THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

Volume 34-----JANUARY 30, 2001-----Number 4

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 2000-01.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Final Agenda for January 30, 2001

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to January 30, 2001

B. Attached

Door Handout – Undergraduate Education

Committee - FYS

Corrected Copy – Faculty Affairs Committee –

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development

Of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track

Corrected Copy – Faculty Affairs Committee -

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

Attendance

III. Tentative Agenda for February 27, 2001

FINAL AGENDA FOR JANUARY 30, 2001

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

Minutes of the December 5, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:3

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

(Blue Sheets) of January 16, 2001

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 16, 2001

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

Committees and Rules

Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

Committees and Rules

Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

Faculty Affairs

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

University Planning

Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

University Planning

A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign, Rodney Kirsch,

Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Reserved Spaces Program

Faculty Affairs

UniSCOPE 2000 Presentation

Senate Council

University Faculty Census Report – 2001-2002

Undergraduate Education

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

1999-2000 First-Year Seminars: The Inaugural Year in Review

Non-Returning Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998

University Planning

Long-term Debt and Debt Service of the University

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

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

M. ADJOURNMENT -

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

The Senate passed one Legislative Report:

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 Membership).” This report redefines the electorate of the Senate to include persons who are candidates for degrees at Penn State. (See Record, page(s) 7-8 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

One report must lie on the table until the February 27, 2001, meeting because it involves a bylaws change:

Committees and Rules – “Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 4.” See Record, page(s) 8 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)

The Senate passed three Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs – “Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track.” This report makes a series of 6 recommendations prompted by concerns over the potential negative effects of hiring faculty off the tenure track in both full-time or part-time positions. (See Record, page(s) 9-13, Agenda Appendix "D," and Corrected Copy Record Appendix III.)

Faculty Affairs – “Recommendation for Emeritus/Retired Faculty.” This report makes 9 recommendations to help build a greater rapport between the institution and Emeritus and retired faculty members to help the former faculty remain a part of the University community and to utilize their valuable expertise. (See Record, page(s) 13-17, Agenda Appendix "E," and Corrected Copy Record Appendix IV.)

University Planning – “Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University.” This report makes 10 recommendations as a follow up of the 1998 “The Penn State Indicators Report” which examined the institution in regard to sustainability indicators. (See Record, page(s) 17-18 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate heard eight Informational Reports:

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Reserved Spaces Program.” This document reports the reserved spaces comparisons over the span of time from 1984 through 2000. (See Record, page(s) 21 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

Faculty Affairs – “UniSCOPE 2000 Presentation.” This report recognizes the three missions of the University (teaching, research, and service) as a continuum of scholarship. After this presentation the Committee on Faculty Affairs will examine the UniSCOPE report for implications in promotion and tenure process and report to the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 21-28 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Senate Council – “University Faculty Census Report – 2001-2002.” This report was presented to establish the representation (number of Senators, by voting unit) on the 2001-2002 Senate. (See Record, page(s) 28-29 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

Undergraduate Education – “Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location.” The report provides a summary of student petitions for exceptions to the academic policies over the last two years and their sources by colleges and campuses. (See Record, page(s) 29 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

Undergraduate Education – “1999-2000 First-Year Seminars: The Inaugural Year in Review.” This report presents an initial assessment of the First-Year Seminars and the plans for continuing assessment. (See Record, page(s) 29-34 and Agenda Appendix "K.")

Undergraduate Education – “Non-Returning Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998.” Each spring semester, a portion of student body chooses not to re-enroll for the following fall. This report indicates the statistical information on these Non-Returning students. (See Record, page(s) 34-36 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

University Planning – “Long-term Debt and Debt Service of the University.” This committee reviews (at intervals) the status of Penn State’s indebtedness, it size, purpose and the expanse of the debt service. This report indicates the conclusions reached by the committee. (See Record, page(s) 36-37 and Agenda Appendix "M.")

University Planning – “A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign.” This was an oral informational report by Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, and included a summary of the capital campaign that is presently underway. (See Record, page(s) 18-20 and Agenda Appendix "N.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, January 30, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding. One hundred and eighty-five Senators signed the roster.

Chair Schengrund: It is time to begin.

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the December 5, 2000 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 Schengrund: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for January 16, 2001. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of January 16, 2001. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

Chair Schengrund: The Faculty Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, and discussed the following topics: we had a legislative update; we had a discussion of the aims of the Black coalition; we had a response by the president to legislative and advisory/consultative reports; we discussed the number of credits for baccalaureate degrees; we discussed the university academic calendar; we discussed degree audits; we discussed tuition discounts for faculty/staff dependents; and we discussed PSU principles.

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2001. If anyone has any items for FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers, or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Peter Rebane or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers began their spring visits to colleges and units at University Park and the first one was on January 15, 2001 when we visited the College of Engineering. We visited the College of Education yesterday (January 29, 2001) and we will be visiting the College of Earth & Mineral Sciences tomorrow morning (January 31, 2001).

