THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

Volume 34-----MARCH 27, 2001-----Number 6

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 March 27, 2001

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

A. Documents Distributed Prior to March 27, 2001

B. Attached

Door Handout – Faculty Benefits Committee –

Adoption Benefits

Door Handout – Curricular Affairs Committee –

Status of Re-certification for General Education

Door Handout – Joint Committee on Insurance

and Benefits – Annual Report – 1999-2000

Door Handout – Research Committee – Report

on Graduate Education

Attendance

III. Tentative Agenda for April 24, 2001

FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 27, 2001

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –

Minutes of the February 27, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:5

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

(Blue Sheets) of March 13, 2001

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 13, 2001

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

(H). LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

Senate Council

Resolutions on Free Speech

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS –

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student AiD

Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement

Faculty Benefits

Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

Faculty Affairs

Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments

Faculty Affairs

Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure

Procedures and Regulations

Faculty Benefits

Adoption Benefits

Student Life

Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure

University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Curricular Affairs

Status of Re-certification Process for General Education

Elections Commission

Roster of Senators for 2001-2002

Faculty Affairs

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000

Faculty Benefits

Penn State Travel Program

Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

Annual Report – 1999-2000

Research

Graduate School Update – Annual Report, Eva Pell, Vice President

of Research/Dean of the Graduate School

Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002

Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary, Faculty Advisory

Committee to the President

Senate Council

Commission for Women – 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE

UNIVERSITY -

M. ADJOURNMENT -

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

The Senate passed three Legislative Reports:

Senate Council - "Resolutions on Free Speech.” This report consisted of two resolutions. The first was the Senate stance supporting the fundamental principles of free speech; and the second, commending President Spanier for his reasoned defense of free speech. (See Record, page(s) 4-7 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement.” This report changes the admission requirement for foreign/second language so that students shall receive credit for taking a course making up for this admission requirement. (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Faculty Benefits – “Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries.” This report was presented to standardize the format, detail and focus for future faculty salary reports. (See Record, page(s) 11-17 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)

The Senate passed three Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs – “Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments.” This report proposes a policy that acknowledges that faculty members are entitled to receive royalties on certain kinds of course materials. (See Record, page(s) 17 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)

Faculty Benefits – “Adoption Benefits.” This report recommends adoption assistance benefits in the form of reimbursement for incurred costs and paid parental leave. (See Record, page(s) 17-26, Door Handout Record Appendix II and Agenda Appendix “H.”)

Student Life – “Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.” This report recommends six steps to clarify disciplinary procedures at Penn State. (See Record, page(s) 27 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)

The Senate heard ten Informational Reports:

Committees and Rules Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities; Standing Joint Committee on Tenure; University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.” This document lists the candidates for the Senate general election for the committees listed in the title of this report. (See Record, page(s) 27-29 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

Curricular Affairs – “Status of Re-certification Process for General Education.” This report summarizes the college plans as submitted and shows how well the colleges have succeeded in meeting their goals. (See Record, page(s) 29-30, Door Handout Record Appendix III and Agenda Appendix "K.")

Elections Commission – “Roster of Senators for 2001-2002.” The report lists the members of the 2001-02 Senate. (See Record, page(s) 30 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

Faculty Affairs – “Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1999-2000. This report summarizes the promotion and tenure decisions made in the academic year of 1999-2000. (See Record, page(s) 30-35 and Agenda Appendix "M.")

Faculty Benefits – “Penn State Travel Program.” This report provides an update of the status of the travel program at the institution. (See Record, page(s) 35-40 and Agenda Appendix "N.")

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-2001.” This report focuses on the NCAA eligibility numbers as reported each year to the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 40-41 and Agenda Appendix “O.”)

Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits – “Annual Report – 1999-2000.” This is the mandated yearly report updating the University community on the work of this committee. (See Record, page(s) 41-44, Door Handout Record Appendix IV and Agenda Appendix “P.”)

Research – “Graduate School Update – Annual Report.” This report highlights the major trends in graduate enrollment, the diversity efforts, the technology efforts, and the funding programs of the Graduate School. (See Record, page(s) 45-51, Door Handout Record Appendix V and Agenda Appendix “Q.”)

Senate Council Nominating Report for 2001-2002 – “Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary; Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.” This report lists the candidates for the positions and committee listed in the title. (See Record, page(s) 51-52 and Agenda Appendix “R.”)

Senate Council – “Commission for Women – 1981-2001: Status of Women at Penn State.” This report offers an overview of the status of woman at the University over a 20-year span. (See Record, page(s) 52-56 and Agenda Appendix “S.”)

One Advisory/Consultative report was defeated by the Senate:

Faculty Affairs – “Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations.” This report makes recommendation to include quality indicators in the assessment of faculty publications and creative activities. (See Record, page(s) 17-26 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding. One hundred and sixty-two 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 February 27, 2001 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for March 13, 2001. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

Note that the Senate Calendar for 2001-2002 is appended to your Agenda as Appendix “B”. These dates are also listed on the Senate’s web page. So if you are returning to the Senate for next year, you might want to mark those dates on your calendar now, so you have no excuse not to be able to attend.

