclude by mentioning a few things about trends at Penn State that I have observed and I think members of the Teaching and Learning Consortium have observed.  I really want to commend the Faculty Senate very seriously about things that they have done that have positively impacted teaching and learning at Penn State.  One of those very important is your actions and legislation around active learning elements in general education.  It is a challenge and it is a serious challenge to make these changes, but the fact that it was initiated by the Faculty Senate and has been moved ahead by the Faculty Senate is really a compliment.  The First Year Seminar is another area.  The students that I have been talking to have really been very positive about their experiences in the First Year Seminar and I think we are right on target at Penn State with Harvard and other universities that are focusing as well on these particular issues, getting started right and helping the students have a better chance for success.  Also, academic integrity is an issue dealt with by the Faculty Senate and it has done a great job in putting together a clear understanding of expectations and initiating a way of monitoring and moving that forward.  And the last point I will make is these are not the only ones, but the last one I will make here is I think the paper on Promoting a Vibrant Learning Culture speaks very favorably about an attitude about teaching and learning for the university, which was supported and brought forward by the Faculty Senate.  Then I will mention technology, of course we have been doing a lot moving ahead with John Harwood’s leadership and others moving ahead with using technology and supporting teaching.  John Cahir and his efforts in promoting classrooms using technology has been very effective.  Software—the ANGEL Course Management software that again John Harwood is promoting, and he is going to have a lot of workshop opportunities for faculty to be involved in.  And then generally, there will be a workshop to bring faculty and others up to speed in the use of technology so that they can use it more effectively in the classroom and otherwise has been very effective.  Departments like Statistics and Biology, are getting major grants from foundations to use technology in innovative ways to promote better teaching.  The use of technology of the web based portfolios for teaching portfolios or learning portfolios or course portfolios has also been very important.  And then I will go down the last list fairly quickly because the Teaching and Learning Consortium does focus largely on pedagogy on the way we teach, the way we do things, and I want to give a lot of credit to some of these units.  CELT has offered a course on teaching for a number of years.  Many people have taken it and I think it is really improved teaching.  They have just hired or they are in the process of seeking a new person in that unit whose specialty is assessment.  The Leonhard Center in the College of Engineering focuses on innovation and development of teachers, and teaching approaches is focusing on to some degree on assessment.  The Schreyer Institute again another unit that has been very valuable as an incubator and a unit for development of new methods in teaching and some of those methods have come to the Faculty Senate and obviously have been implemented as new methods and new approaches.  They too have hired a new person focusing on assessment.  The Royer Center in the Commonwealth College has focused on assessment and technology.  Service learning—Undergraduate Education, the Schreyer Honors College, and Student Affairs.  Service learning as a way of learning has really moved in the forefront and I think is continuing to move ahead and is an exciting thing that is happening in teaching and learning.  Student engagement, again the Kellogg Foundation and their efforts under NASULGC and others through Dr. Kuh’s efforts.  The Penn State study—the Pulse Survey and so forth these have been noted.  Again, under assessment we have CELT, Leonhard Center, Royer Center, and Teaching and Learning Consortium proposal which we are seeking funding from the National Science Foundation.  Working in teams, department initiatives and student centered learning, and just the addition of the TLC as another add on effort to promote teaching and learning.  I really want to thank Rodney Erickson, Graham Spanier and John Cahir for their support in all of this effort and the opportunities to work with John Cahir in a collaborative way to help promote these things.  So that is my summary report.  I am sorry that I am not giving you a full report on everything that is going on in the Teaching and Learning Consortium, but that would be too difficult to do.  But I strongly encourage you to look in on the web site for the TLC, there is a lot of good stuff there.  It will also get you into the web sites for other units that promote teaching and learning.  At this point if it is allowed I would be glad to have a discussion or answer any questions you might have.  This lecture has been too long, but now is a good time to have an interactive discussion if we can.

 

Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development:  I am just curious about the Pulse Survey?  Have the results been published and how many students were selected to give information?

