Penn State University Home

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D

Volume 33-----DECEMBER 7, 1999-----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 1999-00.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, 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 7, 1999

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to December 7, 1999

B. Attached

Attendance

III. Tentative Agenda for February 1, 2000

FINAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the October 26, 1999, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:2

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of November 23, 1999

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 16, 1999

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -

G. UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

Faculty Affairs

Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Reserved Spaces Program

Outreach Activities

Update on the World Campus, Gary Miller, Executive Director of the World Campus

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

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

M. ADJOURNMENT -

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

The Senate passed one Advisory/Consultative Report:

Faculty Affairs - "Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks." This report establishes the new academic title of Senior Instructor. It also establishes the definition for this new rank (as that which is the same) as the definition of Lecturer and redefines the Instructor rank. (See Record, page(s) 12-15 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

The Senate received two Informational Reports:

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid- "Reserved Spaces Program." This report compares the data on Reserved Spaces from 1984 through 1999. (See Record, page(s) 15 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Outreach Activities - "Update on the World Campus." This report gives the mission, goals and an update of the accomplishments of the World Campus. (See Record, page(s) 15-30 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Murry R. Nelson, Chair, presiding. One hundred and forty-four Senators signed the roster.

Chair Nelson: It is time to begin. As many of you may know, Ted Ziegenfus who was one of our colleagues here in the Senate representing Penn State New Kensington, passed away last month. In Ted's memory, and as a gesture of thanks for his contributions to the university and to the University Senate, I ask you to please share a moment of silence with me to honor him. Thank you.

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 26, 1999 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 Nelson: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

I'll give you one and then we'll go back. I know this may seem out of order, I often am. But I do want to give the president a little more time, and as you note, he has to leave a little earlier today. You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheet) for November 23, 1999. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

I have a note here. It's a memo from Lou Geschwindner, who is Chair of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs. The memo sent to me will clarify, we hope some statements that have been made. I'll read it quickly. "It is the normal policy of the university to permit a student to choose to follow the curriculum under which they originally enrolled or to choose to follow a newly approved curriculum. Based upon the recommendation of the Subcommittee on General Education of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, the Committee on Curricular Affairs reaffirms this policy as it relates to students ability to follow the newly approved General Education program. As with all changes to a student's curriculum, the student's dean may approve petitions as appropriate. Thus, students may choose to follow either the old General Education program or the new program and the dean will be responsible, as always, to ensure that the student completes the appropriate program." In other words, students may request to follow the new General Education program, which will be difficult in some cases, unless they're freshmen, because they can't do a freshman seminar. It will be up to the deans to decide what they do about that, but all exceptions can be made by the appropriate deans. And that was clarified by the committee. There were questions.

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of November 16, 1999. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today’s meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

Chair Nelson: I have a number of announcements. I'll just make one, and then we will go on to the president's questions and comments. The one announcement I would like to make is, I would like to read to you a rider to a bill that was passed by the State legislature on the eve of the Thanksgiving recess about ten days ago. It is a rider to House Bill 115, and it says, "an ordinance adopted by a municipality which requires or the effects of which is to require the provision of health insurance or other employee health care benefits, shall not apply to a state-owned or state-related college or university. Any municipal ordinance in effect on the effective date of the addition of 53PAS, Code 2181 that is inconsistent with that section, shall be void as it relates to a state-owned or state-related college or university." And then it says when it takes effect, which is within 60 days. This may not seem all that clear to you. Some of you may have heard about this particular rider to the bill, how it was passed and what it actually said. This is the wording, and I wanted you to get the exact wording, because a year ago, this body overwhelmingly passed legislation supporting same sex domestic partner benefits. I want to strongly register my great dismay at both the passage of this legislation, and the surreptitious manner in which it was introduced and passed. And that's one announcement, but I'm going to stop other announcements because I want the president to get as much time as he can. He has about 20 minutes. So President Spanier, we are ready for your comments, and we're happy to have you with us today.

First I want to make an announcement regarding something we usually do at the end of the year. At the end of the year, we recognize Senators who are leaving the Senate. Charlie Gunderman is retiring at the end of this semester, he will be leaving the Senate after 24 years in the Senate, and I wanted to recognize Charlie and his contributions because this will be the only time we can make that recognition when he is actually here. So Charlie, we want to thank you very much.

Senators: Applause.

Chair Nelson: The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 and discussed the following agenda items: Update on Penn State Geisinger Health System; Update on Searches for various administrative positions; Academic Integrity update; benefit changes on drugs; common degree requirement; Computer initiative at non-UP campuses; Faculty Senate involvement in enrollment management; University calendar; Intellectual Property Task Force; and Commonwealth College letterheads. We were very busy and very tired at the end of the meeting. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for January 18, 2000. So if anyone might have any items to be included on the FAC agenda, please contact any of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members: Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers visited Abington College and Penn State Delaware on November 1 and 2 respectively. We also visited Penn State DuBois on November 9. We had our debriefing meeting with Provost Erickson on November 23. This concludes our visits to the locations other than University Park for the fall. Scheduling is now underway, and just about completed, for our spring visits to units at University Park. When complete, these visits will be posted to the Senate's web page.

A meeting to charge the joint committee on academic integrity was held November 16, 1999 and that committee has met twice since then. As you recall, the academic integrity report was pulled from the October 26, 1999 Senate Agenda by the Student Life Committee so that a joint committee could be formed to address the concerns of academic integrity.

I have a couple of other things here. One has to do with a note I got from a student asking how he could address legislation, and I gave him some suggestions and gave his note to the two appropriate committees. But what I would like to tell all of you to make sure that your units realize is this is somebody who is not a Senator can also indeed have some impact on any kind of issue that they wish. But they should contact the particular members of the Senate within their voting unit--be they students, or faculty. That is the appropriate way to do things and anyone is welcome to do so.

I received a memo from Dr. Spanier regarding legislation passed at the September 14, 1999, Senate meeting from the Undergraduate Education Committee. The report entitled "Revision of Senate Policy 44-25: Conflict in Final Examinations" was approved by the president and is being referred to the vice provost and dean for undergraduate education for implementation.

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much. I'm due in Washington, DC for a meeting this afternoon, so Murry has moved me up a little bit on the Agenda. I'll share a few things with you. I think you'll recall from maybe the last meeting in October, a report from C. McCollister Evarts, our Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the College of Medicine, about the challenging climate facing academic health centers. Since then, you are aware of course, that we have re-organized what has been known as the Penn State Geisinger Health System. And that is related in part to some of the challenges that we face in our particular academic health center. What this means in practical terms, is that we are re-claiming responsibility for ownership and control for everything associated with the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, its hospitals, its clinics, and of course, the College of Medicine. This will be entirely under the purview of Penn State University, going forward. There will continue to be challenges, certainly from the financial side, given what's happening in the health care industry. But we think this is right for us at this point in time. We will be in complete control of our own destiny, even while we have some significant challenges to meet there at Hershey. Some individuals may be concerned about the Penn State Geisinger Health Plan. A few of you might be in that plan, and there is no need to be concerned about that. There are no changes associated with the health plan. The health plan will be completely under the purview of the Penn State Geisinger Health System, which will be renamed the Geisinger Health System, and Penn State University will have no affiliation with the health plan. But as I understand it, no changes are anticipated beyond those outlined in the most recent booklet. We'll have more to say about how things are evolving in the College of Medicine and at the Hershey Medical Center over the next several months. The main thing to remember is that the Penn State name that we are all familiar with and have been over the years, will be attached to this marvelous enterprise which we will continue to emphasize high quality patient care in addition of course, to our teaching and research missions.

I want to say a word about enrollments. We encourage perspective students to apply by November 30. That's a point at which it's advantageous for them to apply. It gets them into the pipeline early, and by then we have enough of an indication of how many students are likely to be interested in Penn State for the coming year that we begin to develop a feel for our planning for the following year. I'm pleased to report that interest in Penn State is quite remarkable, and in some ways it continues to astound me. Each year we seem to set new records in the level of interest for Penn State. And already just about midway through the current admissions cycle it looks like we are in another robust year. As of the beginning of December, undergraduate applications are more than 3,000 ahead of last year at this time. This is the highest number of applications ever received at this point in the admissions cycle. That number already is over 30,000 undergraduate applications and we have just about 40,000 applications altogether if you put the graduate, professional and other applications in there. Last year you'll recall we ended up at over 70,000 so we already have about 40,000 this year and the undergraduate numbers are up more than 3,000 compared to this time last year. Success in the admissions cycle is measured more by the number of offers we make and then the yield on those offers--those who accept our offer--the application flow is a very good sign. In-state applications are up modestly but it's very interesting to point out that out-of-state applications at this point are sharply up 11 percent over last year at this time. Again these are preliminary. It's also interesting to note and some of you may not even be aware that we offer an opportunity for students to apply now, in different ways including electronically. They can just go to the admissions web site, and complete their entire application electronically within a half an hour or so. 6,000 of these students have already applied on the web. So that is on a steep upward curve. An interesting trend.