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of March 13, 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, March 13, 2001. Please refer to the Senate Council minutes of March 13 appended to your Agenda for the topics discussed at our last FAC meeting.

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 2001. If anyone wishes to place an item on the FAC agenda, please contact one of the Senate Officers, or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Peter Rebane or Gordon De Jong.

The February forensic session at which the proposed courseware policy was discussed has resulted in the joint committee making some changes to the document. The new version of that document will go to Senate Council in April, and in all likelihood will come to the Senate for its April 24, 2001 meeting. I’m telling you this now because you might want to go to the web site to look at this document, because some of you may have your caucuses meet between now and Senate Council, while other units may meet between Senate Council and Senate. And the web site at which you can find this is

http://gfb.cas.psu.edu/scor/scor.htm. Now if you didn’t get that, I could repeat it, but you might be wise just to go online when the Senate Record is posted, and it will be there. Also each person that serves as a Senate Council Representative received a hard copy of that document at the last Senate Council meeting. It was just made available that day and since people hadn’t had a chance to look at it we postponed it until April.

Several memos were received from the president regarding implementation of reports passed by the Senate at its meeting of January 30, 2001. Please refer to the Senate Council minutes of March 13, 2001 (appended to your Senate Agenda) for the details of these memos, and for additional announcements made at Senate Council on March 13, 2001.

An administrative/faculty committee has been appointed to look at the calendar, and will be charged at the beginning of April. James Smith, from Abington College is chairing that committee and other faculty members include: Jane Sutton, Penn State York; Anthony Baratta, Engineering; and George Bugyi, Senate Office and the College of Health and Human Development. If you have any concerns regarding the calendar, please feel free to contact one of these individuals. Since they will be carrying out their work over the summer, my recommendation is that if you have a problem with the way the calendar is set up now, or a concern, or if you’re happy with something, they always like good news. Contact them now before the end of the spring semester, so that they have that information to work with during the summer.

With regards to the coalition of students that your officers have been meeting with, they are working out details of their proposal, for a diversity component during orientation, and they are continuing to look at the diversity plans of the different colleges. I think that I can speak for John Nichols, John Moore as well as myself, when I say that we have learned a lot from the students. And I think they have also learned a lot from the work that they have put into this. It’s also an issue…or there are issues that we expect we will continue to address, well past the end of the current academic year.

Recently, many of the good things done by students throughout the university, such as THON, and the volunteer work students did during spring break, and the graduate student research forum that was held this weekend, have been overshadowed by such things as the incident during the governor’s conference, hate mail, and most recently the riot in State College. Today I have the privilege of introducing a student who should make all of us aware of why we entered the education profession. Zachary J. Battles, a 21-year-old State High School graduate and current Penn State senior, is one of 32 students from the country this year to be a Rhodes Scholar. He is only the second Penn State student to achieve this honor, and as I recall he is the second student from his high school to achieve this honor. He accomplished this through an admirable combination of intellectual curiosity and I was told, pure spunk. In May he will graduate with two bachelors degrees—one in computer science and in math. He will also receive a masters in computer science and will have a minor in French, and he will have done this within a four year time span, and with an almost perfect GPA. He plans to move to London next year, and to study numerical analysis at Oxford University. And he indicated that one of the first things he plans to do when he is there, is to take a course in theater. What I like in his philosophy is that he doesn’t want to devote his entire life to the study of one thing, I think that’s great. I think we can all draw some inspiration from Zachary, not just because of his obvious intellectual abilities, but for his zest for life, and his willingness to work hard each day against obstacles that many of us, most of us I think, would find daunting. So Zachary, would you like to say a few words, we’d like to hear from you.

Senators: Standing ovation.

Zachary J. Battles, Rhodes Scholar: Thank you for such a warm welcome. It’s really exciting to be here and to be supported by so many people. And if there is one thing that I’ve learned in my lifetime, and it is that one’s life isn’t built upon accomplishments but it’s built upon others investments in you. And I’ve learned that along the way, during my lifetime and as a Rhodes Scholar, and of course I’ve known this before, but more so now as a Rhodes Scholar. I know that I need to continue to pass on what’s been invested in me and to invest in others. The Rhodes Scholarship was not a single handed effort on my part. It was a lifetime of investment of other people willing to give me a chance, and encouraging me to pursue what I’ve always wanted to do. Now as a Rhodes Scholar, I have the obligation and responsibility to continue to pass on what has been invested in me to others. I’ve already started by for example, spending time in Costa Rica exchanging ideas with disabled Costa Ricans, so that we can better understand each other and their condition can improve in that country. I’ve also spent time in the Ukraine teaching English; helping the Ukrainians who suffer from economic difficulties, gain a foothold in today’s world as English is becoming more and more important. And now as I look to the future, I not only have a chance to study at Oxford under a Rhodes Scholarship, but I have the chance to interact with many different people who come to such a diverse university and intellectual environment. Of course I will be spending most of my time studying numerical analysis, but there are many other things that I’d like to do in England as well. I’d like to travel Europe, and continue work with the disabled communities in that continent and I’d also like to enjoy myself, I suppose in a little lighter note, and to learn how to play a few card games like Bridge, and really find out what the English do for fun. In light of all of this, I’m excited to be taking the next step, and I look forward to knowing where my future and anticipating what steps will follow after my stay at Oxford.