 

John Brighton:  Betty Moore is not here.  Yes, John…

 

John J. Cahir, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education:  There were 604 students in the survey and I actually have a copy of it with me, if you would like to look at it.  It shows clearly that the best classes…the classes the students rate best score considerably higher in the active learning elements that the Senate has set in percentage compared to the worst courses.  So for example, if you talk about problem based learning, 49 percent of the courses listed were chosen as best classes had and, 24 percent were listed as worst classes had at Penn State.  So you saw that same sort of difference in virtually every active learning element.

 

John Brighton:  This is just out and John has given some pretty good comments.  There is a lot more to say about it but I am not really ready to say a lot more until I look at it in a little more detail.  I want to be right in what I say about it so we will have more to say about it at a later time.

 

Chair Nichols:  Okay, thank you John and you are absolutely right the Senate does continue to support your teaching and learning initiatives as well as those of others.

 

John Brighton:  I will leave these reports up here so first come first serve.  Also, let me know if you want additional copies, email me and I will see if I can get them and email me as well if you would like the book.

 

Chair Nichols:  The next informational report is the Senate Committee on University Planning.  This is actually a report that I personally requested.  One of the responsibilities that the Senate Officers have is to attend the Board of Trustees meetings and if not always the case, usually the case William Anderson, the Assistant Vice President for Physical Plant presents visual construction reports that are really nifty.  We receive the construction report, but they are the spine print reports that really do not give us a flavor of the work done in physical construction as it relates to the academic enterprise.  So I asked Bill if he would be willing to present a visual construction report on the three new academic initiatives and these as you know will substantially change not only for this campus but for the university at large.  Bill agreed and the Senate Committee on University Planning agreed so Bill is here to present the report.  Thank you for joining us, Bill.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings

 

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

 

William J. Anderson, Assistant Vice President for Physical Plant:  Thanks, John.  Good afternoon and it is a pleasure to be here with you today.  I am excited to be able to present three absolutely wonderful projects that are underway here at University Park.  I will go through the presentation and I welcome any comments that you might have afterwards, but before I begin, I would like to introduce a few people.  I have not seen them all but I had asked them to come.  I saw Daniel Larson, Dean of the Eberly College of Science is here and I do not know if…yes, Joseph Lambert is here, Associate Dean of the School of Information Sciences and Technology.  We have got Richard Tennent who is our Project Manager in the Office of Physical Plant who is managing the Information Sciences and Technology project.  Lisa Berkey sitting next to him who is our Project Manager for the Life Sciences Building and the Chemistry Building.  And behind them is Gordon Torow who is our new Director of Campus Planning and Design.

 

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.

 

Chair Nichols:  We are a little bit ahead of schedule so we do have time for questions, are there questions for Bill?

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  I noticed a difference in two of the figures that you put up there sort of an earlier version of the Master Plan or it could be a later one.  An earlier version I am talking about, West Campus now seems to have more academic buildings in it than what I interpret to be a later version that had a parking deck instead.  Are there to be some changes in the Master Plan of the West Campus?

 

William J. Anderson:  The first drawing that you saw was the Johnson, Johnson and Roy Master Plan, which was March 1999, and then the second that we showed was a refinement of that Master Plan done by Sasaki Associates.  What we did was when we did the first one we did not have a good idea programmatically about what would fit with details on the West Campus and the second one then, took a look programmatically at what we could actually fit and try to match the program elements with the College of Engineering’s requirements with what actual space we had on West Campus.  The first one showed a parking deck, but it was probably in the wrong location and then when we got into the detailed study, the second one actually shows a parking deck also but it is in a different location and it kind of tries to accommodate the engineering buildings around that parking deck.  Does that answer the question, Jean?

 

Jean Landa Pytel:  Yes, thanks.

 

Wayne R. Curtis, College of Engineering:  In making the walkways and so forth in the Life Sciences is that intended to still allow for deliveries and so forth in that area?