Some of you have been following the efforts of the Undergraduate Student Government and other student organizations, to have a day of service in relation to our observance of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday and celebration in January. I would like to encourage all of you to do two things. First of all, to build into your classes in the spring semester and into your curriculum as appropriate for the subjects that you teach, some understanding, recognition and pedagogical discussion as well as other ways to tie into the curriculum, the observance of this holiday and its significance to what you might be teaching. Penn State is among the universities that does not cancel classes on Martin Luther King's birthday. Some universities do, and some do not, and there's an interesting discussion to take place there. It comes up from time to time in those universities that do cancel classes, since the holiday is observed on a Monday, it typically means a three-day weekend, which means that many students leave the campus and go home. Therefore, the students do not participate at the university in an educational program. One of the things that many of us have argued over the years, is that by holding classes we have an opportunity to have events through the weekend, and particularly on that Monday and it's an opportunity for faculty to build material into their classes, as appropriate. I encourage you to do that. This year, the Undergraduate Student Government is making an effort to tie community service into that day and I encourage you to be supportive of that with your own students, and yourselves and your colleagues as well. I do not believe in calling off classes so that students can participate, but I believe in many cases it can be tied in to what you might be doing already.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that at 5:15 p.m. today in the alumni hall of the HUB, there will be a gathering sponsored by the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity Commission of the university. I would encourage you to attend this rally that they are having today. At this gathering members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual community and allies who have been particularly active in the struggle to achieve equity at Penn State will be acknowledged, and some administrators from the university will join them as well as leaders in that effort. And I think as much as we can show our support for the commission's work and for the efforts the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual community and for our understanding of the challenges, that they face in having an improved climate at Penn State, I think it's important for us to do so.

Let me offer my congratulations for those of you who may or may not follow intercollegiate athletics at Penn State. I want to offer my congratulations in public for the remarkable achievement of our student athletes this fall. Penn State as you know, continues to be near the top nationally in the academic achievement of our athletes, and in the quality and integrity of our intercollegiate athletics program. This fall, in addition to all of the great academic things that I think you read about from time to time with academic All-American awards and the high grade point averages of our teams and the continuing graduation rates that are shown in the most recent NCAA reports, all of our fall teams had remarkable seasons in post-season play, as well as during the season and in winning conference championships, and two of those teams still have some post-conference play ahead of them. The football team in the Alamo Bowl and the women's volleyball team are now one of sixteen teams left. On Thursday and Friday on this campus you can go and see them in the regional championships. The team that emerges from Friday will be going to the final four in women's volleyball. So my congratulations to all of the athletes and thanks to those of you who have been supporting them. The number of people coming out to the various events have been very impressive.

Finally, I want to end my remarks by wishing you all a very good last week of classes, and a productive final exam period. I wish you all well in grading your papers and exams, and meeting the deadlines that your department heads and the registrar care so much about. And then after you work hard getting that all done I hope you have a restful holiday period and I do wish you happy holidays and welcome you back in January ready to begin your 80 hour work weeks again. Now I have time for about five minutes of questions.

Chair Nelson: Let me remind you before you speak that you identify yourself and your unit.

Sandy R. Smith, Fayette Campus: Recently, our lawmakers committed the egregious act of passing House Bill 115. The underhanded way this bill was passed violated the trust of fellow legislators and Pennsylvania citizens. It was deceptive and undemocratic. Moreover, this bill violates the sanctity of how a university conducts its business. Not only was the bill targeted to oppress a particular group of people, it was specifically crafted to nullify an ordinance in the city of Pittsburgh that promoted human rights. In fact, this law requires state universities to discriminate against those who have same-sex partners. Given this turn of events Dr. Spanier, I'm wondering what do you see as our course of action since this Faculty Senate has expressed overwhelming support of equal treatment for all in the compensation at this institution?

President Spanier: Well, the bill certainly caught me off guard, and the day I learned about it, I sent a letter to our Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Equity talking about my surprise and my concern. I am not familiar with the nuances of the bill, but from what I can read into it I'm not sure it affects Penn State at all. I don't think it mandates us to do anything. I think from what I can tell, it was really designed to deal with a particular set of circumstances that currently exist at the University of Pittsburgh. I don't think we're required to go out and do anything because of that bill, but we're very mindful of it. We're very concerned about what it might mean and what it says about other broader issues, but there are no specific actions that we plan to take because of that bill here at Penn State.

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: Dr. Spanier, recently the university faculty and staff were asked to choose their medical plans for the coming year. And to the surprise of many, and presumably perhaps away from University Park there were several substantial changes in the new HMO prescription plans which would force faculty to make potentially very expensive choices in a rather short notice, without really requiring more education or discussion by any of the appropriate Senate committees. This especially involves the people who have to choose between a drug maintenance plan and what's called a 50/50 plan. And what is especially bothersome is that we have been unable to find out exactly what this 50/50 plan entails (i.e., what charges--over the counter cost, some plan negotiated cost, wholesale cost) that 50/50 plan operates. My colleagues call up pharmacies and some people say they have no idea, some say we will not give out any prices. And I was wondering if you or someone in the administration could further clarify this issue for the prescription plans and perhaps some enlightenment as to why we were notified so belatedly, although Dr. Willits has extended the deadline. We'd like to know especially about the 50/50 plan and what that payment is part of. Perhaps you can address that question.

President Spanier: Well I think the answer is, someone in the administration can answer that question but probably not me. What I would like to do after I'm done, is either yield a couple of minutes of time to Billie Willits and ask her to come up and answer that question. I see she is in the back there. Or if it's more appropriate under new business or some other time, she could do that.

Chair Nelson: Why don't we wait, President Spanier and go on to some other questions then.

President Spanier: I think, Billie you could answer that probably couldn't you? Okay, good. She'll tell you everything you need to know and then some.

Carly M. Lipsitz, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: In Academic Assembly last night they were talking about the rebirth of the issue of keeping or getting rid of the Blue Book for next year and I was wondering if you could comment on what the status of that was? We were under the impression that it was agreed that it was going to stay for at least the next two years?

President Spanier: Yes, I think it is going stay for at least for the next two years. If that's your concern then I don't think there is an issue. If your concern is that we're spending tens of thousands of dollars a year printing something that could be available on the web, and that it might be impacting other funding that is available in the university, if you are on that side of the issue, yes, then there's still an issue. Ultimately, that is a wonderful example of a document which is just right for having on the web where it could be updated every month or day or semester, as opposed to once every two years, because it's out of date the moment it's printed. Nevertheless, there are some people who have told us that they're still very heavily dependent on being able to reach up to their shelf and pull that down and look at the paper version. And there are also a few people in selected administrative positions or maybe some people who are heavily involved in academic advising, who actually as a historical rector like to go back and say, "okay you started in 1994 so I'm going to pull down the 1994 book and see what was in effect then." They want to have a hard copy of what it said in 1994. Of course you can have an electronic version of what it said in 1994, too. So that's a case where despite all of the marvelous advances in use of electronic materials that we have on our campus some people aren't ready for the change yet of doing away with the printed version. So we're not doing away with it, but I have to tell you there's a cost to the university to keep that going. Because the cost of printing things keeps going up, whereas the cost of making things available electronically keeps going down. And at some point we're going to have to face up to that so it will still be on the table for discussion.

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus: As long as there's time for one more it's relevant to this question. You seem to have a vision of Penn State University for 2010 and 2020. It's probably going to take some time, so maybe after this meeting but for the next meeting you could elaborate a little bit on your vision for Penn State for the millenium?

Chair Nelson: We'll give you two minutes.

President Spanier: Well, gee I'd love to do that. You know that's hard to do in one little statement. I try to do it cumulatively every year by giving a state of the university address, writing things, and making a report to the Board of Trustees and others along the way. Of course, 2010 is a pretty long time from now so I wouldn't claim... You have to have somebody like Gordon De Jong who is a demographer, who can predict things with greater precision than I can to say what it's going to be like. I have some ideas and there are some things that I haven't actually spoken about publicly, because you know they are for a little later. It might be kind of interesting to talk about, I mean that's a topic I would love to spend some time on. Of course, doing that can make people very nervous. One of the things that we surely will need to do, is to reduce the amount of paper that we use on campus. Now that has happened. We are in a mode of reducing a lot of things that we relied very heavily on in the past. I mean any of us who were here 20 years ago, remember that we had lots of forms at the university that had three, even as many as six or eight copies. You had to press hard to get down through all the copies, because they all went somewhere and everybody had to figure the writing out. We had a lot of things that required, you know moving, hopping, skipping, and jumping from lots of different offices to gather up signatures from all the relevant people. Sometimes it got so crazy that people literally had a desk drawer of rubber stamps that they would use to stamp things. We have moved substantially in the direction of reducing paper work. IBM, which is one of the largest corporations in the world, has a goal of eliminating all paper--literally all paper--four weeks from now. That is their goal. The CEO told me two weeks ago he thought they would make it. They were down to five million pieces of paperwork--five million pieces of paper--at IBM this year. That was down from 39 million last year. To just simply eliminate all use of paper. We still have a lot of it. Of course, a lot of it is you folks printing up stuff that came to you electronically. I mean it's not just about the use of paper, but I don't think people fully appreciate what all of the new information technologies that are available to us will allow us to do to operate this university differently if we choose to do that. So there are a lot of things to talk about just in the area of information technology, and of course there are a lot of programmatic things to talk about as well. We've touched at the last couple of meetings on the rapidly increasing deployment nationally of for-profit and not-for-profit companies providing educational services. And while this will affect Penn State in a much lesser way initially than it will affect some other universities, in time it will begin to affect us and particularly some of our smaller campuses that don't have as much critical mass of activity. How we deal with intellectual property issues around that question is going to be very important for us. I know there are Senate Committees and a number of administrators working on those questions now. And yet this year we hope to come up with something that makes sense for us at Penn State. So there are a lot of things that we normally spend our time on that get a little boring talking about after a while, and I think some of these issues that look to the future could be worth spending some time on. And we should get a report from Gordon anyway, on what the demographics are. People like Gordon go down to Harrisburg and tell state officials what's going to happen, and I don't know if we heard the same data here which is pretty interesting. You've got to have the context in which to talk about that stuff. I don't mean to volunteer you but you know I think that would be interesting stuff. Well, I do have to go catch a plane, so thank you very much for giving me this opportunity once again.