Chair Schengrund: Thank you for coming.

Senators: Applause.

Chair Schengrund: I think now you know why we wanted to have Zach come and talk to us today. Thank you very much. At Senate Council there was a vote to adjust the Agenda, so that we have a legislative report coming prior to Comments By The President Of The University. These are listed as Resolutions on Free Speech, in Appendix “C” and John Nichols will present these resolutions.

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COUNCIL

Resolutions on Free Speech

John S. Nichols, College of Communications: Chair Schengrund, Senate colleagues, the silver lining of recent troubling events is that it has forced us to refocus our attention on the core principle of free speech. The free exchange of ideas and opinions is not just a nicety, rather it’s indispensable to the educational mission of the university. Students cannot learn, scholars cannot discover without the intellectual process of comparing truth with falsehood. Comparing good ideas with bad ideas, an enlightened perspective with an unenlightened one. If new alternative, and sometimes troubling ideas are not constantly explored and debated, the university is merely in the business of indoctrination rather than learning. Reaffirming our commitment to free speech is the primary purpose of the first resolution before you, however it also acknowledges the potential for abuse of the right of free expression but the antidote for bad speech is more good speech. In other words, the solution to bad speech is education not regulation. The intent of the second resolution is to applaud President Spanier who during our last Senate meeting was in a less welcoming place defending free speech at Penn State under difficult circumstances. The Bylaws do not require the full Senate to endorse the resolutions passed by Senate Council, Council has the authority to speak for the body and the faculty at large under these circumstances but Council felt that even if redundant the full Senate should have the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to free and responsible speech and to commend the president for his efforts to defend that principle.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any questions? 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.

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: We have absolutely no comments on the second resolution. On the first resolution the wording in the College of Arts and Architecture has us somewhat concerned in the way that its been laid out. Is there opportunity for substitution at this point?

Chair Schengrund: No, at this point these are presented to be affirmed or not affirmed as written.

W. Travis DeCastro: So is there a point in discussion?

Chair Schengrund: Well the only thing was if you had any questions regarding it you could make your comments known and they would be in the Senate Record and might serve as guidance to people regarding issues of free speech.

W. Travis DeCastro: Then I just might say this about that. Most of us in the College of Arts and Architecture really understand that intolerant and uncivil behavior is not something to be desired, however some of the stuff that we do in the College of Arts and Architecture can be considered offensive either on stage, or in art, or in a ceramic, or in a sculpture for that matter. The third part of the first resolve is not worded in such a way that it is clear to us in the College of Arts and Architecture as to when something is offensive, and what the necessary antidote might be. What we do is sometimes not…it might be considered offensive, to conventional ways of thinking. We wanted to make that point, and I make it now.

John S. Nichols: Travis I want to be…first of all, I suspect that you, and most everybody else in the room have had the experience of writing by committee, and what you see is draft 42 or 43 I suppose—that’s an exaggeration. It’s a difficult process to write something, particularly when you’re talking about core principles, but I want to make it abundantly clear, that the intent of the first resolution is that if there is abuse of free speech, the solution is more free speech. As I said, the solution is education, not regulation. If some person feels that a particular message is offensive, or intolerant, or uncivil, the solution is counter speech. To say why he or she thinks that that is the case. The solution to bad speech, is more free speech. Does that alleviate your concerns?

Brian A. Curran, College of Arts and Architecture: Just to pursue the point of ‘bad speech or what’. In our discussion, the issue of hate mail, and harassment, and other things came up as evident examples of very bad speech. Actually, when I first read this, language is not what I got from it, but rather a much more misconception of what might be considered bad speech. I guess I’m trying to get a sense of what bad speech would constitute? This could be a very subjective thing. It could apply to almost any speech it seems. I guess I was wondering how are we to understand the conception of or Senate Councils conception of bad speech?

John S. Nichols: Implicit throughout the document, and the core of free speech theory is that what is bad, and what is good, is determined through the intellectual process of you comparing it to contrasting good idea with a bad idea and good speech with bad speech. You determine that. But if we’re in the business of…even if some authority such as the government could with perfection sensor out all the bad ideas, all the untruths, then still you hold truth only by bias and preconception, as opposed to going through the individual intellectual process of comparing good and bad, and determining for yourself which is which.

