The
University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in
room 112 Kern Graduate Building
with Kim C. Steiner, Chair, presiding. There were 234 Senators who signed the
roster.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
There was a
slide on the screen a few moments ago regarding cell phones. Some of you have
cell phones; some of you have pagers; and some of them may still be on.
Consider that possibility and turn them off for the benefit of your fellow Senators.
Will the
Senate come to order. Agenda Item A is minutes of the preceding meeting. The
April 27, 2004, Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the
proceedings, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the University
Faculty Senate’s web site. Are there any corrections or additions to this
document? May I hear a motion to accept?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: Second?
Chair Steiner: All in favor of
accepting minutes of the April 27, 2004, meeting please say, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed, “Nay.”
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The minutes of the April 27, 2004,
meeting have been approved.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item B,
Communications to the Senate: The Senate Curriculum Report of August 31,
2004, is posted on the University Faculty Senate’s Web site.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item C, Report of
Senate Council meeting of August 24. The minutes from the August 24 meeting of
Senate Council are attached to today’s Agenda.
COMMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Steiner: As you know, or may not
know, you will find out soon enough that the fall meeting is usually the time
when the Senate Chair makes the most extended comments of the year. I have some
things to say that are partly personal and other announcements that I need to
cover.
First, I
would like to introduce other members of the platform party for the benefit of
those who are new to the Senate. On my immediate right is the Senate
Parliamentarian, George Franz. George is a Senator from the Delaware County Campus.
In fact he is the Director of Academic Affairs at the campus, and he is a
former Senate Chair. As Parliamentarian, George sits here in case I get off
track. George has assured me he will get my attention in case things are going
wrong. George is the one to contact if you have questions about parliamentary
procedure.
To George’s
right is Jamie Myers, our Chair-Elect and an associate professor in the College of Education. Jamie is in his 14th year as
a member of the Senate. Last year he was Senate Secretary and previously he
served as a member of the Committee on Committees and Rules; as a representative
of his college to Council; Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Education;
Vice-Chair of Faculty Benefits; and Chair of the Faculty Rights and Privacy
Issues Subcommittee of Faculty Affairs.
To Jamie’s
right is Dawn Blasko, the Senate Secretary and an associate professor of Experimental
Psychology at Behrend
College. Dawn is in her
second term as a faculty Senator and has served on the Undergraduate Education
Committee and the Intra-University Relations Committee. She also recently
completed a term on the extra-senatorial Committee on Faculty Rights and
Responsibilities. Dawn chaired the subcommittee that wrote last year’s report
on "Curricular Integration Across Locations."
Finally, on
the far end, is the most important person in the Senate, Susan Youtz, who is
our Executive Secretary. Susan was previously a faculty member in the School of Nursing, and she was a Senator for eight
years before being hired into her current position in 2001. She represented her
college on Council for three years, chaired and vice-chaired Curricular Affairs,
and chaired Intra-University Relations. Susan and the Senate Chair have
separate but slightly overlapping roles. In general, Susan works to keep the
Senate running, but another task she works at diligently is to make sure the
Chair looks good and better than he probably really is. One of my goals for
this year is to make that task not too difficult.
Your officers
have already met together on many occasions since April. We will be seeing much
more of one another on our fall road trips. As it turns out, I like the other
officers – that is a good start – and I think we shall make a harmonious team.
The real test, this being the year 2004, is going to come on November 3, when
we will be spending about 12 hours together on a campus visit. That is the day
after Tuesday, November 2, and at least one of us is going to be in a deep
funk. However, I will try to cheer him up!
Now, I
would like to ask the Senate Office staff to stand. Their names are Patty
Poorman, Sherry Walk, Anna Butler, Cherry Lee Fisher, and Kadi Corter. These
are the folks who assist you with curriculum proposals; answer questions about
preparing student petitions; help in researching Senate policy; and maintain
communications among the officers and committee chairs. They often must work under
seemingly impossible deadlines and they are among the hardest working people
you will find anywhere at the University. I encourage you to stop by the Senate
Office, which is across the foyer here in 101 Kern, and introduce yourself.
Now, the
real business of the Senate is done by the standing committees, and especially
by the chairs of those committees. I think we have an outstanding set of chairs
this year, and I would like them to stand briefly as I call their names so that
the Senate may see who they are. Pam Hufnagel, Chair of Committees and Rules;
Lynda Goldstein, Chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid; Lee
Coraor, Chair of Computing and Information Systems; Doug Brown, Chair of Curricular
Affairs; Tram Turner, Chair of Faculty Affairs; Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair of
Faculty Benefits; Martin Pietrucha, Chair of Intercollegiate Athletics. I do
not see Martin, would Paul Clark, Vice-Chair, please stand. Thank you. Al
Mueller, Chair of Intra-University Relations; Dave Cranage, Chair of Libraries;
Ladi Semali, Chair of Outreach Activities; Paul Eslinger, Chair of Research; Rich
Yahner, Chair of Student Life; Art Miller, Chair of Undergraduate Education;
and Dan Hagen, Chair of University Planning. I do not see Dan. Would John Boehmer,
Vice-Chair please stand? Thanks, John. Thank you all for agreeing to serve, and
thank you in advance for the contributions you will be making to the work of
the Senate this year.