Chair Nelson: Thank you President Spanier. We're going to go to that deferred question that Peter Rebane raised. Billie if you'd like to respond to that? Do you want to come down here or stay up there? What's your pleasure?

Billie S. Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: I'll start here and if you can't hear me I'll come down there is that all right?

Chair Nelson: You were already asked to come down. Thank you.

Billie S. Willits: Peter, thanks for asking that question. I think that when there are still questions out there that people can't get answers to, this is a good way to try to deal with it. So I appreciate it. Let me first of all give you a brief context of what occurred here. I think you know me well enough by now to know that when I have information, I give you information. And basically what happened with this pharmaceutical situation for about 600 of you, not for the majority of the faculty and staff, but for about 600 of you, is that we had been moving along with the health care providers, thinking we knew what the rate of increases were going to be for the HMO's. And we knew for example, that HealthAmerica was not going to raise its rates for the year 2000. We had been led to believe by other carriers that their increases, although they might be in the double digits, would be modest. Having moved along with that idea, we prepared the material that you traditionally know as Time To Choose. We found out in late August, that the rates that we were given by some of those other companies might not hold. By September, we found out that indeed they had not held, and so we began to ask them what was contributing to these rates of increase. For example, for those of you in the northwest part of the state, we recorded a 28 percent increase by Blue Cross/Blue Shield for your HMO in one year. I said 28 percent, when HealthAmerica was not increasing at all? Aetna US Health Care gave us another increase. It was not as high as that, so we inquired as to what was contributing to this high rate. Among other things they told us pharmaceuticals. We said to them, "what if we went to a choice between what we call a 50/50 and a maintenance prescription drug program?" The reason we asked that question is that those of you who are located at University Park and in the central part of Pennsylvania know that this choice of 50/50 or maintenance drug program, is the choice that you've had since 1993, and we knew that it has worked well. We also had inquires from the campuses and colleges away from University Park as to why they could not have a choice in their HMO. Another contributing factor is that both the task force that recently met on the future of benefits, as well as the original task force had said, "as much as possible keep the plan designs fairly consistent." So with the rate of increase going up, people asking us if they could have choice, as well as feeling comfortable that the task force had said make plans fairly consistent, we decided that we would make the choice. We were able to keep those rates for those HMO's down somewhat, although they still went up significantly in the northwest part of the state. We knew that in September, the middle of September I believe it was. So, as soon as I became aware of it, we stopped the process over at Printing Services and had a conversation at the Human Resource Representatives meeting so that the representatives for the campuses and the colleges away from University Park, who were affected by it and again it's a fairly small percentage--but those of you who are affected are directly affected by it. We thought that we had explained to them sufficiently what was going to happen, and the background of why it was going to happen. In addition to that, we sent a letter to your directors of business services explaining that their locations would be affected by this change. Having done that, we were able to reprint at the Blue Line stage the Time To Choose and include that information. We thought we were moving along. We knew we were late, we knew it was not the process that we're used to here at the university, but we thought that we had caught it and were moving forward. Then Peter Rebane called me and said, "I just got Time To Choose and guess what it says." Obviously he had not been aware that the changes were coming before the Time To Choose. So at that point in time we quickly put together a point-by-point sheet for the employees in those locations where they were being affected by it. What we've tried to say to you are a couple of things. One, and I think this might be starting to answer directly the questions Peter, you posed, so when I miss some please bring them up. With the 50/50 choice, the employee would pay 50 percent of the cost on the wholesale price. Now there are some drugs that may be discounted even below the wholesale price, but that will depend literally drug by drug by drug, and that will depend on the producers of the drug. Some of the pharmaceutical companies give better discounts than others, but it will be at least on wholesale what we've negotiated. If you choose the maintenance prescription drug program, you'll still get a discount on your drug. All you do is you take your card, your HMO card, and you'll probably get a ten to a fifteen percent discount on the retail cost of that drug. Then again that will vary drug by drug. I also heard this at noon today. One of the Senators stopped me and said, "Billie this is unnerving," that's my word not his, "we're trying to find out from a pharmacist what the cost of these drugs will be, and we're not getting any answers." I don't understand that because there is no reason for them not to be able to put that drug into the computer and it should tell them based on your plan how much that 50/50 would cost you. So if you are a Senator in these locations, or if you have other faculty or staff in your locations, who are not getting an answer from your local pharmacist, quit spending your energy on it. Call us and what we'll do is we will put it through the drug company that negotiated the discounts and we'll get back to you then on what those rates will look like. I don't understand why they are not doing that. I did check locally with the employee benefits department this afternoon, right after someone told me that and they said, "we've never had a problem with that before". So something is going on out there that we just don't know about, so don't spend your energy on it, call us. Give us a couple of names of the drugs or if you've got a specific one that you may think you'll be using and we'll get it back to you to let you know what it will be. In addition, remember we have extended the deadline, I think you all know that, but also in the point-by-point letter that we sent to the faculty and staff in those locations that are being affected by that, one of the bullets I'm not sure which one it is, but on one of the bullets we said to you if you choose a plan by December 15 and you get into the new benefit year and you find out that that plan because of the pharmaceutical situation is not working for you, call us. There is on that bullet sheet the name of a person and her direct telephone line. Call her, it's Lynne Williams, I mean I'll be glad to take your call, but I'm going to give it to Lynne, and what we'll do is we'll switch your plans. We'd like to talk it through with you though, to make sure you aren't making a decision based on one incident. But if we find out that you really should have been in a different plan because of the pharmaceutical situation, we'll move you to another plan right then and there, and I just think that's important for you to know. Because sometimes you think you've asked all the right questions, then you get in the middle of it, and it's the month of March and you find out it wasn't a good decision. So we'll switch you over, because this has been unnerving for everybody concerned, in terms of the timing. Peter, were there any other specifics?

P. Peter Rebane: No thank you. I want to recognize Billie that your office did call me back on the issue, and I appreciate it. The question was raised in the non-University Park caucus because especially on the 50/50 plan some pharmacists refused to divulge any prices. Some had no idea what it was. Some people said, "no it's off our regular shelf price 50 percent". While you and I had a good dialogue on this I wanted to speak on the behalf of many others who had gotten different answers and the wholesale question answers that I think a lot of people had a difficult time picking that choice because they didn't know what the 50/50 meant exactly. Thank you.

Billie S. Willits: Thank you.

Chair Nelson: Thank you Billie, that was very helpful, we appreciate your time. There's another question, Tram.

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: A couple follow-ups on that. You were just referencing a letter I believe you said you sent to faculty and staff at the non-University Park locations. Did that go out individually to all of us, or did it go to the business service offices at the other locations?

Billie S. Willits: It went to the campuses. I'm hedging on whether it went to... Interestingly enough I just found out something from some of the other commonwealth college locations on a wholly different issue. That somehow or other the communication isn't going. So I made a note of that already, and I'll talk to the human resources rep and your directors.

Tramble T. Turner: The second question has to do with Faculty Senate. At the time that you were generating those letters, did your office also contact the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits and give them an update on this?

Billie S. Willits: I'm on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits and I had not alerted them at that point in time. I think I was just trying to take care of the specific issues. I did get a chance to give them a briefing today and that's the earliest...I mean they picked up pieces of it obviously, but they had not had a briefing from me until today.

Chair Nelson: Thank you Billie. Let's go back now to Communications to the Senate.