Rebecca L. Corwin, College of Health and Human Development: John, I wonder if you could just, and maybe you just did, clarify too what you meant in the second, whereas and the third resolve and the use of responsibility in the exercise of freedom of speech, in an academic institution that we need to responsibly exercise our right to free speech. I had concerns that this, as I mentioned earlier, that this might be interpreted by some as you’ve got to be nice about it, and I don’t think that was the intent that Senate Council had. If you could clarify the responsibility angle a little bit?

John S. Nichols: I don’t know what more I could say. The famous Mark Twain quote, he sarcastically contended that there’s three unspeakably precious things that we have in America--freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the good sense not to exercise either one of them. His point clearly was that we have these rights, but people can use those rights to hurt other people, and it’s not a good thing to do. But again, I go back to, yes people should exercise their rights responsibly, but when they don’t, the solution is not for censorship or government regulation. The solution is more speech.

Rebecca L. Corwin: All right, so Senate Council is not advocating don’t go out and hurt anybody’s feelings. Council is saying if your feelings are hurt, your response should be more speech?

John S. Nichols: I hate to speak for Senate Council, but I think that probably is a fair statement.

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine: I’d like to comment that PCN network ran numerous replays of Dr. Spanier’s torment by the legislature, and I think everyone here should wholeheartedly support resolution number two. I do want to point out that resolution number one, perhaps the Senate leadership should be prepared for questions from the press. The first resolution could be construed as being in direct contradiction to the widely known booing policy, that was passed by this Senate a couple of months ago.

John S. Nichols: To refresh the Senate’s memory, not withstanding media coverage, the Senate did not legislate against booing, and certainly did not threaten to take away tickets or incarcerate people that did boo, as was reported in some media. To refresh the Senate’s memory, the Senate endorsed an existing statement read at the stadium to give a warm welcome to the opposing team. I think it would be very difficult if anybody goes back to the Record to confuse the two.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I don’t think it was the intent of anyone on Senate Council to pass the resolution to try to specify what would constitute “bad” speech. I think we made it very clear that the intent behind this legislation is to honor people’s rights to say what, within legally permissible limits, they wish to say. And if those who are offended by that wish to respond, the appropriate response is not censorship or prevention of the exercise of free speech, rather it is as you were suggesting coming up with better speech. The ideas seems to…or bad ideas or better ideas rather than trying to keep ideas out of the marketplace, however offensive and unenlightened they may be.

John S. Nichols: I guess it takes a Speech Communication Professor to make it clear what I could not.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the first resolution, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. I’m assuming we discussed both resolutions together, so I will just call the question on the second one unless anyone objects. All those in favor of the second resolution, please signify by saying, “aye.”

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried, and I want to thank John Nichols for the time he put into this, and John Moore for his wordsmithing and their collaborators. Thank you very much.

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

Chair Schengrund: At this point, I’d like to ask Dr. Spanier for his comments.

Senators: Standing ovation.

Graham B. Spanier, President: Well that concludes my report. Thank you very much. I appreciate the resolutions, and your gesture very, very much. Well, I guess I’ll start with my appropriation hearing. Thank goodness it’s over. I had hoped very much to be back here in time to catch the end of the last Senate meeting, the discussion that you had on intellectual property issues and other agenda items. But as some of you know from watching it, the appropriations hearing ended up going four hours, instead of the 90 minutes that was scheduled, so I was not able to get back here that afternoon after all. In the end we’re hopeful that the appropriations hearing itself does not have a strong connection to Penn State’s appropriation. Unfortunately, with all of our efforts to focus on Penn State’s great needs and accomplishments, we did not have sufficient time to be able to do that. Just to remind you of where we stand at the moment, what is currently on the table is the governors’ proposal for the university, which nets out to a recommendation of an increase of .062 percent for Penn State. This is based on the removal of $7 million of funding from our budget, which we had anticipated would be rolled into our base and continued. Two million dollars of that is at Penn College, and $5 million of that was for programs and initiatives at Penn State. That money has been backed out of our budget, and then a three percent increase was proposed on certain parts of the base budget that remained. Completely separate was the $4.5 million for the School of Information Sciences and Technology, which once again has been identified as a separate line item, not a part of the base budget, and with no inflationary increase. We had asked for 4.25 percent increase to deal with inflation, faculty salary increases, employee benefits, utilities increase, deferred maintenance, and other routine issues, and commitments that we have at the university. We had asked for all of those elements, I just referred to, to be folded into our base, and then for additional funding in special initiatives for the College of Medicine, Information Sciences and Technology and environmental compliance. There were no funds identified for any of those initiatives. So we are in a position now working very, very hard in the legislature to try and get the cut from our budget restored, to try to get the three percent moved up to 4.25 percent. Even under that scenario, you may recall that we had proposed a fairly steep tuition increase by Penn State standards, and we’re very concerned right now that if we don’t receive an increase at least approaching what we asked for, that the tuition increase could be even higher. Which would be very unfortunate, especially in a year when we’ve also had to increase room and board rates principally because of the need to sprinkle the residence halls over a period of years. That is a $50 million budget item, and we have no option there other than to raise the room and board rates, since that part of our budget is done on a completely self-support basis. So we are very busy in Harrisburg right now, working on our appropriations. It is at this point in the hands of the legislature, particularly a number of legislative leaders, and in addition we are down there working on doing our best to receive a fair share of the tobacco settlement funding for Pennsylvania to come to the university for research and prevention activities. So that is a bit of an update on our appropriation situation, and again I do want to thank many of you who sent me email messages following my house appropriations hearing, in particular with your expressions of support, and I deeply appreciate both of the resolutions that were passed here by Senate Council, and then at the Senate again this afternoon.