Now I would
like to take a moment to revisit something I said as a nominee for the
Chair-Elect position, because I am sure you have forgotten it. Nevertheless, I
still think it is very important. When I was considering that position, I was
in my first term as a Senator and I really had a rather limited perspective on
this organization. The thought of running for Chair-Elect was confusing and
daunting for me. So, I asked several former chairs their views about the Senate.
I heard unanimously that Penn
State has an excellent Senate,
one of the best certainly among large research universities. These half-dozen
or so former chairs offered four reasons why we are good.
First,
because we “keep our eyes on the ball.” The domain of the Senate is spelled out
clearly in the Constitution. As interpreted by both the Senate and the
administration, our responsibilities and authority are extremely broad. However,
they do not cover every cause that some of us might like to take up, and we
must continually remind ourselves to focus on what we are elected to do. There
is enough business within that to keep us fully occupied without getting into
issues for which we have no responsibility and no authority. For example,
purely political issues, issues of national policy, and things like that.
Second, we
are good because we periodically tackle big issues. The Senate is at its best when it wrestles
with weighty and consequential matters. I was advised that every Chair should
pursue one or two of these.
Third, we
do good work. It is easy to find examples of excellent and even scholarly work
taking place within our committees, issued in the form of reports on the Senate
floor. These achievements would not be
possible if it were not for the hard work and dedication of individual members
of the Senate.
Finally, we
have a healthy, collaborative relationship with the University administration.
I am told this is unusual. If it is unusual, then it is probably fragile, and
we must all (faculty and administration) take special care to nurture it. Without
this partnership, we as a Senate could not accomplish most of the good work
that we do and the University would not benefit from our presence.
So that is
what I would like to remind you as you are beginning your committee work for
this year. Keep your eyes on the ball, do good work on important matters, and
work with the administration – and expect them to work with you – to preserve
our healthy relationship.
Universities
are wonderful systems when they are working properly, and a good faculty senate
works for the same reason that good universities are successful. To borrow a
metaphor popularized by James Duderstedt, former president of the University of Michigan,
Penn State is a loose federation of 5,400
academic entrepreneurs. In greater or lesser degrees, we each have freedom to
do what pleases us, and what pleases us is interesting, meaningful, productive
work. Sooner or later in our careers at Penn State,
many of our faculty members find ourselves participating in the Senate. If the
University is fortunate, we discover in the Senate yet another outlet for our
interests, and we direct some of our entrepreneurial energy toward making the
University work better. It is not a zero-sum system; much, perhaps most, of
what we do here is not merely a diversion from other productive activities, but
rather is truly an addition to the total enterprise of the University.
Our reward
is the same reward that ultimately sustains us in most of what we do – not our
salary, but rather the satisfaction that we are engaged in meaningful work and
doing things of real consequence. Meaningful work not only gives purpose to the
Senate, it also fuels its capacity to fulfill that purpose. However, if Senators
do not find satisfaction in the work of the Senate, they should find other
venues for their energies.
With these
things in mind, I have stressed in our committee charges the need to address
matters of consequence in which tangible achievements are reasonably possible. Without
that focus, the time of our members is squandered and our energies are
dissipated. Fortunately, we do a pretty good job of not squandering our time
and energy. Someone recently told me that Senate reports and legislation often
steer University initiatives in ways that cannot always be imagined when the
action is taken. What we do in our committees can move the University forward
and make it an even better institution, and it is helpful to remind ourselves
of that occasionally.
Last year
the Senate approved a report by Intra-University Relations Committee entitled
"Curricular Integration Across Locations." This subject was probably
the most common topic of discussion during the officers’ visits to campuses and
colleges last year. The recommendations of that report are now being addressed
through several initiatives. As a follow-up specifically to Recommendation 5,
Provost Erickson and I will soon be jointly appointing a Committee on Curricular
Integrity. We have not yet finalized the charge, but I can tell you that it
will be a more comprehensive response to Recommendation 5 than originally
proposed.
Another
topic that generated a good bit of discussion during our University
Park visits last spring was the dismissal of a tenured faculty
member at Altoona.
Among other things, we heard calls for a free-standing policy pertaining to the
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure that would spell out its functions and
procedures and clarify the idea of “grave misconduct,” one of the justifications
for dismissal in HR23. These suggestions seemed to me to have great merit, and
I have had encouraged discussions about them with President Spanier and other
members of the administration. Accordingly, I have asked the Faculty Affairs
Committee to work with Blannie Bowen to develop an advisory/consultative report
on this subject.