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

None

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Chair Nelson: The first one is Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks. It's Appendix "B" in your Agenda and John Nichols will present the report. May I remind you again, to identify yourself if you have questions regarding any of the issues that arise.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks

John S. Nichols, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

John S. Nichols, College of Communications: Thank you, Murry. This is a recommendation to add the rank of Senior Instructor. We've previously established the rank of Senior Lecturer. However, there is no uniformity across locations and colleges in the use of these titles. Some prefer lecturer, some prefer instructor, and there also is very little difference between the definition of the two ranks in HR-21. Therefore, in order for faculty in the units that prefer the title instructor to have the opportunity to be promoted, the Faculty Affairs Committee recommends to you the addition of the rank of Senior Instructor to HR-21 and to make the definitions for the two ranks the same. Lou Milakofsky who chairs the Promotion and Tenure and Appointment Subcommittee of Faculty Affairs, and whose committee did all the hard work on this is here to answer any questions that you might have.

James M. Donovan, Mont Alto Campus: I am of course on the Faculty Affairs Committee, and I didn't realize this until later when a fellow faculty member pointed this out to me that under the new definition of instructor where it says, "The instructor should possess at least a master's degree or equivalent, or be an active candidate for an advanced degree, in an academic field related to his/her teaching specialization." That clause, "or be an active candidate for an advanced degree" seems to imply to me that it's possible for someone with only a bachelor's degree to be an instructor. Am I right?

John S. Nichols: That would be my reading. No? I mean the key word I think is should. The key word is 'should'. It does not lock us in. It does not say 'must,' it says 'should' so what follows that is a recommendation, but not locked in cement. Is that your understanding Lou?

James M. Donovan: Under the old definition of instructor it says, "should possess at least a master's degree or at least two years of graduate work or equivalent in the field of his/her specialization." It seems that what this does is that it sort of downgrades the qualifications for the instructor, but not for the lecturer, from having to have a master's degree to having merely a bachelor's degree.

Louis Milakofsky, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley: Same definition.

James M. Donovan: The instructor should possess at least a bachelor's and master's degree...

Louis Milakofsky: That's crossed out.

James M. Donovan: Okay, it says under the old definition at least a bachelor's and master's degree?

Louis Milakofsky: Right we tried to make lecturer and instructor consistent definitions. The updated version the proposed version has it the same definition. "Lecturer should possess at least a master's degree or equivalent." "Instructor should possess at least a master's degree or equivalent."

James M. Donovan: It's the "or" that's the problem.

John S. Nichols: Okay, now I'm with you. So what's your recommendation?

James M. Donovan: That we eliminate the clause "or be an active candidate for an advanced degree."

John S. Nichols: I don't think that was consistent with the committees' intent.

James M. Donovan: It makes it possible does it not, for someone who has only a bachelor's degree to be an instructor?

Louis Milakofsky: There are some...

James M. Donovan: I mean I didn't think about it at the time and somebody else pointed it out to me. But this calls for...you know. Before, an instructor had to have a master's degree.

John S. Nichols: Well, the word before was 'should' as well and there certainly are cases in which people hold instructor and lecturer ranks without a master's degree. And that would continue to be the case irrespective of this change.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: In summer session I think for example, the faculty appoint graduate students to instructor titles rather than graduate assistantship titles. So we need to have that title available for them and some of them can hold master's degrees.

Beno Weiss, College of the Liberal Arts: I don't know if this is relevant. You seem to imply that there's no difference between being a lecturer or an instructor. In my experience I found out that the Immigration and Naturalization Services do make a distinction. For example, if we hire a foreign national as a lecturer, the salary is much higher than if we hire someone as an instructor. I don't know if this enters into this or not but there are some subtle differences between these two titles. And I was wondering if the committee has considered those?

Louis Milakofsky: I believe that the salary issue is a choice of what the dean describes the...

Beno Weiss: The government insists that the salary must be at a certain...

Louis Milakofsky: Well, again that's an administrative thing. I don't think that has anything to do with the policy at this point.

John S. Nichols: Are you saying that there are federal reasons why we should not do this?

Beno Weiss: No I was just wondering if there is any indication it's going to affect these changes that you're making. Whereas, before we had a distinction between instructor and lecturer, and now you say there are no distinctions.

John S. Nichols: We did not discuss any immigration implications of this. That did not come before the committee. But what became obvious to us from polling the colleges is that the different colleges and units do not uniformly use the titles. So the way Liberal Arts may have used it is potentially very different than the way Science or Engineering might use it. Some colleges used the instructor as a superior title, and the lecturer as a lesser title. Other colleges vice-versa. In addition to that, there was no appetite for uniformity because these cultural distinctions may not manifest in the words but these deeply routed cultural distinctions vary between colleges. But if there are immigration implications that we missed, I would certainly like to know about it and we'll bring back corrected legislation.

Chair Nelson: Other questions? Are we ready then to vote on this? All those in favor of the recommendation, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you, John and Lou. We are on to Informational Reports. Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, the Reserved Spaces Program which is Appendix "C," in your Agenda. JoAnn Chirico the Chair of the ARSSA Committee will present the report.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

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, Beaver Campus: This is another traditional and mandated report of Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Every year, Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid approves the limits for the reserved spaces admissions to University Park. Reserved spaces are admissions that are set aside for students who have special talents or special needs, and who fall below the standard cut- off for University Park admissions. These students do in nearly all cases meet the admissions for other university locations other than University Park. The success rate of these students is similar to the regular admissions at University Park, and for the past few years the number of spaces actually used for reserved spaces has fallen below the limits approved by Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. There are some tables that accompany the narrative. They're not quite in the order in which they are referred to in the narrative, nevertheless, they are easy to sort out. Any questions?

Chair Nelson: Questions for JoAnn? All right since this is an Informational Report we need not vote on it, so thank you very much JoAnn. Senate Committee on Outreach Activities we have an update on the World Campus which is Appendix "D." Jacob De Rooy will introduce some pals that he brought along.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Update on the World Campus

Jacob De Rooy, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: Thank you, Murry. Technological advances in communications have given us the resources with which to deliver Penn State educational programs to a wider audience than we traditionally reach in the classroom environment. The World Campus is the instrument by which we have captured the use of these resources, and these technological advancements, to deliver educational resources to an audience far beyond the audience we could normally reach in a traditional classroom setting. In legislation passed by Senate in 1997, the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities has been charged to monitor the activities of the World Campus, and regularly update you on the progress of this important instrument and its delivery to Pennsylvania, and the world of Penn State's educational program. We are very pleased to introduce to you today, someone to deliver a report on the current status of the World Campus. Dr. Gary Miller, College of Education, Director of the World Campus Office. So Gary if you would please step forward we are looking forward to hearing from you.