The Senate Office has received several memos from the president regarding implementation of reports passed by the Senate. Please refer to my announcements in the Senate Council minutes, attached to your Agenda packet, regarding the details on the implementation of these reports.

I did receive another memo from Dr. Spanier since the Senate Council meeting and the printing of those minutes. This memo referred to a report presented last spring, March 28, 2000, by the Senate Committee on Research entitled “Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows.” The president has “asked the Office of the Vice President for Research to take responsibility for oversight of all postdoctoral appointments and implementation of these recommendations. To date, the recommended definition for a postdoctoral appointment has been adopted. We are asking that all appointments be made with a letter of appointment following the guidelines spelled out in the report. We have established a minimum salary for postdoctoral fellows and scholars equivalent to the zero level recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Postdoctoral fellows will continue to be included in all the professional development programs currently offered for our graduate students. Additional actions will evolve over time.”

At this time I’d also like to update the Senate on what’s happened since our last Senate meeting with regards to the visit by the Coalition of Students. After that Senate meeting, you received an email that was sent out by the Senate Office that indicated that we did meet with the students, and that we did sign a two-page document, not as officers of the Senate, but just as members of the University Faculty Senate. Since that time one of the requests in that document was that the students be allowed to form a committee. They would appoint the members of the committee and that that committee would meet to discuss what changes they might like to recommend be made to the curriculum. The Senate Officers, especially John Nichols and John Moore have met with the students, and they’ve had three meetings. The first two meetings were primarily to organize the committee. One meeting was held before the holidays, and two meetings have been held since that time. They’ve appointed several faculty members to the committee. There are between eight and ten student members, and we are meeting with them and discussing possible agenda items with them. There was an article in the Collegian that indicated that we were nearing…the way I read it, it indicated that we were nearing consensus on a mandated three-credit course on racism. That article was somewhat premature, as those discussions have not come anywhere near reaching consensus on that point at this time.

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

Chair Schengrund: At this point in time I’d like to call on President Spanier to make comments. As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself, and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you Cara, and good afternoon everyone. Next Tuesday, Governor Ridge will release his budget proposal for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We are hopeful there will be a line in there suggesting an amount for Penn State. We are even more hopeful that it will be a number we like. Unfortunately, there has been no word whatsoever from the governor’s office this year about what we might expect, and given the state’s revenue collections for the month of December, which is the most recent month that they’ve reported on, of course we’re not optimistic that it will be a number that matches the request that we made earlier. But we hope it will endeavor to come close. Anyway, that will become known next Tuesday, and we’ll have an opportunity at the next Senate meeting to give you an update about where we stand, and what position the university might likely find itself in for this coming budget year which begins on July 1, 2001. Meanwhile, between now and the time of our next Senate meeting I believe our appropriations hearings are scheduled. What is the date of the next Senate meeting? Is it February 27?

Chair Schengrund: February 27, 2001.

President Spanier: Okay, well I may not be here for that meeting because that is the day for our House appropriations hearing. So I probably will be in Harrisburg for that. I’d much prefer to be here. Our Senate appropriations hearing is the day before, and for those of you who enjoy good theatre you could watch it on TV or catch the re-runs at some point after that. But I will try to represent us as well as possible, and to make a strong case.

Meanwhile, unfolding on a somewhat earlier agenda than our appropriations, are discussions about how Pennsylvania will allocate its share of the tobacco settlement money. And as you may know Penn State has a very keen interest in this multi-million dollar pot of funds because some portion of those funds are likely to be designated for health related research, and Penn State would be a key player we hope, in the receipt of some of those funds that would be targeted for health related research. And there could be as much as several million dollars a year for the next 20 years associated with that project. So I, and other colleagues in the Penn State administration are spending quite a bit of our time these days working on that particular issue, and we do hope and have some degree of confidence that members of the legislature will put some degree of emphasis on the research side of the picture, and that Penn State will be treated fairly in the distribution of those research funds.

I have on many occasions spoken to the Senate on my thoughts about the broad issue of intellectual property, ownership and protection for faculty members, and I have expressed my gratitude to I think, the three different Senate committees who have been working on that for a couple of years now. I believe that we are getting very close to the point where that policy can come to the Faculty Senate for your approval. I’m hopeful that that will occur at the next Senate meeting and I want to lend my strong encouragement to the passage of that document. We feel at somewhat of a disadvantage right now, and a little bit awkward that we do not have a policy in place. This is an area that is rapidly evolving, and almost certainly every couple of years we’re going to need to go back and take a look at that policy and make sure it’s up-to-date with the latest developments in technology and intellectual property. But it’s important that we move that policy that’s been drafted forward as soon as possible.