SRTEs and
other measures of teaching effectiveness have been a recurring, if not quite
perennial, topic of Senate attention, most recently last fall in an advisory/consultative
report from Faculty Affairs. I suspect this is because we are not quite sure
whether we have yet gotten it right, and I know that there is widespread
skepticism within the faculty whether SRTEs really are a valid metric of
classroom performance. However, we have never asked the most important
question, which is whether those who make Promotion and Tenure decisions
believe they are given enough information to make fair and rigorous judgments
on the teaching criterion. If they do, then I think we can quit fretting about
it so much. If they do not, then we must question whether we are rewarding good
teaching and sanctioning poor teaching as effectively as we should be, and take
measures to get better. In any event, the answer to this question should set us
on more solid ground than we are now, and I will soon be appointing a special
subcommittee of Faculty Affairs, chaired by Art Miller, to look into this.
As you
know, the Senate Self-Study Report of last year recommended a number of changes
in the structure and duties of our standing committees. Most of the
recommendations were defeated on a single vote, but the idea of taking a
critical look at the Standing Rules for each committee still seems
compelling. For example, some prescribed duties may be obsolete, and committees
may have taken up other duties through the years that should be formalized. Accordingly,
I have asked each committee to review its duties as described in the Standing
Rules and to recommend any revisions to the Senate Office by December 10. I
have also asked each committee to take stock of the reports that it regularly
issues to see if changes are warranted. The next step will be for proposed
changes to be vetted through Committees and Rules.
Finally, I
will mention that I have asked Curricular Affairs to perform a descriptive assessment
of the current implementation of the Writing Across the Curriculum requirement.
As you know, we completed a review of the GI requirement last spring. Another
special subcommittee submitted a report on the GHA requirement to the
Undergraduate Education Committee just this morning. Yet another committee has completed
a report on the First-Year Seminar that will be taken up soon by Undergraduate
Education. A special review of the Writing Across the Curriculum requirement by
the Writing Subcommittee of Curricular Affairs is now timely, and I thank Peter
Deines for bringing this to my attention.
For
additional comments of this nature, I refer you to the minutes of Senate
Council at the end of your Agenda. Also included in the minutes are topics that
were discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at its August
meeting, as well as, a list of reports from the April 27 Senate meeting that
have been approved for implementation by the President. Domestic partner
benefits were also discussed at the August Faculty Advisory Committee meeting.
This topic is not listed in the Council report because it was not on the
written agenda. If you have a topic that you think should be brought up by the
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, I urge you to pass that suggestion
along to one of the members. Members of Faculty Advisory Committee are the
Past-Chair, Chris Bise; myself; Chair-Elect Jamie Myers; and three elected persons
who are: Wayne Curtis, Carey Eckhardt,
and Mark Casteel.
Earlier
this summer, the University named two new Evan Pugh Professors. Named after Penn State's
first president, this award is the highest distinction that the University can
bestow upon a faculty member. The award is given to faculty members whose
research publications and creative work or both are of the highest quality over
a period of time; are acknowledged national and international leaders in their fields
as documented by pioneering research or creative accomplishments; are
recipients of prestigious awards; and demonstrate excellent teaching skills
with undergraduate and graduate students.
The first
new Evan Pugh Professor that I want to recognize today is Anthony Cutler, research
professor of art history in the College
of Arts and Architecture.
Professor Cutler will you please stand?
Professor
Cutler is recognized as a world authority in Byzantine studies. His standing as
a scholar was highlighted in his selection as the art history editor of the
three-volume Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium. He has led the way in shaping the direction of scholarship in
the particular area of Byzantine carved ivories. His scholarship in this area
has been truly groundbreaking, and it continues with a forthcoming, two-volume
work entitled, Corpus of Byzantine Ivory
Carvings. A new area of scholarship for Professor Cutler is his study of
gift exchange between Byzantium
and Islam. He is using an interdisciplinary approach, involving both art
history and anthropology, to decipher the complex history of cultural exchanges
between these two societies.
Professor
Cutler has received numerous grants from the National Endowment for the
Humanities and other foundations. He is a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries,
London; a former member of the Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton
University; and was a
John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellow in 2002. He received the Hawkins Prize
in 1992, made Choice's Outstanding Academic Books of 1994; received the
Francois Ier medal from the College de France in 1995; and the Humboldt Research
Prize in 2001. Professor Cutler is also the recipient of Penn State's
Alumni Teaching Award and the Faculty Scholar Medal for Outstanding Achievement.
Congratulations,
Professor Cutler, on your naming as an Evan Pugh Professor. (Applause)
That is all
very impressive, Professor Cutler, but I think you need to take up a real challenge
in Byzantine studies and tackle the Faculty Senate!
I would now
like to ask Professor Joanna Floros, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology
in the College of
Medicine, to stand.