Gary Miller, Associate Vice-President for Distance Education & Executive Director of the World Campus: Thank you, Jake and thanks to all of you for allowing us to come and make an update on the World Campus. It might be a good idea as a way of starting, to go back to our original mission. When Dr. Spanier first announced the plan to explore the feasibility of the World Campus back in 1996, this is what he said. "That the World Campus will respond to the needs of adult learners in the information age through the creative use of educational technology, and to extend signature programs--undergraduate and graduate programs--to these students nationally and internationally." And three years later, those are still key elements of the World Campuses' goals. Our goals are first of all, to increase access to the university. Increased access on the part of adult learners who otherwise don't have access to the kinds of programs that they need. The emphasis is on signature programs. Programs that meet very specific needs in the community and around which we can aggregate audiences through the technology at the national and international level. You'll be seeing what I mean by that, as I list some of the programs. The World Campus is also expected to be self-supporting. It's a cost center of the university, and our goal is to generate not only the income to recover our own costs but also to generate new streams of incomes for the academic units that are offering programs all over the World Campus. And for those of us who are thinking about the students and really looking at the benefit of the World Campus from a pedagogical point of view, our goal ultimately is to create new kinds of learning communities using the technology to bring people together in new ways around ideas. And that means that we're very much tied to a web of innovation that's going on throughout the university in the use of technology. And that innovation role has been there since the beginning. When the World Campus study team first presented its report to the university community they noted the idea that the World Campus really should be part of an institutionalized web of innovations in terms of education and learner support. And we see ourselves as contributing to the innovative environment of the total university as well as benefiting from instructional technology innovations that are being developed throughout the university. I should add that while we're interested in innovation we're not the only ones out there doing this. Over the last few years, the number of institutions and those of you that read the Chronicle of Higher Education regularly, probably see these reports all the time, the number of institutions involved in this kind of virtual on-line education have expanded pretty dramatically. And I say competition and collaboration, because this is just a handful of the institutions that are now involved in this kind of activity. Some of them are competitors, in fact, all of them are competitors with us at one level or another, because they all deliver the university to the desktop of students at home and at the work place. But many of them are also collaborators with us. Just last week we began meeting with UC-Berkley and University of Wisconsin and SUNY and others to begin to talk about how we can work together to develop performance standards, to develop pedagogical standards, technology standards and so forth. So we're working together with our peer institutions around the country, but we also recognize that they're also delivering programs to students at home with many of the same goals and ideals. When we look at a successful World Campus program we have to look at quality from a couple of different dimensions. From those of us who work in distance education, these kinds of principles have to apply. First of all, we have to genuinely be increasing access to the university. Reaching out to new students we can identify and who now have access to us. We have to have the commitment of an academic unit. We are offering programs here. Academic degrees and certificates that will exist over a long period of time, so it has to be a standing commitment on the part of the academic unit and the faculty in that unit to be successful. We'd need obviously, solid content that's the content of the academic unit. It's your content. The faculty bring the content of the courses to us, but there also has to be rich interaction. I think the real key, and we've learned this time and time again over the last couple of years, is that the Internet is really a communications environment, it's not a publishing environment so much as is it a way of creating communities of interest and bringing people together. We want to make sure we use the World Campus to that end. We also recognize, and we've learned I think a lot over the last couple of years about the need for faculty to have available to them new kinds of technology support, new kinds of human support, and new kinds of faculty development opportunities to make this work. And the same is true of students. They need to have access to technology and other kinds of support. Finally, if we're going to do this right and improve over time, we have to have a consistent and objective assessment process to guide and help us improve. But we also have to think of quality in terms of the academic program itself, and the academic quality of the programs that academic units offer through the World Campus. The first thing is, that the programs that we offer over the World Campus are the academic programs of Penn State. They are your programs. They go through the normal academic approval process. If an academic unit wants to offer a degree through the World Campus, that degree has to be approved through the normal processes: they would need to be approved to offer the program at any other location of the university. I mentioned the department and the faculty commitment earlier. That is absolutely essential if the programs are going to be sustainable over time and the need for us to provide on-site faculty development and to work in a program team environment, which is really new for a lot of faculty. It takes a little getting used to. But this is an activity that takes a team environment. Where we are, as you can see, we are offering associate degrees, we're offering undergraduate certificate programs right now. If you look at some of the topics you begin to see what we mean by signature programs. These are very well defined targeted programs of the university. We're offering post-baccalaureate certificates and starting in January our first professional master's degree and again the signature program nature of this begins to pop out as you look at some of the topics. We anticipate that in the future, most of the new development will be at the master's degree level although not all of it. We're also offering a number of non-credit professional development and education programs in a variety of areas that are an important part of what the work force really needs today and those programs are among our most popular. This year we will offer 16 programs. By programs I mean, certificate programs with multiple courses or degree programs with multiple courses over the World Campus. Our five year goal is that the World Campus in five years will have around 25 to 30 programs that will be offered regularly to students around the country and around the world. Last year was our first full year of operation for the World Campus. We finished the year with 850 enrollments. This year we're on target toward a goal of around 2,850 enrollments. That's considerable growth, but its growth that shows we're on target also because of the increased number of programs that we have available. And our goal over time is that we'll reach a stable level of offering around ten thousand course enrollments in a given year. Who are our students? They are the adult learners. They are the new students out there in the work force, and in an information society that need access to the university on an ongoing basis. Eighty-nine percent of our students are over the age of 24, about 11 percent are minorities, 61 percent live beyond Pennsylvania and in 15 countries around the world. And when I say around the world I really mean it. We have students in Malaysia, Japan, China, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Austria, South Africa, and Australia. They literally are all over the world. That's the power of the Internet to bring that kind of diversity into the student body and for us to serve people wherever they might be. In addition to those 15 countries by the way, there are a number of army post office addresses so we're serving the military as well. I mentioned the importance of students early on, and one of the things that we did that created a lot of attention this last year was to create a course called, "World Campus 101". It's a free orientation program available on the web to help students get a better idea of what they're getting into before they enroll in a World Campus course. One thing we don't want to do at this stage in the development of this campus is to have a lot of people get into it, discover it's not for them and drop out. We'd rather they had a taste of it, decided whether or not it was for them and then decide to go in and be successful. And so the "World Campus 101" is something that gives people a chance to test it out. Once they get into the course is when they really begin to interact with faculty and with other students. It starts with a welcoming letter but very quickly gets in to the basic course elements. For the content of the course, we use multiple media to present information to students. Students are involved in activities and communication, and of course they are also involved in assessment. We look at course content. The web allows us to develop really rich content and lots of times our on-line web content is complemented by CD-ROM's or video that might be video tape or streaming video, printed material, bulletin boards and chats where we can add additional content as it goes through. Most of our courses are developed. All of our courses are developed by program teams that include not only the faculty member, but graphic artists, html programmers, web designers and so forth, who help make sure that the material is well matched to the presentation media. Student activities can either be self-paced or collaborative. In our "Noise Control" program for instance, we have a number of small team activities that students have to do over the web together in order to meet the needs of the course. We have tutorials. Our "Turfgrass Management" program involves a number of case studies and there are of course exercises and various kinds of analysis that students do on the web. So it's not just a passive learning experience, it's quite interactive. Again, the heart of it for me personally, is the interaction, the ability of these students to become part of a learning community and to interact with each other and to interact with faculty on a spontaneous and synchronic basis. Also the ability to get involved in project teams and use the email as well and use bulletin boards to post assignments so that they get quicker turn around than has been the case in previous kinds of distance education. Student assessment is obviously important, and it's essential to have credit courses especially so we use multiple models. We do some on-line testing, we do some "take home exams" that the students do without supervision, and when it comes to major exams we use proctoring services. Students are expected to take proctored exams in their local community and we have a system set up for that. What are our students saying? We've been using through the Center for the Study of Higher Education, and we've been using some of our Sloan Foundation funds to get a database on students and faculty experience. We're pleased with the kinds of responses we've been getting from the students. Generally, students express a solid overall satisfaction with the learning environment of the World Campus. Students feel they're gaining knowledge, that they're getting good faculty interaction, and they're satisfied with their ability to interact with other students which I think is good. 87 percent expressed the likelihood of taking another course, which is really important to us. So we're very pleased that the students are pleased with their environment and they're also telling us what we need to do to improve with regard to technology and other areas. Faculty members' experience is equally important and if we're going to sustain the World Campus over time, the teaching environment must be one where the faculty can absorb the work of both developing and teaching courses into their daily lives. It's got to be something that is no more onerous than teaching in any other environment at Penn State and I'm glad to be able to say that I've got with me today two faculty members who have been teaching in the World Campus. I'd like to invite them up to talk briefly about their experiences and be available to answer your questions. Let me first invite up David DiBiase. Dave's a senior lecturer in Geography, and is the faculty member in charge of our non-credit geographic information systems certificate program.

David DiBiase, Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography: Good afternoon. As Gary mentioned, I'm responsible for the certificate program in geographic information systems offered by the Department of Geography. Many of you might be aware about GIS. For those of you who aren't, it's an information technology used by local and regional federal government agencies, industry and university scholars to understand and cope with the spatial implications of social and environmental change. Our program consists of four courses that lead to a certificate of achievement. Each class lasts ten weeks and involves about four to eight hours of work per week for the students. We launched the program in January, and our first certificates will be awarded later this month. What was our motivation for getting started? Well, of course we're keenly aware that the proportion of university students who we used to call non-traditional students, (those students at 25 years of age and older) has increased by 50 percent over the last 20 years, and now accounts for 45 percent of the 15 million or so university students. And we are aware, some of us are aware, that the way we offer our courses and in many cases the content of those courses, are poorly suited to non-traditional professional individuals who are out in the midst of careers and families and community responsibilities. And obviously there is a motivation. Certainly my department head's motivation is the prospect of a new revenue flow. But with those prospects of course, come risks. The number one risk for us is the risk of injuring our departments reputation for quality, and by extension of course, the reputation of the entire university, and I suspect that's probably why we're here today. So to that end, I wanted to read just three snippets of student comments that we received in the last quarter of the course that I teach. Let me just read a couple passages here. "I liked the entire course because it was very well composed and I was able to take it from home. I can't compliment everyone involved highly enough for an outstanding distance learning experience. I've seen a few other courses since I started this one and they are pathetic in comparison." "In the beginning it felt weird to do the course without physically looking at the professor. Whenever I needed help I used to pick up the phone and leave a message to the instructor and he used to give me a call at work. His explanation was good and he has a lot of patience. Truly I enjoyed and learned a lot." "I would have enjoyed my undergraduate classes much more if I could spend more time on the subject matter and less time trying to take notes like crazy, fighting traffic, paying for parking and trying to subsist on the leftovers in the snack machines." Bottom line, this really is about quality, and the trick I think, and perhaps this is a geographer's perspective, the trick is to transform distance from a disadvantage into an advantage. Now we ought to be able to do that, and we can do it in this way. First of all, taking advantage of the communication capabilities of the World Wide Web, and other old fashioned technologies like telephones. It does involve changing the role of the instructor, and I think it involves a positive change and one that's enjoyable. And I'll be happy to answer questions.

Gary Miller: Let me introduce Barbara Grabowski. Barbara is the professor in charge of instructional systems in the College of Education. She has been involved in an educational technology utilization certificate. Once Barbara has had a chance to make some introductory remarks, we'll open it for whatever questions you might have.