I’ve had an opportunity recently to review with Provost Erickson and the deans and others, what I consider to be a remarkable success story, and I want to take this opportunity to particularly thank those of you who represent our campuses across the state. I want to recognize and thank you for achieving what five years ago we hoped to achieve, but knew it would be tough to get there, and that’s namely the enrollment distribution pattern that has evolved at Penn State generally and particularly, as it affects our campuses. We hoped through our reorganization of the then Commonwealth Educational System, that we would move towards providing greater upper-division baccalaureate degree opportunities at our campuses, give our faculty at those campuses greater opportunities to interact with upper-division students, to meet the needs of the communities and the regions in which our various campuses find themselves, to allow students who are place-bound, who work in the communities, or for other reasons simply prefer to finish their degrees on a campus other than University Park, an opportunity to do so. And we expected our upper-division enrollments would gradually increase and that we would deploy more upper-division degrees without encroaching on the enrollments and the progress that other colleges and universities in the state wish to make, and that this would decrease the number of students competing for scarce spots on the University Park campus and allow more students whose first choice was the University Park campus to enroll here at the campus where we’ve been turning away a huge number of students. All of these things have not only turned out to have occurred but really have exceeded our expectations. The percentage of students who were transferring from a commonwealth campus to University Park five years ago, was 77 percent. This past year it was 51 percent. That is a huge shift. So we will soon be in a mode where the majority of students starting at a campus other than University Park will probably finish their degrees there, and they are doing that by choice, of course because the option still fully exists for any student to move to another campus if he or she wishes. This has been a shift of about 2,000 students over that period of time, and it’s a very positive development. It has allowed our campuses to admit very high quality freshmen students to the campuses. All of our campuses as far as I know have increased their retention rates and of course, all campuses have increased their graduation rates. This is a very small number of provisional students compared to what we once had, and enrollments have increased at I believe all of our campuses as well, with the lion’s share of that enrollment increase being at the upper-division. So it’s a very positive development all around. It just didn’t happen on its own. A lot of people did a lot of different things to bring that about, and I think it’s worth mentioning.

Just a few plugs that I would like to make before I take your questions. This spring I noticed that both at University Park and at our other campuses we have an unusually rich array of performing arts events. On this campus, productions that are being done under the sponsorship of the Center for the Performing Arts, productions of students in our theatre and musical theatre programs, concerts and recitals from our School of Music. It is a wonderful opportunity to see what’s going on, on campus, and I must admit that I try to go to as many of these things as I can and I don’t see an awful lot of our faculty there. And I don’t know if you are aware that all this is going on and I know everybody’s busy but take a look at these things. They are usually published in the Intercom. Try to get out to see some of them. Probably most of you don’t know that I play the washboard in a Dixieland jazz band. I was performing in Pittsburgh this past Saturday night, and in the same jazz venue where we were performing was one of the great trombonists in the United States who was playing there that evening on another floor. He and his manager mentioned that they are doing a tour of nine of our commonwealth campuses during the month of February. And I saw the schedule there, and it is part of a program we have, that funds performances at all of our campuses. So I encourage those of you on the campuses to get out and see talent like that as well.

I’d also like to make another plug. One thing that I try to do absolutely every weekend, either on Friday or Saturday night is stop in for at least an hour or two to attend the Late Nite Penn State events at the HUB. We’re up to about 5,000 students a weekend participating in those events. And I think in the two and a half years I’ve been doing that each weekend, I’ve seen a total of about three faculty members who have appeared. I wish that you could go out and just see what is happening and what’s evolved with the social life on campus, the programming that’s available and what it means to the students. Usually you have about six different kinds of entertainment available to them at any given time--food service and the entertainment going well into the wee hours, past the bedtime of most faculty members. But the other thing that will be happening this spring is, we will gradually be opening up as parts of it are completed, the new expanded and renovated White Building, which will be tied into the Late Nite Penn State program where 24-hours a day on the weekend, students can have fitness activities available to them and all kinds of other fun stuff, and refreshments and food service available there as well. So it’s a great thing to get out and see. And the ultimate thing that I would encourage all of you to think about seeing and I know many of you have done this once along the way, (and I wish everyone would just do it once) is to stop in at sometime during the Dance Marathon, which is coming up in couple of weeks. It starts at 7:00 p.m. on a Friday night and goes until 7:00 p.m. on a Sunday night. Go and support the students who are out there and see what goes on. The massive amount of effort that thousands of our students put into this and the product of what they do and the thousands of people who come to watch them, it’s really quite amazing. And they have been raising over $3 million a year for the Four Diamonds Fund at the Hershey Medical Center. It is the largest student run philanthropy in the world. It is something we should be very proud of and I hope we would see some faculty support for that. I should point out that many of our campuses are involved in Dance Marathon now, and have parallel programs and fund raising efforts going on at the same time. And that’s been one of the areas of the most rapid increase in support of the Dance Marathon is what we’ve been seeing on our campuses. So if you happen to be on a campus where there’s some significant associated activity, I would encourage you to lend your support as well. Okay, with those comments then I’d like to open it up for your questions and comments.

Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrrisburg: I’m sorry to raise it because I know this is your favorite subject, it’s a parking issue. It was brought to my attention by one of my colleagues at Harrisburg, but it concerns many of the Senators who come from campuses other than University Park who have meetings such as the Senate, the Senate committees in particular, this one was for Graduate Council meeting. They encountered some resistance parking in the parking garage closest to Kern. In fact, one of them was told to go park out by the stadium and take the bus. Well, for many of my colleagues coming up here is at least a two hour drive and a two hour drive back if you’re teaching before or after as I am today, it’s a bit of a chore. Both of these colleagues, one from Hershey, one from Harrisburg were so incensed by the reception that they got that they offered to turn around and go home rather than attend the meeting. There must be a simple solution, such as a one-day parking permit for the parking garage that would solve this issue. Because it really does make the campus up here less than inviting.