 

William J. Anderson:  We have done a lot of traffic studies to see if we can make this thing work.  My presentation called it Shortlidge Road or Shortlidge Mall Pedestrian First because our intent is to translate that into more of a pedestrian mall.  I do not know if you recall this from when we presented the Master Plan awhile back, but that one block of road on Shortlidge Road between Pollock and Curtin, we measured pedestrian crossing in an eight hour day and we had 24,000 crossings there.  So the Master Plan idea was to try to turn that into a mall and that is our intent.  Our traffic study shows that we can and the one thing that we are still working on is to see how we can route the buses and how to not route the buses through that area.  That is still kind of a work in progress.

 

Chair Nichols:  Anything else for Bill?  Okay, thanks a lot Bill it was very interesting.

 

William J. Anderson:  Okay, John.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

Chair Nichols:  All right the last informational report.  The Senate Committee on University Planning, “Security Briefing” this is Appendix “I”.  Thomas Harmon, Director of Police Services will present the report.  Welcome, Tom.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Security Briefing

 

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

 

Thomas Harmon, Director of Police Services:  Thank you, John.  I thought I would preface my remarks here by sharing with you a little known fact and that is that one of the Uni-bombers explosive devises was actually delivered here to Penn State.  The Computer Science faculty member to whom it was addressed had moved on to Vanderbilt and the package was forwarded to Vanderbilt where it is my recollection that it was opened by a staff assistant, detonated, and caused severe injury.  I do not share that with you to cause you to lose any sleep tonight over your high-risk jobs, but just to say that bad things can happen anywhere including here.

 