Barbara Grabowski, College of Education: Thank you, Gary. As Gary mentioned, I'm the professor in charge of instructional systems. I've been involved in the educational technology integration certificate. My role there is, I'm not in charge of that program, but I've taught two of the six courses that comprise this certificate. One is called "Internet in the Classroom," and the other is "Computer as a Learning Tool". I'd like to just make a couple of comments about how I feel about this experience from a faculty member's perspective. Because I was involved in the development of the course, I'm not just offering this course. What was important to me was that the learning strategies that I value as a professor were incorporated into this course. Those values, those learning strategies that I think are very important are: problem based learning, active learning, collaboration, and discussion-intensive project oriented activities. These courses are not courses where students just sign on and do a bunch of reading and take a series of tests. We give them cases they have to discuss among their colleagues, and do projects. One of the things that I think is very positive about this experience is that I feel I'm able to give them some very good formative feedback. The students are involved in these small group activities, and as part of these small group activities, I can lurk in the background and watch their conversation evolve and as that's happening I can give feedback to the students. I think that there's some challenges in being precise in the way you communicate, but I also think that there's a diversity of perspectives that's brought by having--this is a program for teachers--teachers who are actually in the practice talking among themselves, talking about real issues, and I think that's also important. Another advantage is the time. I can really choose the time I want to spend on the course. That's really very flexible for me. One of the disadvantages is that there's no closure as when I leave at 9:00 p.m. after a three-hour class, and I feel like I'm done for that period of time. The disadvantage is that students feel they have access to you twenty-four hours a day, but I have enjoyed the experience and I really do like teaching at a distance and I'd be happy as well to answer any questions.

Tramble T. Turner: I only have one question and it has to do with the write up in Appendix "D." The last two lines on the first page of the report say, "World Campus courses are designed and conducted by Penn Sate faculty members and must be approved by one or more academic departments and colleges". The question has to do with, and where lurking within that sentence, is approval applied to the Curricular Affairs Committee?

Gary Miller: The World Campus is a delivery system, and not an academic unit. It's a way for academic units to get their programs out to new kinds of audiences. When an academic unit wants to offer a degree program, let's say through the World Campus, if it's an existing degree program, say an undergraduate degree, that goes through the normal process of academic approval, if any department wanted to offer that academic degree at a new location of the university, in that sense the World Campus is considered a location for the purposes of making sure that academic units get the approval. Same for the graduate level. Any graduate program must be approved by the Graduate Council before it can be offered through the World Campus. So we've just incorporated the World Campus into an academic approval environment. Does that answer your question?

Tramble T. Turner: Not exactly...points made.

Gary Miller: Points made? Okay. I think it was your point and not mine...

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: What is the average student to faculty ratio of the courses that are presently offered?

Gary Miller: David and Barbara might be able to speak about their courses. Keeping in mind that we have non-credit courses--undergraduate courses and graduate courses--you're going to see a range. But I would say today, we're averaging 20 to 25 students per course offering in an average World Campus course. There's a myth I think out there, and unfortunately folks in my field have contributed to that myth, that on-line courses should attract hundreds, if not thousands of students per course. Typically that's not the case. In our case because we're really offering quite focused courses, we expect to get 25 to 40 students in an average course.

David DiBiase: We hope that our program will scale to 1,000 enrollments a year. Four courses offered four times a year, so that would be 100 courses per quarter in the first course, down to probably about 40 in the last course. Assuming normal attrition for distance programs.

Barbara Grabowski: What we're planning on in instructional systems, and we have support from the World Campus, is to keep the ratio between manager and student. Once the course gets beyond 20 then we add graduate assistants to help us.

Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development: I'm just curious, is the cost for one of these classes the same as it would be for anyone as an undergraduate or graduate student?

Gary Miller: This year, because of growth of the program, we standardized tuition across all distance education programs--independent learning and World Campus. So we've adopted a differential tuition at the lower division and upper division of the undergraduate lower division courses. The tuition is $130 a credit, which is an increase over the old independent learning rate. Upper division undergraduate courses are $240 a credit, which is pretty consistent with the rest of the university system. At the graduate level, the tuition price really varies based on the program and there are a lot of factors that have to be calculated into a graduate program, so we don't have a fixed tuition for all graduate programs in the World Campus.

Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley: I'm interested in the adults in the master's degree programs. Could you say what the in-state tuition is for a resident of Pennsylvania?

Gary Miller: There's no out-of-state differential.

Jane Sutton, York Campus: What kind of relationship do you envision between the World Campus and non-University Park locations?

Gary Miller: There are a couple of answers to that question. We hope a close relationship. The university is going to be having what's called a work-out group with folks from Commonwealth College and folks from World Campus to talk about how to establish good working relationships at that level. So the Commonwealth College faculty and staff will have some input into how we work together. We've been talking with Abington College about ways in which we could work together. There is, as I think most of you know, something called the campus course exchange. A new university-wide policy that was put into place generally. That allows academic units to share on-line technology based courses across campuses. Several of the World Campus courses will be available to the campus course exchange and what that means, is that, for those campuses that elect to use those courses, their students would be able to register for those courses through their regular full-time tuition, and they would be participating as if it was a course being offered locally. So that would be a new way to enhance the number of courses available at the campuses. We're hoping to see an increasingly close relationship between the World Campus, and as you said non-University Park campuses of the university.

Nancy J. Wyatt, Delaware County Campus: What kind of technology or computer programs do you use to support discussion?

Gary Miller: For the most part we use something called "WebCT" which is the dominant computer conferencing platform these days. Also for some courses we use something called "First Class". But "WebCT" is the one of choice, because it doesn't require the student to install any software on his or her own local computer in order to participate in the course. David, Barbara do you want to talk about software platforms or your experiences with those?

David DiBiase: I'd just say that the main mode of communication among students and instructor is threaded discussion. So although "CHAT" is available because the key added value to these courses is asynchronis or semi-asynchronis, "CHAT" rarely is convenient for more than a couple students at a time. So threaded discussions that people can participate with over time is the main mode in which communication takes place.

Nancy J. Wyatt: I'm concerned about how they learn to do this? Do you have some way of like teaching people? I use "First Class" and it takes awhile just to figure out how to use it.

David DiBiase: This is where there is an advantage of having a program over just a course, because the first course in a program part of the learning objective is to learn how to become distance students.

P. Peter Rebane: I asked you about the same question, Gary at the Senate Council meeting, and I see you re-wrote part of the second paragraph, I presume for my benefit. I still am not quite clear, and I think my English is half way correct, as to what this means. "The World Campus credit courses are essentially the same as those taught at other campuses." The next sentence says, "Generally, World Campus courses are custom-designed and are unique". Now how can you be essentially the same, and custom-designed and unique? And since your answer to my colleague Dr. Turner was that it doesn't have to go through Senate Curricular Affairs, I would appreciate a kind of definition or your definition of essential versus custom-designed and unique? Are these synonyms or antonyms?

Gary Miller: First of all, as you know, I'm not claiming any pride of authorship of the specific language in the report but let me tell you how I understand it. When we offer a credit course...when an academic unit decides to create a credit course, or offer a credit course through the World Campus, it is the same credit course that's offered in the same degree programs as they're taught elsewhere in terms of the syllabus and the course number and the objectives of the course. So when one says that things are essentially the same, it's the same course. English 202 is English 202, Turfgrass Management 236 is Turfgrass Management 236, however, in that course the materials and the processes that are used in that course have been created specifically for use for distance students in an on-line environment to ensure proper pedagogy in this environment. So it's the same course number, it's the same course description, it's the same course of the academic unit, but at the same time it's been designed for this environment specifically.

John S. Nichols: As the Senate faces the important issue of intellectual property within the next couple months, would you give the Senate your best advice about where we should go as it relates to the World Campus. First of all what is the intellectual property policy of the World Campus right now? Do you have any advice for us about what should be the outcome of our intellectual property discussion?

Gary Miller: I'll also ask David to comment on this, because I know he feels seriously about it. Our current policy is...when a World Campus course is created, the university is providing funding support for the faculty, and it's providing a considerable amount of human and technical resources for that course. The courses are considered to be commissioned works, and the faculty are asked to sign a commissioned works copyright form. Which means that the university owns the copyright to the materials that are part of a World Campus course--the web files, the printed materials and so forth. That does not mean that the faculty member could not use those same materials anywhere else in their teaching throughout the university, but it does mean that because they are being publicly published, they are copyrighted in the name of the university. As I think you know, the Intellectual Property Task Force will soon be coming to this body with a report on their work on Intellectual Property. I think there's been good discussion of copyright and World Campus as part of that process and I think that will be the best forum to talk about it. I've been involved in that task force, and I'm comfortable in the fact that we've got an even broader range of solutions than currently exist. It's much more sensitive I think to the way faculty actually work. So I think that's probably an issue you'll want to talk about when the task force makes its report. I don't know if I can be of any more help than that right now?

John S. Nichols: Let me add a follow-up. In the case where a faculty member has developed a hard copy of extensive course work material, and if the desire is to eventually turn the material and forms for the World Campus, it would seem to me, isn't there a middle ground? Membership where there could be shared ownership, and everybody benefits?