Joanna
Floros is a founder and an important contributor to the surfactant protein
field. Pulmonary surfactant is a lipoprotein complex that prevents lung
collapse and is essential for life. Surfactant deficiency can lead to
Respiratory Distress Syndrome in prematurely born infants. Joanna is currently
studying the regulation of the surfactant proteins and the role of genetic variation
of these proteins in lung disease. She is also studying the role of surfactants
in the lung disease associated with cystic fibrosis and the impact of
environmental pollution on pulmonary disease susceptibility. During her career
she has been the recipient of three prestigious awards from the National
Institutes of Health: the National
Research Service Award, New Investigator Research Award, and the prestigious
Merit Award. Research under her direction has been funded continuously by NIH
since 1985. She has also been a recipient of the Genetech/American Lung Association
Career Investigator award and the Penn State University Faculty Scholar Medal for
Outstanding Achievement, and she has been listed in Who's Who in the American Thoracic Society since 1996. The majority
of her nearly 30 trainees—students, post-doctoral fellows, and clinical
fellows—hold academic positions in the United States and abroad. She is
currently president of the College
of Medicine Faculty Organization
and has been a member of the Penn State Faculty Senate since 1993. Joanna has
served as member and chair of the Student Life Committee and is an elected
member of Committees and Rules, having served as the Vice-Chair for the past
two year. Congratulations, Joanna. (Applause)
The October
26 Senate meeting will take place at Penn State Harrisburg. This is only the
third time since 1980 that the Senate as a body will have met at a location
away from the University Park
campus. Almost half of our Senators are from locations other than University Park. We
cannot go tit for tat; University Park
has more facilities and it is centrally located. However, an occasional
reciprocity seems altogether right, and probably most of us have never been to
the Harrisburg
campus. Susan and her staff have been working closely with Madlyn Hanes and
members of her staff to make this a successful visit. Soon after today’s
meeting, you will receive from the Senate Office a full itinerary for the Penn
State Harrisburg meeting including directions and lodging information as well
as a response checklist confirming your attendance and transportation for the
meeting.
The Senate
officers will visit the following campuses during the fall semester: Berks, Lehigh Valley,
York, Mont
Alto, Behrend, Shenango and Beaver. The dates for the visits appear on the
Senate web site.
This summer,
at the July Board of Trustees meeting, the University kicked off a yearlong
celebration of its sesquicentennial anniversary. The year ahead will bring a
variety of events commemorating the University's 150-year history. Part of the
celebration was the production of a historical poster by the department of University
Publications. We are pleased to have posters for all Senators. When you leave
today's meeting you will find your poster in the back of the auditorium.
Since we
are speaking about publications, I want to let you know that the 2004-2005
Constitution has returned from the printer. They will be mailed by the Senate
staff in the next day or two.
I will
conclude my comments with a couple of unhappy announcements. We just received
word that Sally Small, who served as Senate Chair in 1975-1976, passed away on
August 21 at her home near Reading,
PA. Sally was formerly librarian
at the Berks campus and from 1967 until her retirement in 1997 was an assistant
director of human resources at the University
Park campus.
Also,
Thomas Magner, Senate Chair in 1970-1971, died March 24, 2004. Tom was associate
dean and professor emeritus of Slavic languages in the College of the Liberal
Arts. He retired in 1984. Let us remember the contributions that both made to
the Senate and the University with a moment of silence.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item E, Comments
by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today. I am
pleased to invite him to come forward to make some remarks. President Spanier.
President Spanier: Thank you, Kim. The
change of the Constitution cover from pink to blue parallels the change Penn State
made in its school colors about 100 years ago. It is a little late on the
Senate booklet, but there is precedent for such a change.
Chair Steiner: Graham, excuse me for
interrupting you. You were doing something at the library open house today.
Since you are practiced, could you please repeat that performance?
President Spanier: Absolutely. Today is
library open house day and thousands of Penn State
undergraduates are in the library getting oriented and having fabulous tours
and are being entertained. Among the entertainment was me doing magic.
At this
point, President Spanier asks the two Evan Pugh recipients to come forward and
assist him with a card trick.
President Spanier: I would like to
thank Kim for his excellent remarks and to reiterate something that he said
from the faculty leadership side, which I also feel very much strongly about. We
really do have the very best functioning University Faculty Senate that I know
of in this country. My colleagues at the presidential level also feel that way.
I certainly feel that way, from having observed faculty governance at many other
universities. This is a wonderful partnership and I know that it will continue.
I also want to mention that right before my “State of the University” address,
for those of you who will be on the University
Park campus, there will be ice cream served in the
Chemistry Life Sciences complex. Just before that, we will be dedicating the
Chemistry Life Sciences building and the new Shortlidge Mall. This project should
be finished about midnight the night before, which is generally the way those
things work. We are very, very proud of this advancement in the sciences at Penn State.
It is more than a $100 million commitment. It is really a great step forward
for Penn State and everyone is welcome to all
those activities.
The “State
of the University” address occurs on the same day as Penn State’s
September Board of Trustees meeting. At the Board of Trustees meeting this
week, we will be reviewing Penn
State’s budget situation.
Historically, every September, we ask the Board of Trustees to approve our
budget submission to the governor and to the legislature for the fiscal year
that would begin July 1, 2005. We expect to have a balanced budget this year,
tight as it will be. Nevertheless, we feel very good about the ability we have
to keep up with faculty salaries, to keep up with rapidly escalating costs of
employee benefits, and to continue on our facilities plan. At the September
meeting, we will also review our five-year facilities plan with the trustees
for all of our campuses. We feel we will be able to put together a budget that
will allow Penn State to continue its level of
excellence. In order to do that, we will be asking the state legislature to do
its fair share in supporting us financially, something it has had difficulty
being able to do in recent years. One of the consequences of having our
appropriation cut nearly $50 million over the last few years and the difficulty
surrounding that is, in order to maintain the level of quality at the
University, we have had to continue to raise tuition behind inflationary
levels. This is a philosophical policy we have made at Penn State.