The events of September 11, 2001 have brought about a number of significant changes in security procedures at the university and have had a number of impacts on our operation of University Police.  Some of these procedural changes are associated with the facilities that are operated by the university, but regulated by the federal government.  Other changes that have been instituted have been made on the part of the university to take reasonable and prudent steps to reduce the risk of death or injury resulting from acts of terrorism should they occur here.  I would like to review with you without going into any compromising details some of the security procedures that have been implemented here and the impact if you are at Penn State and at our various campuses.  Certainly the university operation that has been most affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been the operation at the University Park Airport.  University Park Airport of course is owned by the university.  The terminal is owned by the Centre County Airport Authority and both are required to have FAA approved security plans and must of course comply with FAA security regulations.  University Police provide the required law enforcement support to both the airport and to the terminal.  While there have been numerous security procedures mandated by the FAA the most visible to the public certainly are those changes at the screening points.  The assignment by the governor of both a state trooper and a National Guard soldier to all airport security screening points has greatly reduced the burden on the University Police with respect to that portion of the airport security operation.  But the use of State Police and National Guard soldiers is certainly not going to be a permanent fixture.  It appears, however from my review of the aviation security law which was recently passed by Congress and signed by the president, that it is the intent of the federal government to not only have the screening at airports done by federal employees, that the act provides for an armed law enforcement officer of the federal government at these screening points.  So while there is still a good bit to be teased out from the legislation and to be clarified, it appears that at this point in time that the permanent staffing by an armed police officer at those screening points will be a burden that will be assumed by the federal government.  Still all the other security enhancements associated with aviation security will place considerable additional burdens on both the University Police and the airport staff as we move through these changes.  Another facility on the campus that is regulated by the federal government is the Breazeale Nuclear Reactor.  I would say to some extent the concerns about dangers to public health and safety from a mishap or act of sabotage at the reactor are exaggerated due to a public lack of knowledge about the functioning of a research reactor.  The risks posed by a research reactor, such as Breazeale, are certainly different and much less severe than those associated with a nuclear power plant.  Nevertheless, the reactor is mandated to provide procedural safeguards to protect the facility from theft, damage, and acts of sabotage.  In responding to the NRC expectations, we have had to devote considerable additional police attention to that facility as well as providing some other procedural safeguards.  From the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, federal officials have consistently identified large sporting events as potential targets for terrorism and certainly there are few sporting events in this country that are larger than Penn State football games.  Some of the security procedures implemented this season were certainly very visible to the public such as state troopers at gates throughout the entire game.  The discontinuance of half-time pass-outs and the prohibition against bringing bags into the stadium.  In addition to those things at each game, we were able to have a State Police Explosive Detection Dog present and while there are other security and law enforcement activities which were not as visible, there were other things that were taking place.  It should be pointed out though that like all security enhancements we have not provided absolute security from acts of terrorists but what we have done, I think is by some of these things, is to reduce the risk and make it more difficult for someone to bring explosives into the facility.  You may recall the Olympic park bombing was an incident where the perpetrator brought a backpack into the facility and just set it down, left it unattended, and it detonated.  At other public events particularly those at the Bryce Jordan Center we have implemented similar procedures to those at football events.  All levels of government have responded to the threat of terrorism.  There have been task forces at various levels established to help in developing plans and implementing safeguards against terrorism.  At the local level here in Centre County the County Commissioners as you probably--those of you who live here in State College may have read about--have appointed a county task force on terrorism.  The university is represented on that group by the Director of Environmental Health and Safety, the officer in charge of the university’s Hazmat team, the Centre Region Emergency Management Coordinator who happens to be a police supervisor and the Director of the Institute for Emerging Defense Technologies as well as myself.  The president has also appointed a university task force on terrorism which I have been asked to chair.  This group consists of representatives from environmental health and safety, public information, human resources, the Office of the Vice President for Research, physical plant, the Department of Emergency Medicine at Hershey and faculty members with chemical and biological expertise.  This task force will review existing safety and security procedures, and make recommendations to university administrators on changes as necessary to respond to the various threats as they might emerge.  The incidents of delivery of Anthrax through the mail as a means of inflicting death and injury have caused public officials to focus attention on preventing and responding to incidents of chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism including the possibility that these means may be used as weapons of mass destruction.  The university in Centre County operates a Hazardous Materials Response Team.  The members of that team are primarily employees of the Environmental Health and Safety Division and University Police officers.  On a contract basis we provide Hazardous Materials Response to all of Centre County.  Each county in Pennsylvania is required to have some Hazardous Materials response capability and in this particular county that is provided by the university.  Since September 11, 2001, the Hazmat team has responded to 125 calls for service.  