I want to share with you a statement that I wrote on Sunday following the post-game riot. It says, the Penn State Alma Mater contains the words “may no act of ours bring shame”. But once again, we have most unfortunately experienced a disturbance that damages the reputation of the university, and the community that surrounds us. Although most students celebrated our exemplary basketball season responsibly, there seemed to be no purpose celebratory or otherwise, for the post-game riot which police and observers report was clearly fueled by alcohol. Such behaviors are not acceptable in a civil society, and I deeply regret that so many members of the Penn State family would ignore lawful orders to disperse and jeopardize the safety of fellow students and community residents. I commend State College Chief of Police Tom King, and the dozens of other officers who put themselves in harms way, to restore order quickly in an environment of rapidly deteriorating public safety. Penn State does not condone riotous behavior. Students who have been charged with criminal offenses will face disciplinary proceedings within the university’s judicial affairs system, in addition to adjudication through the criminal justice system. The university will continue to work cooperatively with the borough of State College, apartment owners and students to prevent such disturbances in the future. Any suggestions that any of you would have would be greatly welcomed. We are at the point of welcoming all good ideas of how we can deal with such situations.

I’m very pleased with the recent appointment and beginning of her work at the Berks-Lehigh Valley campus Susan Speece, the Dean of the Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley College, and with the Board of Trustees approval of Diane Disney as Dean of the Commonwealth College, we now have I think for the first time in quite a while, a full complement of more or less permanent deans at the university. No interim or acting deans, and no searches under way at the moment. We’re very pleased with the overall quality of the leadership that we’ve been able to attract to our principle academic leadership positions at the university.

I want to conclude my remarks before I open it up for your questions and comments with my thanks to several of the Senate Officers, who have been meeting regularly with members of the Black Caucus to continue discussions about concerns that they have that arose in previous meetings with members of the Senate leadership and me and others in the university community. So thanks to all of you who are involved in that. I’d be happy to take your questions and comments.

Peter B. Everett, Smeal College of Business Administration: My comment might be a little off the wall but let me get it on the table here. There’s a pretty good history in architecture of how environmental design can stimulate different kinds of behavior. A good literature on different kinds of buildings stimulate crime, or suppress crime, different kinds of public housing stimulates or suppresses drug abuse, and so forth. If I were to comment it might be this, maybe we ought to think about the redesign of Beaver Canyon. I don’t know how 12 story buildings got built when we have a 85 foot height limit in downtown State College? And I don’t know how these buildings got built that big that don’t have any set back from the street? And I don’t know how a 12 story building for young people could be built with balconies? And so maybe we ought to consider redesigning Beaver Canyon. Thank you.

President Spanier: Well, thank you Peter. I don’t know how it happened either. There’s no question that the architecture and environment of the area does contribute to the problem. I received many communications from individuals making that same observation. I’m not sure what we can do about it now, but discussions are underway and the architecture and the ambiance let’s call it, of that area are one of the variables that’s being looked at.

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: This is partly in light of the recent resolutions that we passed. The University Faculty Senate, and the administration have addressed for years the impact of factors that might result in a chilly climate in the classroom. The editorial in today’s Collegian points out the potential chilling effect of recent administrative guidelines related to the approval of the Safer Sex Cabaret. A related concern would be how those guidelines might signal that events never planned as part of the event had been under consideration by the planners. In that context what would you outline as ways in which the university administration will sustain the dialogue about free speech?