President Spanier: I’m sorry you’ve had that experience. On the one hand I should confess that when I first got involved in university administration and was asking leaders in the field nationally for advice they gave me lots of advice and said, “by the way there is only one issue you should never get involved with and that’s parking.” Once word is out that you are willing to entertain questions about parking you will be the appeal mechanism for all parking tickets. But seriously, I’m troubled by what you have to say. We should certainly do our best to welcome not only visitors to campus, but our own employees. Parking is a complex matter and if something is not working with regard to your attendance at meetings on this campus then we need to get that taken care of. What I’d like to do is to ask that any of you who have encountered parking related issues in fulfilling your university duties, send all of those complaints to George Bugyi. And then George and the members of the Faculty Advisory Committee can kind of figure out what the issues are and bring them to the next meeting with Rodney Erickson and me and we will then at that point get the parking authorities involved and try to fix whatever is wrong. But seriously, if you wouldn’t mind George, it would be helpful just for George to have that information because I mean one thing can go wrong with one person and it may just have been a mistake. But if ten people had exactly the same problem, and if ten people had the same problem on three different dates then there is a dysfunction in the system and we ought to fix it.

James E. May, DuBois Campus: Just to follow up on that. It seems that today I was told there is a policy of the local parking that those attending the Senate meeting in Kern are not allowed to park there anyway. They should come with a floating permit. So one very specific initiative might be that Senators coming from non-University Park locations for the Senate might be allowed to park on the ramp right outside Kern Building.

President Spanier: Okay, you got that, George? Other questions, besides parking? All the hands went down.

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: President Spanier you recapped a number of successes, many of them associated with the HUB, like the Late Nite program or “THON,” which indeed a lot of locations have lent their support to. Using the example of the newspaper readership program, which had great success at UP, and then I think, three years later it was indeed available in Abington and been quite a success I’m glad to say, at our location. I wonder if that might be a model for similar programs--Late Nite at HUB at other locations? Partly I’m asking whether those programs at HUB are funded out of student tuition, student affair funds but principally for programs here at UP, and if perhaps some support might be lent to similar programs at other locations?

President Spanier: Well, yes certainly that could happen. A good deal of the support for the Late Nite program actually comes from student fees that are attached to each campus. And all of those kinds of student fees go directly to the campus and can be decided on locally. Now at some of our campuses there are variations in programs. It varies a lot depending upon whether we have residential...whether it’s a residential campus or not, and the demographic profile of the students. At some of our campuses, there wouldn’t be a very strong interest in that, but at other campuses there would be. So I would be supportive of that happening anywhere at which the students themselves, and the local student affairs people thought that that would be beneficial. And I’m a great advocate of it. I’ve seen what it has done on this campus for a lot of our students. It still hasn’t reached all of our students, but for many it is a very positive development.

Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: As you were plugging your jazz thing, I thought that if you could put me in touch with your agent, I might be able to get you a really closer venue than Pittsburgh.

President Spanier: Okay, well if there were more time I’d play more often actually. It is a lot of fun.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you.

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Chair Schengrund: We have no forensic business but we do have some unfinished business. And the item that was left from the last time was a Revision of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1(Membership) and it’s found in Appendix “B” of the Agenda. And this report basically is proposing a Constitutional change. It was on our Agenda last month for discussion, and then lay on the table until this meeting. If there are further questions, Deidre Jago will be happy to answer them.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1(Membership)

Deidre Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Deidre E. Jago, Hazleton Campus: Thank you, Cara-Lynne. Good afternoon. Are there any questions that I could try to answer for anybody?

Chair Schengrund: If not, all those in favor of the proposed change, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it, the motion is carried. Thank you. We have a legislative report, and again this is from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules. And it deals with a Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4 and this is the deadline for reporting the names of newly elected and newly appointed Senators to the Senate Office and it’s found in Appendix “C” and Deidre Jago will present this report as well.