We have made a decision to raise tuition not one penny more than we have to,
but to raise it as much as we have to, to maintain the level of quality. My
feeling is once you start eroding the quality of what you do, it puts you in a
vicious cycle that is not in the best interest of the University. But, given we
have two main sources of income, tuition and legislative appropriation, it
inevitably means that we are putting more of the burden on students and their
families to come up with higher levels of income.
Now, I wish
that was not so, but on the other hand I don’t feel guilty about it. I think it
is what we have to do. What I do feel guilty about is that given the high level
of tuition that we have to charge if we are in a situation at any campus,
college, or department, where we may not be doing everything we can do and
should do to provide our students with a high quality student centered experience.
That is the message I want to deliver to you as leaders of the faculty, is that
we are doing what we have to do to make ends meet at Penn State.
You must keep in mind from a student’s perspective and from the perspective of
their families, there is a cost, there is a loan debt, they are burdened financially
as high as it has ever been. We do work very hard to put a financial aid
package together. I am out there desperately trying to raise more money through
our trustee scholarship programs and other fund raising so no student will be turned
away. What I hope we can give them in return is really the full attention of or
faculty and staff, and not to cut corners on the quality of what we do for
them. We should give them a good experience in the classroom; provide good
student services in our colleges through our student affairs units; and really
make them feel that what they are paying for at Penn State is well worth it.
Our student satisfaction survey shows that an overwhelming majority of students
feel that way, but not all of them do. I hope that is something that we can collectively
continue to work on.
This year
that just concluded, we had the second highest number of applicants to Penn State
in our history. Most of the difference between the highest year in our history,
which was the year before, and this year can be contributed to the decline in international
student applications. This parallels what is happening in universities
throughout America
and there are some obvious and some not so obvious reasons for that happening.
We still continue to be the most popular university in the United States,
so I feel good about the level of interest. We continue to look ahead this year
to a very good applicant pool. Our enrollments have finally leveled off. Only
in a few selective areas around the University should we be feeling any great
pressure from an enrollment search. At some of our campuses that are in the
more demographically challenged areas of Pennsylvania,
enrollments are actually not as strong as they were in the past. If you go back
to my comments to the Senate last year, in my two extended sets of remarks and
in some things I will try to summarize more briefly in my “State of the
University” address on Friday, all of us need to be very mindful of these
changing demographics and what perhaps we can all do together to make sure all
of the campuses of the University continue to be of great appeal to students
across the state and beyond. That is all the topics I wanted to cover today. I
would like to now take several minutes to answer any other questions.
Tramble Turner, Abington: President Spanier, of the three state-related
universities, Temple University, which is near Penn
State Delaware
County, Great Valley,
and Penn State Abington, recently announced its largest enrollment ever and the
hiring initiative of 170 new faculty members. Have there been discussions or
comparisons of their strategic plan and Penn State’s
strategic plan? Also, if you know the difference in their state funding and
ours, perhaps you could address that as well.
President Spanier: Of the four state-related universities
and comparing ourselves as well to the State System of Higher Education, Penn State
continues by far to receive the lowest level of funding from the commonwealth
on a per student basis. Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh have
in recent years finally been able to turn around the long-term enrollment slump
that they saw in the mid-to-late 1960’s when they became state-related universities.
Before that time they had been wholly private universities. In recent years
they have been able to see resurgence in enrollment, which has positioned them
well. Of course, Penn State has had a huge enrollment growth going back to the
1960’s and has sustained that right up until about this year. We are now
finally leveling off. Temple and Pittsburgh are both
advantaged by the right increase they have had in enrollments, as well as their
continuing support from the state. We work very had at continuing to point out
those differences without trying to whine about it, because I am not certain
there is a lot we can do about that. We will again this year carry forward our
budget request, put our best foot forward and explain why we believe we merit a
higher level of state support. We will not be asking the state for anything
outrageous or anything they could not afford to do if they give us a sufficient
priority. I work very closely with David Adamany and Mark Nordenberg, President
and Chancellor at Temple and Pittsburgh, respectively. We have a great relationship.
In fact, in the last couple of years the Pennsylvania Senate has asked that we
have a joint appropriations hearing. In the Pennsylvania House they continue
with the traditional separate appropriation hearings. I expect that will be the
format again this year. We have never stopped making our case. Of course, when
we get the Trustee’s approval on Friday for next year’s budget proposal, we
will continue to go to work on it once again.
Eileen Kane, Dickinson: President Spanier, in view of the recent
developments with the law school and possible relocation: would you comment on
your current view of efforts to integrate the law school in the absence of any
move that might occur to University
Park? Also, other University or University Park
efforts that might be made either from up here, initiated down there, to integrate
the law school further into Penn State, independent of any actual site
location?