Gary Miller: Absolutely, I think that's why it's very difficult to talk about intellectual property in short snippets. It's something that requires conversation, and real solid conversation in order I think, to understand the complexity of it. But to hit your point. A faculty member had created a study guide or a group of resources that were used and that was being used in the classroom and then wanted to create a version of that for the World Campus. What the university would need to copyright was not the original material that the faculty member had created because that's your material. What we would be interested in copyrighting, and protecting legally, would be those html files that we were going to publish on the web and the specific expression of your material in a web environment. That's really the only thing that's touched here by the copyright. So if you had created the whole web site on your own and if we want to use it for the World Campus, there'd be no copyright issue there at all, it would be clearly yours. If it were one though that was developed through our partnership, through that team environment, we would need to follow through with a copyright form. It's complex, and very hard to talk about, and David I know this is an issue you've been especially concerned about, so why don't you say a few words.

David DiBiase: It's to Gary's credit that he'd invite me to speak on this issue since we haven't always seen exactly eye-to-eye on this. This is an absolutely critical issue to the success of the World Campus. In our case, our leading competitor is a private company-- a software vendor--which has a virtual campus, and produces some very excellent educational resources. The authors and instructors of those courses are university professors, that is, this company is competing with me as the program coordinator to recruit faculty from this campus and others. This private business allows instructors to retain copyright of the materials they create, however, the private business retains exclusive web publishing rites. We had trouble working this out. I think we've made progress in finding a solution that reaches a compromise between those interests. And that is, I think we can come up with language in which faculty members here at Penn State who create material for the World Campus in these design teams can retain the right to re-purpose anything they create for any other part of their research, or service, or teaching duties, so long as it doesn't compete with the saleability of the original program. And that accomplishes I think in spirit at least, accomplishes the same thing as retaining copyright. At least I hope that's the case.

Tramble T. Turner: I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate with a few examples. In terms of intellectual property, that certainly helps some of us. To go back to your response to Peter Rebane, however, when you list here World Campus credit courses, and I think a number of us did understand that to mean something like 'Turf Management,' a university-wide degree and a great program for this format. You mentioned however, English 202, which to the best of my knowledge does not have the approval to go through World Campus, and if so, I'd really appreciate being informed of that today.

Gary Miller: I mentioned English 202 it was on my mind because there is a new program called the President's Fund. The President's Fund is a mechanism that will allow us to develop individual courses and clusters of courses that meet both the needs of the World Campus, as well as the needs of other campuses of the university, and will provide on-line resources throughout the university in areas where there is a need. English 202 is one of those courses. It's an area where the College of the Liberal Arts has felt that an on-line version would meet needs around the university. And having on-line resources might be a good thing for all the locations to have available to them. That's why I mentioned it.

Tramble T. Turner: The university would then own the materials that the departments developed?

Gary Miller: It goes right to the same question as before. What the university would copyright in a situation like that is specific web files that would be associated and not the other things. Where you get into those complexities is where really the heart of policy is. That's where you need to sit down and talk, as Dave and I have over time, talk through the issues and come to accord. It's not a simple issue, it never is a simple issue.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: Is there a reason why you haven't talked about the income stream to the departments that you mentioned earlier?

Gary Miller: No, I'd be glad to talk about it. About the revenue sharing policy? Let me describe to you what the university's policy is with regard to revenue sharing on World Campus programs. World Campus, as I mentioned, is a cost center of the university, so we have to recover our costs through tuition, fees and contracts and things like that. We break costs down into two kinds of costs. In any program where there is a high level of development, you have costs that you have to bear before you can begin to offer the program. We call that the initial resource development phase of the project. So we've invested a fair amount of money before we can even enroll a student. We set that cost aside and then recover it through revenue and I'll explain how. Then once the program is up and running you have the annual operating cost of that program. The cost of teaching it, the cost of developing new courses and of supporting the program. That becomes the basis for revenue sharing, so as we offer a program and we gain tuition once we've recovered that annual operating expense and the net income after that. Those costs include the cost to the academic unit, the faculty costs and so forth as well as the cost for delivery. Once those are recovered, we take the net income and we divide it three ways. Fifty percent initially goes back to the academic unit, 30 percent goes to recover that initial development cost, 20 percent stays with the World Campus. Once we've recovered the initial development cost 80 percent goes back to the academic unit and 20 percent stays with the World Campus and that's the revenue sharing policy.

Jamie M. Myers: A clarification then. Faculty who teach on an overload basis then are paid 11 percent to teach these courses?

Gary Miller: Our goal in World Campus is to have courses wherever possible taught on-load. Developed on-load and taught on-load. In cases where the academic unit and the faculty have agreed that it would be done overloaded, the amount and the policy for that is really between the academic unit and the individual faculty member.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: One of the essence, to me, in academic quality of programs has to do with academic honesty, and knowing that your students wrote that report, knowing that your students took that test and did not have the proxy sitting there and doing that. Can you explain to me how you know that?

David DiBiase: How do you know it in your classes?

Gordon F. De Jong: Come to my class. I'll monitor you.

David DiBiase: Let's say in a class of 300 students.

Gordon F. De Jong: I don't teach a class of 300 students. Even if you do...

David DiBiase: Well my point is I teach a course of 110 students in a resident education, general education course and I cannot be positive that every person who turns in a test is actually that person. It's very hard to do that. But my point is that the way we can ensure that aspect of academic quality is to know the students. In our particular program, students are regularly, and on a weekly basis, submitting email attachments or in other ways are sending assignments directly. We have them learn to create web pages, home pages, in which they submit reports and tell about themselves, have pictures of themselves, connections to them by email. Cumulatively, over a year's time I feel we know the students at least as well as I know the students in my general education course of 100 students. So you can't make the problem go away, but the key is just as it is in resident instruction, is not to rely on any one evaluation strategy too much, but to make the evaluation strategies very diverse. That's our strategy, and I feel like we know our students real well, and I appreciate your concern. It's an important one.

Gordon F. De Jong: That's nice. Over a one year period a ten week course is...

Barbara Grabowski: It is a big challenge, and in fact there's been several articles that have been written in the Chronicle of Higher Education about this whole issue. I go back to what David was saying, that it's getting to know your students. We have a certificate program and so the students that are enrolling are consistently enrolling. They are also graduate students, and they work on projects rather than tests in our case. It's a matter of monitoring what they're saying but there is no way that I can...whoever is over there I can't know that. Of course, there are some new technologies coming out with thumb prints and we can have see you's and see me's cameras and so on but then even again the person who puts himself before the camera how do you know who is in their class. So it's an issue.

Stephen W. Stace, Penn State Abington: Can you elaborate on the differences between the World Campus and distance education? Is there any crossover? Can somebody in the World Campus take a, I'm sorry an Independent Learning course?

Gary Miller: Yes, they could. The issue from the student's perspective the distinctions we make between what's a World Campus course and what's an Independent Learning course and the differences are pretty meaningless. There are largely internal distinctions that have to do with the fact that Independent Learning courses tend to be long term, rolling enrollment, and individualized, where the student is really studying as an individual. World Campus courses tend to be technology based and on-line. They tend to have a starting point, and an ending point and involve a cohort of students, and they tend to be upper-division and graduates. Over time though, the distinctions are becoming less and less important to us, even internally, we see 100 and 200 level Independent Learning courses with web sites and a lot of on-line interaction. I think it's a distinction that was important two or three years ago, that's less important today and frankly three years from now won't even be noticeable.

Todd D. Ellis, Student Senator, College of Science: In order to be able to clarify this to some of my friends and the people that I represent. As an undergraduate, are the opportunities still there to enroll in this class like you could with distance education the old way? You take a class through the World Campus as though you're in a regular undergraduate program?

Gary Miller: You can, but just as is the case today with Independent Learning, you have to pay additional tuition, and that's the rub for students at all the campuses right now. The interesting thing about the campus course exchange is it would allow a campus to say, "gee we'd like to take Turfgrass 236 and make it available to our students". They could then offer it as part of the regular curriculum of that campus, or that college and the students would be able to do that through full-time tuition. Right now, you would be able to do that. I will say that right now, very few resident students are taking World Campus courses, although a larger number obviously, are taking Independent Learning courses on a regular basis.

Roy B. Clariana: The question is, to answer what's involved with the possibility of a course like 'Turfgrass' coming into a campus that couldn't offer it? Would there be any financial incentive for that campus to want to put that into their curriculum? Is there any way World Campus could come back with FTE or..?

Gary Miller: The mechanism of the campus course exchange which was not created for the World Campus but which the World Campus obviously, because it has so many on-line courses, is able to take advantage of it I guess. If Great Valley wanted to offer 'Turfgrass 236,' it would essentially say to us and to the department of Agronomy, "we would like to be able to offer this as part of our regular curriculum". There would be a fee that they'd have to pay back in order to support the instruction we'd be providing. But then you would schedule that in your regular schedule of classes. Students would enroll through their regular tuition, you would keep the FTEs, you would keep those students intact and it would be your course for all practical purposes, but your instructor would be Al Turgeon. So that's how that's set up, and again I would emphasize that's not just for the World Campus. There are lots of other ways that the campus course exchange can work to enhance the ability to share resources.