President Spanier: I think that there’s been a very happy ending to the planning of that particular event. We always have to walk a delicate line between the concerns of members of the community, and never waiver from our support of free speech. I think the reason there’s a happy ending in the planning of that event is because here was an example where some students planned an event perhaps without thinking of how it was being described, or the way it was being communicated, and how it might be perceived by others. And we then follow the procedure of asking our Student Affairs and Educational Equity staff to sit down with the students and talk about what was happening, and trying to educate them about the sensitivities of certain members of the community. And fortunately they were very responsive to those concerns, and the students themselves sent us a letter assuring us that the event was planned to have certain characteristics and then the appropriate staff member in Student Affairs said well that’s great, by all means go ahead and have the event and we’ll assign a room. That is, we hope, an ideal way for some of these issues to be resolved through dialogue between Student Affairs staff, and student organizations as they’re planning events and taking into account sensitivities that might exist in the community. Where this will become difficult of course, is in circumstances where students really don’t care what the community thinks or what a particular individual thinks, and they’re going to plan an event that they want to plan exercising their free speech rights no matter what the reaction might be. I hope we don’t see too much of that, because that puts all of us in the university community in a very difficult situation. In a Faculty Senate like this I think we’re so used to dealing with free speech issues. We understand it a little better and we don’t worry about it quite as much as the citizen or the parent or the alum who might be much, much further away, and they’re really not interested in many cases hearing what we consider to be the nuances of first amendment law. So we hope that through just better dialogue and open communication between our staff in Student Affairs and student groups who are planning events that we can do this in a way that works for everybody.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much.

President Spanier: Thank you, again.

Senators: Applause.

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Chair Schengrund: There is no forensic business, and there’s no unfinished business so we’ll move on to the legislative reports, and the first one is from the Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. It deals with Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students, Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement, and JoAnn Chirico will present that report and it’s in Appendix “D”.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Revision of Appendix C: Policies and Rules for Students Re: Foreign Language Admission Requirement

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

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus: In December, the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid received a request from Dean Filippelli in Liberal Arts, on behalf of the foreign language department heads and the foreign language faculty for a change in the foreign language admission requirement that Senate had passed in 1996. The only change that we are proposing in the policy is to allow baccalaureate credit when a student takes the “001” level foreign language course to complete that requirement. The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid supports Dean Filippelli and the faculty in foreign language in that request and we’re bringing forth this legislative proposal.

Chair Schengrund: Are there questions for JoAnn? Seeing none I’ll call the question, all those in favor of the proposed change, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senator: Nay.

Chair Schengrund: The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. Thank you very much. Our next report is from the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. It’s Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries. It can be found in Appendix “E” and Leonard Berkowitz will introduce Jacob De Rooy.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries

Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus: Almost five years ago, the Senate leadership appointed a joint subcommittee of the Senate Committee on University Planning and the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits to look at the way we report faculty salaries to the Senate. That joint subcommittee was chaired by Jacob De Rooy. This year that joint subcommittee evolved into a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits to finalize its report. What you have in front of you is the sixth major iteration of the initial draft. There have been many substantive discussions, and many substantive changes in drafts this year. You might get a feel for those discussions we had on market and justice in particular, if you consider the fact that the chair of the subcommittee is an economist, and the chair of the committee is a philosopher. I do want to take this opportunity to commend Jacob De Rooy for his perseverance, hard work, and flexibility in developing the report. Jake is here to introduce the report itself and answer any questions about it.

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: The recommendations that you see in front of you really center around a couple of very simple principles. First we have had 20 years of history of salary reports being presented to the Senate. This legislation is designed to make the formats of those more uniform so that they’re more easily comparable from period to period, and also to emphasize our appreciation of the fact that we receive both internal and external salary reports. Too often we feel the emphasis has been on comparing salaries at Penn State with those outside of Penn State, so that we can retain excellent faculty and recruit excellent faculty. We wish to highlight the fact that internally, salaries are important in motivating the behaviors of those who are not active in an external job market. With that, let me present the 10 recommendations you see in front of you. We’re going to ask that we vote on them as a unit of 10. The only legislation that we’re actually voting on is that in bold face, the bold faced recommendations. The text that is in regular unbolded face underneath is explanatory and gives information about the way in which these recommendations might be implemented. What we are basically asking you to vote on as a group is the bold faced recommendations. With that, we will entertain any questions.

Gordon F. De Jong, College of the Liberal Arts: This is not a new comment to the speaker. But I would direct the attention of my Faculty Senate colleagues to page 13. And on page 13 I would further direct your attention to Footnote 22. The only justification for not reporting average salary by rank is if there are 4 or fewer incumbents in that rank. So this report suggests that by college or by unit and by rank faculty salaries be reported if there are 4, down to 4 or more.

Chair Schengrund: Five…

Gordon F. De Jong: It says four…

Chair Schengrund: Four or fewer, so it would have to be five…

Gordon F. De Jong: Five or more they will report a mean, a median and in a report range which is on the previous page, if you’re not statistically inclined give 25 percent and 75 percent figures for that. Well as a professional demographer, and I can tell you that statistical series nationwide or in most organizations, would never report the use of that few if you were interested in confidentiality. Ten would be an absolute kind of minimum. So if you vote for this, and this recommendation is approved, then if you’re in a cohort of five professors or five assistant professors, people will know for that unit the mean, the median, the 25 percent and the 75 percent range. The degrees of freedom get very small with those perimeters known.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I would like to support Gordon’s comment especially because on page 4 the Footnote there says, “statistics can be reported only for a group of 4 or more faculty members”. It is unclear, is it four as on page four or five as on the page Gordon mentioned. But my main concern that whatever we vote on not include that level of detail at the bottom of the page, because I don’t think that that’s particularly sound. You said that all we’re voting on is the bold faced materials, and I just want to reemphasize that much of the other material in the report could use some rethinking.