President Spanier: All of those issues are under discussion
right now. We are still recovering from what I consider to be an unfortunate
set of circumstances, whereby the Board of Governors at the law school did not
agree to the two campus proposal. It was very generous and would have
represented the largest investment in any academic initiative in the history of
this University. For reasons that the majority of the members have, they chose
not to go forward with that. Now I think we want to consider with the governors,
leaders in the Carlisle area, faculty in the law school, and with members of
Penn State’s Board of Trustees what should be our priorities going forward. I
am not prepared to give you a substantive response right now, because we are in
the mode of letting the dust settle and see what emerges. The whole topic of
the future of the law school will continue to be on the front burner.
Chair Steiner: Are there any other questions? President
Spanier, thank you for meeting with us today.
As we begin
our discussion of reports, I remind you to please stand and identify yourself
and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports. We have
five Legislative Reports today. The first one is from the Senate Committee on
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid and appears on today’s Agenda
as Appendix B entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed
Services).” Lynda Goldstein; Chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and
Student Aid; will present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING,
AND STUDENT AID
Proposal for
Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services)
Lynda R. Goldstein,
Chair Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Lynda Goldstein: Thank you. You have the report before you. It
is a rather lengthy one. I will tell you that it came to us from the World
Campus and is strongly supported by the Commonwealth
College, the College of Health
and Human Development, and the College of the Liberal Arts. Penn State
currently accepts military service school course credit recommendations made by
the American Council on Education (ACE). These come in as transferred general
credits on a student’s transcript and academic units determine whether and how
to apply those to a student’s degree program. This proposal asks that ACE
credit for Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) be treated similarly. These
Military Occupational Specialties are five to six years of assessed work
performance and skill levels. Generally, the areas are communications, management
or information systems. It is parallel to the kind of work experience that
students might typically put together a portfolio for and ask for that to be
reviewed. These are already reviewed by ACE and already assessed credit. I will
answer any questions at this time.
Chair Steiner: Are there any questions?
Winston Richards, Harrisburg: I notice on the conclusion, the second
paragraph from the bottom. You have written, “Position
Penn State,
particularly non-UP locations, as an attractive Pennsylvania institution for veterans and
for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.” Would you
please clarify the wording, “particularly non-UP locations?”
Lynda Goldstein: If I understand your question correctly, I
think you are asking me precisely who these non-UP locations might be.
Winston Richards: What bothers me about the wording “particularly
non-UP locations,” is that it seems we are attempting to sell them something
less. I would like to suggest an editorial change. I ask that you simply
strikeout “particularly non-UP locations.” It would read, “Position Penn
State as an attractive Pennsylvania institution
for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.”
Lynda Goldstein: I would be happy to do that as part of the
rationale, although it is not part of the recommendation for the actual
legislation.
Chair Steiner: Does everyone understand what was suggested?
It is at the bottom of Page 5, second bullet from the bottom. It reads, “Position Penn
State, striking out particularly
non-UP locations, as an attractive Pennsylvania
institution for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army
National Guard.” Are there any more questions? This report comes to us from a committee;
it has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in
favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records,
Scheduling, and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy
42-98 (Armed Services)” please signify by saying, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes.
The Senate has approved the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions,
Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate
Policy 42-98 (Armed Services).” It will be sent to President Spanier for
implementation. Thank you, Chair Goldstein.
Our second
Legislative Report also comes from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records,
Scheduling, and Student Aid and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix C and is
entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence).”
Again, Lynda Goldstein will present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING,
AND STUDENT AID
Proposal for
Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence)
Lynda R. Goldstein,
Chair Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Lynda Goldstein: Again, you have this one before you and it is
brief. I will tell you that the Graduate
School was asked to look
at this, because its policy is really quite different. It does not have a leave
of absence policy, but rather a policy of reinstating students after they have
left. Our committee and the legislation that governs undergraduates were seen
as far more parallel to how the College
of Medicine actually does
its business.
Chair Steiner: Are there any comments or questions? This report comes from a committee and has
already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor
of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling,
and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of
Absence),” please signify by saying, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes.
The Senate has approved the legislation entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate
Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence)” from the Senate Committee on Admissions,
Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid. It will be sent to President Spanier for
implementation. Thank you, Chair Goldstein, and thanks to all of the members of
your committee.
The next
three Legislative Reports come from the Senate Committee on Committees and
Rules. The first appears on today’s Agenda
as Appendix D entitled, “Amendment to Constitution, Article II, Section 5(c)
(Student Representation).” Because this legislative report is a proposed
amendment to the Constitution, it will be discussed today and then tabled until
the October 26 Senate meeting. Pamela Hufnagel, Chair of the Senate Committee
on Committees and Rules, will present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMITEES AND RULES
Amendment to
Constitution, Article II, Section 5(c) (Student Representation)
Pamela P. Hufnagel,
Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Pamela Hufnagel: Thank you. I have invited Senator Bise to
join me today because he was instrumental in developing this report. You have
the report and our recommendation. The vote to allot ten percent of the number
of faculty Senators to students served as the impetus for our discussions. In
those discussions, we decided that our overriding principles were getting good
student representation, and to develop a policy that would be uncomplicated and
easy to use. After much deliberation, which is outlined in the report, we
developed this policy. It really is the same as what we have now, except that
two students from Undergraduate Student Government will be added. We decided it
would be a good idea to add them because they really understand the issues that
concern all students, not just individual voting units. They are in frequent
contact with Senate leadership and they already sit on committees. So, we think
it would be also good for them to be able to also address the full Senate. Those
are my introductory remarks. Does anyone have any questions for us?