John F. Bardi, Mont Alto Campus: The World Campus is a delivery program. I know in my philosophy classes and some of my colleagues, we're doing the same thing in a very reduced way in psych based classes and as I hear you, you could help me. How can I get that help?

Gary Miller: My telephone number is 863-3248. I or other members of the World Campus would be happy to talk to you.

Guy F. Barbato, College of Agricultural Sciences: Just a brief comment and we spoke a little bit about this at the Senate Committee on Research this morning. I like to estimate in orders of magnitude, and this goes to Jamie's comment about cash streams and cash flows. By my count, the World Campus takes a faculty members' teaching load and essentially raises it by about two orders of magnitude. If we were only getting one order of magnitude, instead of 10 percent, I suspect we won't be talking about the 50/50 prescription plan for very long.

David DiBiase: Just in terms of orders of magnitude let me talk very briefly about our estimated revenue flow if we reach our target and we pay off our initial investment. With the expectation of 1,000 enrollments per year in four courses offered four times. That will generate approximately $950,000 a year and we expect we'll be able to offer the courses for about 60 percent of that cost. Therefore, after the initial investment, 80 percent of that margin should come back to our department.

Jeanne Krochalis, New Kensington Campus: What happens when people don't...what about incompletes? Are you carrying over a substantial number of 'dead grandmothers' in the second semester? How do you handle that?

Barbara Grabowski: We don't have strong policies, just the procedures that we follow are generally what the faculty normally follow. And yes, there are some 'dead grandmothers'? I don't know...sometimes because of the collaborative nature in getting a lot of people involved and you know I'm pretty flexible about that.

Jeanne Krochalis: How that works is sort of pulled assignments and to separate what we're trying to do. It sounded like you're going to be pushed back. Are you pretty hemmed in?

Barbara Grabowski: They're hemmed in my courses. They are hemmed in for a certain proportion of the course, but then there are also independent courses or projects that they do that are independent of the collaboration.

Jacob De Rooy: Gary would you clarify an issue that's come up in a private conversation quite a bit. And that is to what extent do you feel that there are students enrolled in World Campus courses who are concurrently enrolled in resident education courses and also the other way around? How many students are in World Campus now who used to be in resident education courses?

Gary Miller: Sure I'd be glad to address that. Right now there are probably about five percent of our total students who are enrolled this semester in World Campus courses are also concurrently enrolled in resident instruction. Almost all of those are students who are enrolled here at University Park, in the home departments of the academic units offering those courses. And they've been added to the World Campus course by the department in order to meet needs in terms of the curriculum of the local department. It's hard for me to be able to say how many of our students have ever taken Penn State courses before at another campus. I do know that we've had the example of alumni coming back. Probably the strangest example is somebody that has their Ph.D. in Education, she's a superintendent at a small school district and she came back to take some chemical dependency counseling courses because she thought that was important. We get that kind of thing happening a lot, but to the best of my knowledge there's very little of the kind of concern that's expressed in the question that students make a decision to quit going to one campus and instead take their courses through the other campuses. Our anecdotal information, what we know about the students suggests, there is very little of that happening if any.

Chair Nelson: Thank you Gary and David and Barbara. We appreciate it, and Jake, thank you very much for arranging for this.

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

Tramble T. Turner: Given the recent tendency of state legislatures to create university policy, the caucus of non-University Park Faculty Senators want to reinforce our Senate Chair's comments of dismay regarding the Pennsylvania State legislatures method of passage of House Bill 115. As Senator Sandy Smith stated earlier, we believe that the bill contravenes a local Pittsburgh ordinance. We also believe that the bill vitiates the role of the Faculty Senate of the University of Pittsburgh. We urge all of our colleagues who are concerned with the Jeffersonian ideal of a university as a catalyst for citizen participation in the American democracy to consider writing a personal letter to your State Senator and to your Representative in the Pennsylvania House regarding the handling of House Bill 115. Thank you, and there will be flyers outside the room listing information on the event that President Spanier mentioned.

Jamie M. Myers: I would like to begin my comments with two questions. What is the good of the university and what is our role in society? I have long been concerned about a corporate takeover of the university that reduces our activity here for the preparation of workers for the marketplace. Such a commodification of what we do directs our production and dissemination of knowledge towards only those ideas that have corporate capital. The interest of corporations are rarely the interest of democratic citizens or scholars who generate knowledge and openly critique that knowledge in the socio-political context in which its production has value. I must now be concerned that the university is being held hostage by the state when we fail to enact domestic partner benefits out of fear of losing state appropriation dollars. Last fall our university chose to educate legislators on the ethical and just causes for extending benefits to domestic partners instead of enacting those benefits at Penn State. It appears that having gone through the education, the members of our legislature have failed the test. It is now our turn and we must not fail the test. We must act as well as speak from all levels of the university with all audiences of society. Sometime actions are far more educative for others than words. As teachers we know that active involvement with the world generates a more thorough understanding of its complexity than just listening to theories in a classroom lecture. I believe Penn State must immediately implement domestic partner benefits as an action to complement what we have already so eloquently stated in words through our university policies against intolerance. I'd like to quote from a couple of those policies--AD-29, AD-41 and AD-42. "As an educational institution the university has a mandate to address problems of a society deeply ingrained with bias and prejudice. Toward that end the university provides educational programs and activities to create an environment in which diversity and understanding of other cultures are valued." An action on our part to extend domestic partner benefits to all employees at this time would be most educative for the legislature about the very nature of intolerance also expressed in our words. "Intolerance refers to an attitude, feeling or belief wherein an individual behaves with contempt for other individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious belief." An action on the part of our university diminishes our ability to achieve the very mandate we have given ourselves in the words of our policy. We prize equality, agency, social justice and social responsibility. We should accept our responsibility to act at this very time to match the words of our own policy. "Actions motivated by intolerance violate the principles upon which American society is built and serve to destroy the fabric of the society we share. Such actions do untold and unjust harm to those who experience this pernicious kind of discrimination and threaten the reputation of the university." So I return to my original questions. What good is the university? What is our role in society? And I conclude that we have no other option than to respond to the act of intolerance represented by the recent legislative action with our own act of social responsibility to reduce intolerance. We must in effect, end the hostage crisis or the essential nature of our universities likely to be held hostage over and over again as each new issue arrives. The reputation of our university is at stake if we do not in a decisive manner provide the intellectual leadership this state desperately needs. If we had in this country or state, universal health care, all of this debate would be mute. But health care in our society is experienced as an act of discrimination. Class and race boundaries leave our fellow citizens without adequate benefits. Self-interest keeps us from the sacrifices that would be necessary to extend health care to all members of our society. So in this one little blue and white corner of the world I say, let us risk state funding on an issue that we know is just, and immediately extend benefits to all domestic partners of Penn State employees. We should at least end our own acts of intolerance by moving beyond inaction. Thank you.

ADJOURNMENT

May I have a motion to adjourn? The December 7, 1999 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:33 PM.

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, 1999

Faculty Affairs -Revision of Policy HR-21: Definition of Academic Ranks (Legislative)

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

Outreach Activities - Update on the World Campus (Informational)

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of November 23, 1999

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
DECEMBER 7, 1999 SENATE MEETING

Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Aydin, Kultegin
Bagby, John W.
Barbato, Guy F.
Bardi, John F.
Barshinger, Richard
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Book, Patricia A.
Bridges, K. Robert
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Nicholas
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Carr-Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Todd D.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Floros, Joanna
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Fullerton, Erika R.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Gutgold, Nichola
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harrison, Terry P.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
Hill, Charles W.
Holt, Frieda M.
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hurson, Ali R.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jones, W. Terrell
Jurs, Peter C.
Kenney, W. Larry
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Krochalis, Jeanne
Kunze, Donald E.
Lasher, William C.
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M.
Lindberg, Darla
Lippert, John R.
Lipsitz, Carly M.
Lukezic, Felix L.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marshall, Louisa J.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Moore, John W.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Ozment, Judy P.
Paster, Amy L.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Peavler, Terry J.
Pell, Eva J.
Phillips, Allen T.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, Robert D.
Ricketts, Robert D.
Rogers, Gary W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Roth, David E.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schott, Adam
Schuelein, Derek R.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Shea, Dennis G.
Shifrin, Dennis
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda Klebe
Turner, Tramble T.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Vickers, Anita M.
Wager, J. James
Wanner, Adrian J.
Weiss, Beno
Willits, Billie S.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Zelis, Robert
OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.

129 Total Elected
5 Total Ex Officio
10 Total Appointed
144 Total Attending

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2000

Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f) (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the
Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions (Advisory/Consultative)

Outreach Activities - Engaging Tenured Faculty in Outreach Activities (Advisory/Consultative)

Senate Council - University Faculty Census Report - 2000-2001 (Informational)

University Planning - Transportation Services at University Park (Informational)