That compares to about 15 call outs in an average year.  Most of these calls have been for suspicious mail and packages, and approximately 30 of the calls or about 25 percent have been here on campus.  The general response procedure to suspicious mail calls has recently been modified to provide for police officers to properly secure most suspicious mail and later have it examined by a member or members of the Hazmat team.  In providing guidance to the campus community on mail handling procedures, we have referred employees to the information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web sites.  In addition, while we have not mandated nor recommended personal protective equipment for mail handlers, but we have provided guidance with respect to proper equipment and its use for those employees or areas who wish to use such equipment.  This guidance was distributed through Human Resource Representatives and safety officers.  Some of you may have also received safety procedures for hazardous materials and food processing guidance which came from the provost through administrative channels.  In the weeks following September 11, 2001, bomb threats were received here at University Park and at a number of other Penn State campuses.  Because of the heightened concern over bombs in most of these incidents a decision was made to evacuate the affected facilities.  Now this would be a significant change from past practice certainly here at University Park where historically bomb threats would not have resulted in evacuation.  In most bomb threats over the years we have chosen to notify the occupants of the bomb threat, post the facility and search the facility, but have allowed scheduled activities to continue.  But given the current concerns and the environment the standard procedure in most cases will be to evacuate a building.  While I believe that there is a public expectation that buildings will be evacuated in response to bomb threats more bomb threats would cause us to reassess this current practice if they became a frequent occurrence.  As some of you may have seen in the news a bomb threat at Bloomsburg University caused officials there to close the campus for the better part of a week.  At those campuses without a security or police force, we have found that bomb threats have been a particular problem because there has been some lack of consensus about who should search the buildings and there have been problems particularly at those kinds of campuses with coordinating a response with the local police and fire companies.  We have encouraged all campuses to plan for bomb threats and recommended that they establish liaison with local public safety officials to develop protocols for handling such incidents beyond that which is provided in university policy.  I think that one of the real threats to the academic mission here of some of the things that have happened is the possibility of repeated bomb threats because they are really very disruptive to the ability to carry out class activities.  Fortunately, except for here at University Park, where we have had two bomb threats, no campus that I am aware of, has had more than one.  The threats of chemical, biological and radiological terrorism have received much attention in the media and there has been a lot of focus by public safety officials on becoming better prepared to prevent and respond to these kinds of dangers.  However, we need to remember that most terrorist attacks have employed either conventional explosives or improvised explosive devises made from easily acquired materials.  The weapons used on September 11, 2001 to take over the airplanes were simple tools that were not even defined at that time in some cases as weapons by the federal screening standards.  The airplanes and the fuel they carried were used as the explosive devises.  Timothy McVeigh created his bomb using fuel oil and fertilizer so that we need to recognize that traditional explosives are still the most likely terrorist weapons.  With that in mind, we have ordered an explosive detection dog and have scheduled an officer here at University Park to attend the required training to become a handler for that explosive detection dog.  This will give us an important asset to detect explosives.  It will allow us to better inspect facilities prior to events and to search for bombs in the event of bomb threats.  Finally, one of the concerns that developed in the aftermath of the September incidents were concerns about the safety and security of Muslim students and persons of Middle Eastern decent.  Some of these students here at the university had either experienced unpleasant incidents due to prejudice or had expressed concerns about their personal safety because of potential ethnic and religious stereotyping.  Chief King from the State College Police Department and I met with leaders of various Muslim and Middle Eastern student organizations shortly after the terrorist attacks to listen to their concerns and to reassure them that the local police would be responsive to their needs and any reports that they might make.  To my knowledge there have been no criminal acts locally against Muslims, but certainly some have experienced unpleasant incidents of prejudice.  In looking ahead, we believe that the work of the various task forces both at the university and those at the local government level will result in us being better prepared to deal with potential threats.  We are currently working to add several police officers, but that is a time consuming process with the police academy now being a 19-week time period.  Looking at some of the operations that I have mentioned we think that the airport needs as we move ahead will largely be met by the federal government.  There may be some relaxation at some point in time of the security level at the nuclear reactor but at this time we need to proceed as if this is going to continue indefinitely.  I think the changes that we have made at sporting events will be permanent changes.  I think they are prudent measures and are not unreasonable impositions on the public and if there is anything we have learned from these events is, that the future is very uncertain.  In the last 24-hours we have been placed under another national security alert with unspecific threats.  And it seems to me that at this point in time our challenge is to become better prepared for various threats facing us, take steps that are reasonable to reduce risk, and to help ensure the public safety by concentrating on these efforts.  If you have any questions I’ll be happy to try to answer them.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware County Campus:  With regards to bomb threats to buildings, you said prior to September 11, 2001 if the frequency was great, all you did was post the building that had been threatened and people made choices to whether they wanted to go in or not?  Is that correct?