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

Deidre Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Deidre E. Jago: Basically this is not changing any kind of procedure that the Senate has requested in the past. All this legislation is doing is putting a time frame into the Bylaws of our Constitution so that people understand that the names of the new Senators need to be sent to the Senate Office fairly early. In the past this has been something that has dragged on, and in order to staff committees, in order to find out who possibly can represent various constituencies, we need to have this information. So this will have to sit on the floor of the Senate for another month because it is a change in the Bylaws. But what we are asking is that these be reported to the Senate Office by the first Friday in February in order to be reported to the Senate at the last regular meeting of the academic year. So as you think about this, even if you would choose not to institute a regular date into our Bylaws, it’s not too early for you to be thinking about these upcoming elections. They need to happen right away.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any questions? If not, thank you and this will lay on the table until the February 27, 2001 meeting. Moving on to advisory/consultative reports, the first one is from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. And this is a Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track. The report can be found in Appendix “D” and Louis Milakofsky and…is Margaret coming? Okay, and Margaret Goldman will present the report.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College: Thank you. Over the past few years the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has been concerned with the hiring increases and use of fixed-term faculty throughout the university. In many cases these faculty have contributed significantly in the area of teaching, service and in some cases scholarship and research. But too often they are considered undervalued by the university--second class citizens if you will. The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was charged with determining how this affects faculty development and the academic climate. We now report our recommendation to the Senate. I’d like to introduce Margaret Goldman who is the subcommittee chair, who has spent many hours working on this report, and who will first list some editorial changes to the report and then answer some questions.

Margaret B. Goldman, College of Medicine: Just three small changes. On the bottom of page one, the second sentence from the bottom should read, “FT-II, University policies and guidelines pertinent to the position”. Scratch out “are”. Then under Attachment 1 where it says in capital letters, “SURVEY OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY” that should come following the paragraph that starts, “The group felt policies,” rather than preceding it. It should go down one paragraph. And under Attachment 2 explaining benefits. The third line up from the bottom of the first paragraph, “members” scratch out “on,” “not on the tenure track”. But basically we developed three separate questionnaires that were distributed by all of the members of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs at their respective campuses. Then the answers to the surveys were summarized and you have the summary of those surveys in Attachment 1. The conclusion that we came to is that we really wanted to develop a series of recommendations that would allow the part-time faculty and the full-time faculty who are not on the tenure track to become more inclusive in the university. So the essence of the recommendations is really two…we have many policies in place and to really communicate those policies better, to try to develop a means that there will be a better understanding on the part of these faculty of what is expected of them and what they can expect from the university. And so that was the basis of many of the recommendations to try to accomplish that, and we hope that that will work. Are there questions?

Peter D. Georgopulos, Delaware Campus: In your third recommendation, the last sentence. It starts off by saying, “Adequate resources should be allocated to support newly hired faculty in accordance with his/her qualifications, experience, and expected contribution to the unit”. When you say resources, are you talking specifically about salary here?

Margaret B. Goldman: I think that this has to be determined by each unit. But what we are finding is, that at some of the campuses individuals might not really have all the things that they should have to carry out their functions--whether it’s office space. We have not specifically addressed salary, we’ve left it more general.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Because I’d like to add the phrase, “and marketplace conditions,” at the end of that sentence. That we’re not locked into a salary for a part-timer, which is fixed by a college. I think we have market conditions which dictate that, and if you are in campus “a” and wanting to hire a historian who may cost you “x” dollars because of the competition nearby. Whereas, if you’re in campus “b” isolated, you may not have to pay as much.

Margaret B. Goldman: So, you would add at the end of three…the sentence would read, “Adequate resources should be allocated to support newly hired faculty in accordance with his/her qualifications, experience, and expected contribution to the unit and marketplace conditions”.

Peter D. Georgopulos: Correct.

Margaret B. Goldman: Is there a discussion on that point?

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine: I think I would probably need a bit more clarification of what implications that would mean for the individual units in terms of cost or resource allocation. Maybe it’s just that I don’t understand what the meaning would be, and how that would impact on this as it presently reads in terms of resource allocation for the unit. I’m just asking where is the clarification?

Peter D. Georgopulos: My concern is that we could hire somebody that fills a slot for a course for instance, and that person might not have the qualifications, but we are desperate to get somebody in there, and we ruin that entire semester because that person did not really fulfill the obligation that we were looking for. If we’re going to be undercutting the competition we’re not going to get good faculty coming in here, and teaching courses for us on a part-time basis. And my concern is that the number of part- timers that are teaching for us at the non-UP campuses are going up, and this probably is putting pressure on the administration to put resources in there and I think they’re really going to need it.

Louis Milakofsky: I know this issue dealing with salary is quite different. I know at Berks-Lehigh Valley we’re finding that universities and colleges surrounding Berks-Lehigh Valley campuses it’s becoming more and more difficult to hire fixed-term faculty, especially fixed-term II because we can’t match the salary issue. So I know that’s a concern of our particular college. I’m not sure just by recognizing it whether anything can be done about it but I would hate to see a course or several courses go by the wayside because we can’t find faculty. I know on another…on a side…not a side issue but directly to this issue, the provost of the university has convened a special working group called fixed-term II. And I asked him specifically to look at the salary issue in light of the demands for fixed-term faculty. We’re not the only university and college which has an ever increasing demand to hire fixed-term faculty. I don’t see a problem in including that statement but let’s keep it general enough that we still allow the colleges some latitude in hiring.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: I guess I’m missing something. I don’t see the point where your comment would not be included in the present wording of the recommendation. Adequate means adequate, to get the best person…pertains to not just salary, but office space, office support and all that kind of stuff as well. So adequate I would imagine would be whatever it takes.

Peter D. Georgopulos: My first question was what does resources mean here? And that’s why I say to pin this down even more so, to put that phrase in there about marketplace conditions.

Louis Milakofsky: I don’t see a problem in including that. It doesn’t go to a specific dollar amount that either a department or a college would feel so inhibited that they can’t do something on a basis whereby they should fulfill the course. Again, adequate resources is a very general term. The particular report is meant to be general, because we don’t know the particulars of each and every college and each and every department. And we’d like to keep it open enough, but I think people understand the market value of a faculty member.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I think we should leave that statement as it stands. Again, I don’t think we can legislate salary, and the question of how it applies to tenure track as well as non-tenure track and the staff as well as the faculty, that’s another whole issue. As I read the statements here, it pertains to providing adequate support for faculty who have been newly hired. That’s the way, and I think we ought to leave it that way.

Margaret B. Goldman: And I just wonder whether that is something that should be addressed more by the benefits committee.

Robert Secor, Vice-Provost: I want to support that comment. In fact, my sense in the beginning of the discussions with the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was that statement really was caused by how do we support people who are here. More appropriate…something like travel support, not anything about salary. Adding the phrase marketplace conditions doesn’t always work. Marketplace conditions in industry? I don’t know what that really refers to?

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I’ve never heard a friendly amendment discussed this long. I call for the question.

Chair Schengrund: It wasn’t actually moved and seconded, so I think it’s just a point of discussion.

Patricia A. Book, Outreach and Cooperative Extension: Under recommendation number four where you speak to the issue of promoting to achievement. It’s come back to be specifically guidelines for promotion. Could you elaborate on what you were thinking there? Are you speaking about promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer…

Louis Milakofsky: That’s one avenue, right…

Patricia A. Book: I’d be interested in what your thoughts were?

Margaret B. Goldman: Our thoughts were to leave it very general. There are some guidelines about promotion that are listed in the recommendation. But to point it out in hopes that we could encourage the faculty development of these part-time faculty. The intent was really to leave it general and encourage development.

Douglas K. Brown, Penn State Altoona: I’ve just got an editorial on Attachment 12, second paragraph down the third line up…

Margaret B. Goldman: Attachment 12?

Douglas K. Brown: I’m sorry, Attachment 2. Really the sentence that starts fourth line from the bottom of the second paragraph, “Fixed-Term I faculty classified as exempt with no summer duties cannot receive 9/12ths of their annual salary each month”. Does that mean that tenure track faculty can receive 9/12ths of their annual salary? Shouldn’t that be one thought?

Chair Schengrund: This is from the…

Louis Milakofsky: This is a direct quote as information from the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, so if they want to speak to it, they are more than welcome to have the podium.

Margaret B. Goldman: I think it’s 1/12th…

Chair Schengrund: Len, do you want to respond to that question?

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus: That’s last year’s Faculty Benefits Committee.

Margaret B. Goldman: Shouldn’t it be 1/12th? It should be 1/12.

Louis Milakofsky: It should be 1/12, yes.

Roy B. Clariana, Penn State Great Valley: I’d like to go to the first page, recommendation number two. I have two questions. One is, “In its strategic plan, each academic unit should describe its goals…”. Would existing strategic plans have to be then updated? Or would this be something that goes forward with the next strategic plan for each academic unit? And then second, by goals I would interpret that to mean simply having employment. However, would a better word be “purpose” of hiring full-time or part-time?

Margaret B. Goldman: I think that would mean for the ongoing strategic…for the newly developed strategic plans. And actually it does mean goals rather than purpose, because you’ve got to think of how you’re going to utilize this particular component of your faculty in terms of the whole academic mission and the culture of that unit. So I think it should be goals and not purpose. Any other questions?

Beno Weiss, College of the Liberal Arts: I was wondering, is there a certain point where these FT faculty members actually acquire their faculty tenure after a certain number of years? Have you considered that?

Louis Milakofsky: The answer to that question is no, they are non-tenured…they are on the non-tenured track. However, if a position is opened up they may apply for a tenure track position in accordance with the guidelines set out for hiring tenure track faculty.

Beno Weiss: Isn’t there a fine line? Let’s say someone who has been doing this for 20 years and some people have.

Margaret B. Goldman: That’s correct. Some people have been doing it for a long time.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other comments or questions? Seeing no more questions, I’d like to call for a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it, the motion is carried. Thank you very much. The next item on the Agenda is another report from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and that is Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty. This is found in Appendix “E” and again, Louis Milakofsky will present the report along with Valerie Stratton and they’ll be there to answer questions.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Louis Milakofsky: Just a bit of introduction. Since 1999 the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has been discussing the status of emeritus (retired) faculty based on part on our view that they may be a lost valuable resource in the university--in many cases forgotten about. Also, articles which have recently appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education dealing with retired and emeritus faculty, and in particular, a study done by the University of Iowa dealing with emeritus faculty. Thus, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs decided to conduct a pilot study of emeritus/retired Penn State faculty. Our recommendations in this report are based in part by these results of the study, and our experiences dealing with these faculty. I’d like to introduce Valerie Stratton who has authored this report.

Valerie N. Stratton, Penn State Altoona: Well, as Lou indicated this is really a national problem and it came to our attention and concern that Penn State really ought to investigate this. Again, we saw it as having two sides: that the university often loses out on the expertise and abilities of the retired/emeritus faculty, and then the emeritus and retired faculty feel very much neglected and rejected. So we did conduct this study and it was really a little more than a pilot study. We did generate a random sample of 300 names from the lists of retired faculty and received a very good percentage return--170 out of the 300. Actually, there were about another 10 or 12 surveys that could not be used partly because the person was no longer alive and the name was still on the list. Things of that sort which were unfortunate in some cases.

Senators: Laughter.

Louis Milakofsky: On our part.

Valerie N. Stratton: It was also unfortunate the person receiving the survey had to answer me telling me that the person was not around. But there were a lot of strong feelings expressed in these surveys. People went beyond simply responding. They wrote thank you, thank you for finally doing something. There were a lot of people that were very happy and very satisfied with their situation, but many that were very dissatisfied. Thus, our recommendations came from that kind of concern we saw. The summary of the responses to the surveys are provided as appendices to our report along with the actual survey we sent out. And our recommendations we think will try to accommodate these issues and these concerns by benefiting both the university, and by benefiting the faculty. We saw very few situations where we needed to distinguish between emeritus and other retired faculty. The emeritus rank is pretty much a courtesy label. It does not have too many benefits associated with it as it stands at the present time. And when it comes to making use of the abilities and so forth of retirees, we did not see emeritus rank as being any kind of essential criterion. So any questions about our recommendation or our report?

Adrian J. Wanner, College of the Liberal Arts: I have been told that departments are not allowed to hire their own retired faculty as fixed-term II. Is that true? And if so, what’s the rationale for that?

Valerie N. Stratton: That’s a matter of not being able to pay a salary to a retiree in Pennsylvania. That’s a state…

Adrian J. Wanner: But is it a state law…?

Valerie N. Stratton: …state law with retirement benefits. So that’s why we had to be very careful with the wording, that we did not talk about providing salary per se. Trying to provide some compensation but we can’t have it be called a salary.

Alan W. Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Let me ask a question from a department head perspective. The implication in the report is that there are a lot of department heads who for some unknown reason are not taking advantage of these highly qualified emeritus faculty. My question is, because there are two sides to every story, what attempt was made to survey the department heads to find out if there was any disagreement between who they considered to be well qualified emeritus faculty to continue teaching? Those of the emeritus faculty thought that they were well qualified to be teaching? This is in no way a criticism of emeritus faculty, I’m just wondering what your feedback has been from department heads?

Valerie N. Stratton: No we did not gather information from department heads and we’re not suggesting that departments need to make use of every retiree, obviously. We specify that it should be people that are perceived as qualified. We would like to see though, that all retirees be kept in the loop to some extent. Not utilized, necessarily as teachers if a department head doesn’t see fit to do that, obviously that’s not to be done. But at least to make them feel welcome within department activities. But, no we did not survey department heads.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: In this case I speak as Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. Obviously, some of the recommendations are specifically concerned with benefit issues and I did want the Senate as a whole to note that the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits did provide its advice to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. But let me talk a bit about number five. Billie Willits has not returned has she? Okay, now I’m speaking for the Office of Human Resources and that is just to provide some information. At this point there is no money to provide an additional person to have somebody in charge of retired faculty and staff issues. So if we’re going to do what is recommended here it means changing what is now being done and Billie asked me to convey the following. At this point there are four people who are specifically designated to deal with these issues. If we designate one, she thinks it will lessen the efficiency of the office because that means people calling in at the same time will have to wait until that one person gets free, that’s one issue. The second is, if the person is out of the office, of course you have to wait for that person to get back. Now, with four that never is the case. The third is many retired faculty know one or another of these better than another and some prefer dealing with one person, some prefer dealing with another person. So, those are her reasons for being hesitant about endorsing number five. She is absolutely in favor, as is our committee of the ideas and goals involved in all these recommendations, including number five.

Chair Schengrund: Did she give you an amendment to propose?

Leonard J. Berkowitz: No, this was our…what we sent back to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs who chose to go forward with it anyway. If anything they would suggest is not being a good recommendation, number five is not. Because we can’t depend on that.

Valerie N. Stratton: Okay, our reasoning behind this one is not that there be only one person doing this but that there be one person who coordinates it and is kind of in charge. Because it turned out that people at different locations are getting different kinds of information. There did not seem to be some coordination among the people apparently that are providing this kind of information. We wanted to ensure that there is some oversight of this kind of information provided by having a person…one person responsible that we think would ensure that. So we don’t want to take away one from four but simply designate one of those four as kind of the supervisor.

Barton W. Browning, College of the Liberal Arts: It seems to me that it might be simplest for us to change the singular to a plural and talk about officers. That would get away from the problem of having to designate one particular person. I’d like to make a friendly amendment to modify that to change officer to a plural and make the appropriate wording to that.