Jacob De Rooy: The practice of suppressing individual data on groups of four or fewer individuals has been well established in past reports received by this Senate. I should also mention that this four or fewer is a standard used by many government agencies, including the census bureau in revealing or releasing information. In order to guess individual salaries of a group of five people, knowing the mean and the standard deviation, and maybe even knowing something about the first three moments of the distribution. I’m still unclear as to whether or not you can make reliable guesses about all of the individual salaries, without making some heroic assumptions regarding what the distribution of salaries are within the unit. I would invite a statistician to comment on this, but it would seem to me that there would still be a preservation of confidentiality.

Henry O. Patterson, Berks-Lehigh Valley College: For recommendation number two on page four, there’s no explanation of why Penn College of Technology was excluded from this. I just wanted to know the reason for that?

Jacob De Rooy: I think it’s because that their salary structure is determined quite differently. I’ll ask if Billie could comment on that? Would you like to supplement, Dr. Willits?

Billie Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: The university database that we use to draw this data does not include that kind of salary information from Penn College.

Jacob De Rooy: Thank you.

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Jake, are the requirements that this report places on the reporting realistic? Are we able to obtain that type of information from our sister institutions?

Jacob De Rooy: With respect to the use of external data, first of all recognize that we are proposing a series of two biannual reports. That every two years the Senate would receive as it has in the past, a report comparing salaries within the university for different units within the university we might call that internal comparisons. And that on alternate years we would just compare university-wide average figures for Penn State with those university-wide figures for comparable institutions—peer groups. I’m not certain which external comparison you’re referring to, although there is some external comparison in both reports. Obviously, the comparison of Penn State with its peer institutions is an external report. Within the internal report however, we have one item suggested in the recommendations that is unique with respect to past reports. And that is since we have recognized that differences between individual unit salaries are depended upon not only the distribution of rank, but also the discipline itself, we thought that perhaps the interpretation of the internal averages between one college and another would be more enlightened if in fact we accompanied that with external information showing nationwide trends or averages with respect to discipline. For example, you will receive an internal report salaries of let’s say the Smeal College of Business Administration. In the same report you will get salaries of other colleges, and I don’t mean to pick on anyone, let’s just say the College of Education. And people will say why aren’t the salaries for a full professor in the College of Education equal to that of the full professors in the Smeal College of Business Administration. One possible explanation you might have for that is that on a nationwide basis the average salaries for business professors are different than those of education professors. So we thought that perhaps that external information as a possible reference might enlighten the discussion of the content.

Peter Deines: Jake, that’s exactly my point. I think we can put something on the books that is very detailed and sophisticated, however we also need to accumulate the data in order to make the report. Are we capable of obtaining this information in a routine way, in the detail that you’re describing what good is it to have this information if we in the end cannot produce a report that’s calling for these standards, because if we do adopt these standards, we will not have a report coming forward to the Senate unless it meets those standards. So I think I would feel better about this report if there would be some indication that the committee has looked at, whether we have mechanisms in place to accumulate the data that’s required for the report, and that someone who would be responsible could stand up here now and say yes, we can do this. I would feel better about this report.

Jacob De Rooy: The only response I give at this point is that we know that there have been some published information for example, through the Chronicle of Higher Education, in their annual survey of salaries on some discipline specific salaries. Whether or not we can get as many different discipline specific averages as we would like, that is something we’re going to have to leave to the number crunchers available for institutional research in the university. I can’t guarantee you we’re going to be able to give you the degree of detail, or the variety of external data that you would like, but we can certainly work in that direction. We do know that we can get some, perhaps not all of the comparisons we would like to make.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: I’d like to congratulate you Jake and your committee, for the many years that it took to get this together. I’d just like to reflect a minute about the salary reports, and suggest that they only serve us as faculty. They do not serve the administration, because the administration has access to all the exact numbers. When a department head wants to award salary increases, the department head has access to the exact salaries. Faculty has access to this kind of rough guide in terms of, “wow, here this might be where I stand” and now I can go to my faculty chair and say, “hey, I’m down here and this is below the average I’ve been here so many years why can’t I make more?” But I’m not sure the department head listens to us anyway. So perhaps the best solution…impartial solution to getting out for us as accurate information as possible is to open up salaries at Penn State, which I’m not sure what the administration would say about that. There may be some sentiment among faculty but probably not even a majority there.

Dennis S. Gouran: If I could pick up on that theme that Jamie just struck. It’s not altogether clear to me what’s supposed to happen as a result of passage of these resolutions. It strikes me as a bit unusual to legislate the form of a report. There must be a larger intent behind the legislative action of purposes which all of us could infer, but it might be better to hear articulated.