 

Thomas Harmon:  That had been the most common practice here at University Park.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Is that practice still in effect now?

 

Thomas Harmon:  No, our response right now is as a general rule, now again there may be…all these are individual judgments based upon the circumstances at the time but I think the prevailing judgment right now would be to evacuate a building.  Now the reason I say that is because some of these threats have come in and they have been vague.  For example, I think the Hazleton threat came at 12:30 in the morning and came to the security officer on duty and the caller said there is a bomb on your campus and it is going to go off tomorrow or something like that.  It was a threat toward the campus in general not to any specific building, so it is my understanding that they searched all the facilities that they could within the limits of their resources but there was no specific building to evacuate.  But the typical bomb threat or at least one variation of it will be to call up and say there is a bomb in the HUB and that is maybe all the caller says.  In response to that kind of a call we would probably choose to evacuate that building until it was searched.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  Let us say you did not post that building because there was a frequency of these things and we are not posting it this time.  Who is liable if something happens?  If I as a faculty member go in and have a class or the administrator says we are posting who has the liability for us?

 

Thomas Harmon:  The liability I do not think rests with the individual because the decision has been made to continue scheduled activities in that building once the building has been searched and it has been reopened.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  But let us say it was not searched.  Prior to September 11, 2001 you said that when you got bomb threats in certain cases all you did was post?

 

Thomas Harmon:  No, we would have always conducted a search of the facility.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  But the question I have is, if you conduct a search, I know that at the Delaware County Campus for instance searches could not be conducted without everybody evacuating and therefore that is quite a disruption.

 

Thomas Harmon:  Well, when I say we would have conducted a search we would have not evacuated the building.  We would have searched the exterior of the building.  We would have searched those publicly accessible areas and we would have asked those in offices to look around their office for anything that is unusual.  Now that may not be a thorough search and the question as to liability--well if a bomb went off and we had not evacuated that was a risk that we were prepared to assume.  But I think even to evacuate the building at some point in time you are going to open it back up and there still is some potential risk that something could have been hidden there and the search that was conducted did not discover that.  So, there is never a point in time I think, when there is not risk and no liability.  It is really just a question of what you are going to do to reduce that risk and whether it be an evacuation, a search, and how long you are going to keep the facility closed.

 

Peter D. Georgopulos:  For the record, Delaware County had two bomb threats.

 

Thomas Harmon:  I am sorry, okay.  The more you have, the more it calls into question the procedure because at some point in time you can no longer tolerate this disruption.  You have to provide some deterrent to those people who are calling in those bomb threats and the deterrent is that you are not going to disrupt our activities any longer.  So it really is, I think a balancing act of interests here, and again, I think we have been fortunate that the bomb threats even though they have been certainly more frequent, they have not been so frequent that we have had to make a decision that we would not evacuate.

 

Chair Nichols:  The hour is late but given the importance of the subject maybe we could take a couple more quick questions.

 

Wayne R. Curtis:  The question is for instance our facilities coordinator also happens to work Hazmat.  Now in those 15 times a year it could be viewed as voluntary on the part of the unit a useful activity.  When it gets to be 60 a month is there a long-term plan for the Hazmat being sort of not so voluntary busy…it needs to be a full time regular staff activity?

 

Thomas Harmon:  I hope sincerely that this unit does not have to be a full time paid…it is a paid…it should be compensated now as part of their employment but I hope there is not a need for full time staffing of this service in this community in the near future.  But the question is how long is this going to continue?  The good news is that when I said there were 125 calls, they have dropped off dramatically in the last few weeks so that this, I think is…and as I indicated we have modified those procedures to put greater responsibility on the police to go out and retrieve the suspicious mail.  So I think we have already gotten over the worst of it but if you envision that the Anthrax incidents became commonplace throughout the nation, I think that providing hazardous materials response capability in every community would become a need.  We certainly hope that does not happen.

 

D. Joshua Troxell, Student Senator, Division of Undergraduate Studies:  You mentioned earlier the Muslim Students Association and some of the concerns that they had you had addressed when you spoke with them.  Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks I know some of those students had come to the various diversity committees that Undergraduate Student Government has and expressed concerns to us as well.  What ongoing resources do we have to offer to students whether it be the Muslim students or any student as far as addressing concerns that they might have regarding security issues, prejudices, etc?

 

Thomas Harmon:  When we met with those student leaders we were dealing primarily with the role of law enforcement and responding to criminal incidents but we also had to tell them that there were things where they might experience acts of intolerance, which did not rise to being criminal incidents.  In those instances, I would suggest that maybe student affairs personnel, whether they be in the residence halls or through the 2020 line here on campus would be the kind of resource that we would direct them to for assistance in resolving those kinds of problems.

 

Chair Nichols:  Thank you very much, Tom.  We appreciate your work in trying to keep the university safe.

 

Senators:  Applause.

 

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)