Chair Steiner: Our next Legislative Report also comes from
the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as
Appendix E, entitled “Revision to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a)
(FR&R Membership).” Pam Hufnagel will also present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision to
Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a) (FR&R Membership)
Pamela P. Hufnagel,
Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Pamela Hufnagel: Thank you. This report deals with Faculty
Rights and Responsibilities (FR&R). Of course, this committee drew a lot of
attention this past year because of the faculty issues going on. A suggestion
was made to the committee that the word “tenured” should be inserted in front
of the words “faculty members” for eligibility on this committee. In addition,
as you think about this, over the past five years, which is as far back as
records have been maintained, 63 percent of the issues brought to FR&R have
involved tenured-related issues. Also, over the past 15 years, which is as far
back as records go, everybody who has ever served on this committee actually
has been tenured. If you approve this, it is not going to change what has been
happening. It will just formalize what has been happening. Those are my
introductory remarks and I am ready for questions.
Fred Adams Jr., Fayette: What approximately are the proportions of
tenured and non-tenured faculty? Also, does this include fixed-term and adjunct
faculty in this decision?
Pamela Hufnagel: I do not know the percentages of fixed-term
and tenured faculty. I doubt that adjuncts would have ever been considered for
membership on this committee.
Fred Adams Jr. I am talking about the decision process in
arbitration and so on that might fall under this committee.
Pamela Hufnagel: Do you mean who brings the cases?
Fred Adams Jr.: That is correct.
Pamela Hufnagel: I am sorry I do not have that information.
Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine: I asked Dr. Youtz about this committee and
she did not have the Senate policy, but she does have the HR policy. Although
63 percent of the cases involve tenured individuals, what the policy says is,
“The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities established by the
procedures may review petitions from faculty members and administrators involving:
1. any situation in which a faculty members asserts that he or she has suffered
a substantial injustice resulting from a violation of academic freedom,
professional ethics or procedural fairness.” It does not limit the policy to
tenure. Also it talks about cases of alleged discrimination. So there is a lot
more to this than tenure. At the College
of Medicine, on the
Hershey campus, greater than 50 percent of the full-time faculty are not
tenured or tenure-track. The fixed-term faculty are indeed the majority. Those
faculty are not tenured for a variety of reasons. Some of them may not want to
be in the tenure-track and others may not have been offered tenured track.
Still more got their appointments in departments which have standing policies
of not accepting anyone into tenure-track. Still more have had the experience
of being offered tenure-track positions and then when they go to the College of Medicine and are told by their chair, “I
was just kidding. You are going to be on fixed-term for two or three years and
then go on tenure-track.” This is a clear violation of University policy. It is
my opinion that fixed-term faculty members to some extent are already
discriminated against. Even though they have not been on this committee, I see
no reason to exclude them from it. In fact, I would make a recommendation that
this committee make it a policy to include at least one fixed-term member.
Thank you.
Tramble Turner: Recognizing some of the concerns that were
just expressed, and having served as an elected representative of non-tenured
lecturers, I would point out that some of the discussions regarding this
legislation take into account that tenured individuals may feel more protected
to raise questions on behalf of their colleagues, who are in the various
positions you are describing. I am simply suggesting that would be one
rationale for leaving the wording as is.
Chair Steiner: Do we have any other comments or questions
about this report? This report comes
from a committee and has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote?
At this
point in the meeting several Senators questioned Chair Steiner whether the
Senate should vote on this legislation at this meeting. After consultation with
George Franz, Parliamentarian, it was decided it could be voted on today
because it is a revision to Standing Rules.
Chair Steiner: I have been informed that we can vote on this
today. As many as are in favor of this legislation, please signify by saying,
“Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed?
Senators: Nay.
Chair Steiner: The ayes have it. The motion passes.
A Senator: Excuse me, I am asking for a show of hands.
Chair Steiner: A division of the house has been called and
ordered. The Chair Elect and the Parliamentarian will serve as tellers. As many
as are in favor of this legislation, please raise your right hand. As many as
are opposed to the motion, please raise your right hand. The Senate has
approved the legislation by a vote of 98 ayes to 78 nays. The ayes have it and
the motion is carried. The Senate has approved the legislation from the Senate
committee on Committees and Rules entitled, “Revision to Standing Rules, Article
III, Section 5(a) (FR&R Membership).”
Our final
Legislative Report also comes from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix F, entitled “Revision to Bylaws,
Article III, Section 7 (Senate Absences).” Because this Legislative Report is a
proposed amendment to the Bylaws, it will be discussed today and then tabled
until the October 26 Senate meeting. Pam Hufnagel will also present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision to Bylaws,
Article III, Section 7 (Senate Absences)
Pamela P. Hufnagel,
Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Pamela Hufnagel: Thank you. This report seeks to make a slight
modification in what kind of absences will be reported to units and also make a
clarification. Right now units have the opportunity to replace a Senator who
has three or more unexcused absences, despite the fact that we do not have a
way to verify whether they are unexcused or not. The wording would drop “unexcused”
and read, “Senate voting units have the authority to replace a unit Senator who
has three or more absences.” This does not remove any flexibility that units
presently have. A unit could decide that their Senator has a legitimate excuse
for missing and if they choose to excuse them and not replace them, it is
perfectly in the power to keep a Senator who has missed quite a few meetings.
So the first part does not change anything, unless you want it to. The second
part is a clarification of what is already the policy. Namely, it is the absences
from the afternoon University Faculty Senate meeting that we are referring to.
This should help a Senator if he is at a conference and misses his caucus,
committee and the full Senate meeting. They will not be charged with three
absences and asked by their unit to resign. That is my introduction. Are there
any questions?
Zachary Gates, Dickinson: I would like to make a recommendation. As it
reads now there has not been the clarification that is desired. Perhaps the
word “full” in front of University Faculty Senate Meeting should be added.
There is some ambiguity, because the morning meetings are University Faculty
Senate meetings. However, if we are using the benchmark of this afternoon
meeting that is a “full” University Faculty Senate meeting. So I am making
recommendation that “full” be part of the wording.
Pamela Hufnagel: I do not have a problem with that.
Chair Steiner: You are in agreement with the purpose of the
recommendation. The question is whether the current wording accurately conveys
the meaning intended.
At this
point George Franz informs Chair Steiner that we cannot vote at this time.
Chair Steiner asks the committee to take the wording into advisement and give
its final discussion at the October 26 meeting.
Thank you,
Chair Hufnagel, and thanks to all members of the Senate Committee on Committees
and Rules.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item J, Informational Reports. We have
five Informational Reports on today’s Agenda.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
FACULTY RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Annual Report for 2003-2004, Appendix G.
This report provides a summary of the information on cases heard by the
committee in 2003-2004.
INTERCOLLEGIATE
ATHLETICS
Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic
Scholarships for 2003-2004, Appendix H.
Each year the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee is mandated to provide a
report of NCAA activities to the Senate. R. Scott Kretchmar, Faculty Athletic
Representative to the NCAA, presented the report which summarizes statistics on
the eligibility of our student athletes, and provides several indices of their
academic performance compared with students at other institutions.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
INSURANCE AND BENEFITS
Annual Report for 2003-2004, Appendix I. George Franz, Chair, gave this annual
report summarizing recent and proposed changes in health care coverage.
RESEARCH
Global Outsourcing, Research, and Graduate
Education, Appendix J. Eva Pell,
Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School,
gave a presentation on global outsourcing. For decades the U.S. has been
the major player in basic research in the physical sciences, however, there are
now indications that in the last few years, European and Asian nations have
overtaken us.
STUDENT LIFE
Managing Classroom Disruption, Appendix
K. Richard Yahner, Chair presented
the report. The report offered four steps that have been found useful by
experienced faculty.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: Are there any comments?
Eric D. Feigelson, College of Science: A question for Chair Steiner. Does the
Faculty Senate participate in the strategic planning going on in the
University?
Chair Steiner: That is a good question. I am not really sure
I know the answer to that. I do know that the Chair of the Senate used to
participate on the University Planning committee but I am not sure that
committee is constituted the same way that it used to be. Also, I am not currently
serving on that committee. Dick, can you help us.
Richard Althouse: Inaudible.
Chair Steiner: I guess you are saying there is nothing
exactly going on right now and you do not know what Rod has planned.
Richard Althouse: Inaudible.
Jamie Myers: The Faculty Senate did appoint representatives
to the review teams for the diversity strategic plans that were just completed.
Chair Steiner: The Faculty Senate did appoint people to the
review teams for diversity strategic plan that was reviewed this past spring.
Eric D. Feigelson: Can I express my thoughts?
Chair Steiner: Please do. I have a feeling this is leading
somewhere.
Eric Feigelson: Please excuse me. I am a new member to the
Senate, so my thoughts might be quite naďve in many ways. My thinking is that,
insofar as the University activities are focused around the five-year strategic
plans that are developed in a hierarchical fashion from small units all the way
up to the University; insofar as that guides where money flows and what the priorities
are. If the Senate does not have a report every five years that gets folded in
through this process, then its concerns as expressed in its forensic sessions,
informational reports, advisory sessions, not its legislative activities which
are implemented by itself, other concerns may not be as efficiently implemented
by not participating in the five-year strategic plan process.
Chair Steiner: Thank you. I think that is a very useful
comment. Are there any other comments?
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner: May I have a motion to adjourn?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: All in favor, please say, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Motion carries. The September 14, 2004,
meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.
Please note
the next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be on October 26, 2004, at
1:30 p.m. at Penn State