Valerie N. Stratton: But there already are four officers designated for this, I think you said? To coordinate? So it would read, “designate an Employee Benefits officers…?”

Tramble T. Turner: Valerie, considering what you said about the goal of oversight. Perhaps rather than referring to four as officers simply having Employee Benefits ombudsperson might carry the theme that you are pursuing. They wouldn’t have to take all the calls but then they would be the designated person to resolve what’s mentioned in the last sentence of that section.

Margaret B. Goldman: Since the problem has been coordination of dissemination of information what if you said that, “The Office of Human Resources should designate an Employee Benefits officer to coordinate dissemination of information,” then keep the rest the same. “This person should ensure that faculty at all university locations have equal access to information and problem resolution concerning all retirement benefits.”

Chair Schengrund: Are you making that a motion?

Margaret B. Goldman: If Valerie thinks that would work, I’ll make it as a motion.

Valerie N. Stratton: How would that suit the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits do you think?

Leonard J. Berkowitz: Now I think I speak for the Office of Human Resources.

Valerie N. Stratton: That would suit us very well.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: I want to hear it again.

Margaret B. Goldman: Okay, then I’ll make it as a motion that we change the wording to say, “The Office of Human Resources should designate an Employee Benefits officer to coordinate dissemination of information to retirees,” and will leave the rest the same.

Valerie N. Stratton: To accomplish the goals of what we wanted to accomplish, we could make that as a friendly amendment unless anyone has any serious objections to that.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other comments or questions? If not, all those in favor of the emeritus/retired faculty report from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it, the motion is carried. The next advisory/consultative report comes from the Senate Committee on University Planning and that is the report on Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University. It’s found in Appendix “F,” and Peter Deines will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you very much, Cara-Lynne. The report before you is an advisory and consultative report, which recommends the incorporation of long-term goals in the strategic planning efforts of the institution. The report resulted from the discussions the planning committee had with Professor Uhl in the spring semester and Professor Uhl is here this afternoon with us. As the university is embarking on a new round of strategic planning, it was a unanimous opinion of the Senate Committee on University Planning that it was important that the long-term planning for the institution include goals for the attainment of an ecologically sustainable university. It’s the adoption of these general long-term goals that is the purpose of this particular report.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any questions for Peter or comments on this report? I’ll ask for a vote, all those in favor of this report, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it, the motion is carried. Thank you, all. We do have a number of informational reports and before we start on them I’d like to remind the Senate that Senate Council had voted to change the order of the Agenda, so that the Grand Destiny report which is being presented by the Senate Committee on University Planning will be the first report given under the listing of informational reports. So, the report on A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign is listed in Appendix “N” and Peter Deines will introduce Rodney Kirsch.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

Peter Deines: Thank you Cara-Lynne. At the October meeting of the Senate Committee on University Planning, Rodney Kirsch, the Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations presented a very impressive update on the status of the Penn State Grand Destiny Campaign. The committee asked Rod whether he would be willing to share his information with the Faculty Senate, and he graciously agreed. I’m very pleased to introduce to you Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations.

Rodney P. Kirsch, Development & Alumni Relations: Thank you, Peter. Good afternoon. I’m pleased to be with you today, and very much welcome an opportunity to inform the Senate on the progress of the Capital Campaign. Private giving to the university has doubled in just the last four years here at Penn State. Since the Grand Destiny campaign began on July 1, 1996, we've realized an outstanding increase of 106 percent. This is a direct result of several converging dynamics, in my opinion. First the energy and involvement of faculty, staff and volunteers; secondly, a laser-like focus and emphasis on major gifts; and thirdly, a very robust economy that has benefited not just Penn State, but all of us. Private support of $171 million in fiscal year 2000, represents only actual gifts received. The total of gifts and new documented pledge commitments this past fiscal year, which will be paid over time, amount to $200 million. The campaign is seven years in length, and is scheduled to end June 30, 2003. With 64 percent of the time elapsed, we have reached 89 percent of our goal, or raised $886 million in gifts and commitments towards our $1 billion campaign goal. Currently, there are only 17 American universities with efforts of this magnitude. To recap for a moment, when we look in detail at the campaign's featured objectives, we see good progress. A combination of generous gifts, and very unique program of ideas by the deans and their faculty, have led the program support category to surpass its goal at this time with $154 million raised, against a goal of $122 million. There has been more than $265 million raised for undergraduate and graduate students. We have also generated $128 million to support faculty primarily in chairs, professorships and fellowships. A major goal of the Grand Destiny campaign is to increase the university's endowment. We are making good progress. Our initial goal was to add $474 million to Penn State's endowment, which was roughly accounting for half of the entire campaign goal. As of December 31, 2000, we are over 80 percent of our way there, having achieved $388 million. More than $60 million or about 35 percent of all the voluntary support last year went directly into our endowment. This is money we can use now, it’s not pledged funds we’re waiting for sometime in the future. This $60 million is nearly a four-fold increase in endowment fund-raising from what we would compare it to four years ago. About four out of every five dollars committed to the campaign is current outright support. The funds are already at work or will be in the next five years or so.