Chair Schengrund: Do you want to address that Jake or should Len?

Jacob De Rooy: It’s a little bit broad for me to respond to. I thought the justifications for each recommendation were clearly given in these recommendations. Basically, we would like to share with the faculty as much information as is reasonable regarding two markets in which each of us are involved. We are involved in a labor market for our services. Most of us as a matter of fact, the only income we have to show, is the income we get from selling our time and our expertise and our talent. So we’re involved in that external labor market, where we seek the best utilization of our efforts. They’re also involved in an internal labor market, where we want to compare ourselves perhaps with our peers who teach under the same circumstances, that may relate to our concept of equity. We’re not using the word equity actually, in our report--very deliberately so. But we feel that perhaps in individual cases we might be more enlightened in utilizing our time and resources, if we had more information about this internal market in which you participate. Now Jamie’s point that the administrators don’t always listen, I don’t think that’s a relevant point, because not all of our students listen either but we go on, don’t we. So we’ll continue looking for that knowledge.

Leonard J. Berkowitz: Let me add something, because I think Dennis asked an important question. Keep in mind that we’ve been getting these salary reports in varying formats, varying degrees of depth and in varying looks for about 20 years. And therefore, the Senate leadership said let’s step back a moment, and decide what this ought to look like, what would be most useful for faculty. And that’s why the committee was appointed and that’s what we’ve come back with. We think that if we regularize them in these ways, it would be most useful for faculty. So what we’re doing is legislating to ourselves future formats, future ideas and future depth. In response to some of the things that have come up before, keep in mind that we didn’t start, nor did this committee develop the idea of specificity of four or fewer and so on, that’s simply the practice of the university that’s reported here.

Mila C. Su, Penn State Altoona: I think that this…it’s very important that some of these statistics are being recommended, because I’m also a librarian and the librarians have consistently been non-specifically included in the statistical reports that have been presented whether it’s in the Chronicle of Higher Education, whether it’s in Intercom, whatever news reporting resource is. We’ve always been told that it’s because of the statistics that are being required at the national level and that librarians always fall into this amorphous little category. And so I commend the committee for including us and that we’re represented as part of the faculty as we are.

Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: I chaired the committee that prepared the external report last year, and we tried to follow recommendation five putting comparisons that are discipline-related. The number crunchers you describe at Penn State saying that those salaries were not available and that all we had was university-wide averages. I called up each college asking them for their comparison data and only received comparison data for one college, and everyone else told me they did not have comparison with other universities. So I’m wondering has anything changed in the last year that we’re now able to find some of this information?

Jacob De Rooy: Thank you Laura. Please notice the way in which recommendation five is worded. It starts with the statement, “whenever possible,” so indeed if we find out that we cannot get a suitable external comparison, we will try. So please notice it’s “whenever possible”.

James E. May, DuBois Campus: I was on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits last year and saw Laura work very hard to gather this information and she was confronted with a question about how to go about this. Without set guidelines by the university I think she spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what’s the best way I should do this and asking the fellow committee members what’s the best way to do it. So one message is that each year the person who is stuck with that job in some circumstances has to reinvent the process. Secondly, the regularity will allow comparison of data over a sequence of years, whereas if people decide to shuffle data more differently this year it makes it difficult to compare 2002 with 1998. And it helps a person like Laura, who in fact is requesting this information from the administrative source to twist that arm and to ensure that we do in fact get the information and the University Faculty Senate requested in a general way for information, that as you know has been difficult to get.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any other comments? If not, all those in favor of the proposed change, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Schengrund: The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. Thank you very much both of you. The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has three advisory/consultative reports. The first one deals with Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments. It’s found in Appendix “F” and Louis Milakofsky will present the report.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments

Louis Milakofsky, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley College: I want to say right off the bat I have lots of help on this issue. The committee has been very helpful to me as chair and in particular Melvin Blumberg and Clay Calvert who have authored this report. By way of introduction--at the request of the provost the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs began a review of AD-46 which is a policy on copyright clearance, and we found that the policy had serious concerns. We were seriously concerned about general section “C” of that report and the provost agreed with that, and we therefore set out our task to design new recommendations for this policy. We came up with two of them. The first one was to delete a part of section “C” that was paragraph three, because that paragraph called for no royalty payments whatsoever on course materials, and replace it with a new policy which we designated simply as AD-XX--we don’t know what number to use, which allows for royalty payments for course material. We believe this new policy is fair to the faculty, the university, and especially to students because it will improve we think, the quality of instructional material. And without further ado, I’d like to introduce these two gentlemen who will answer any particular questions about this report.

Chair Schengrund: Are there any questions, or did everyone understand the report, and we don’t have any? You must have done an outstanding job of putting it together. Seeing none, I’d like to call for a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Schengrund: