 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 34-----OCTOBER 24, 2000-----Number 2
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 October 24, 2000
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to October 24, 2000
B. Attached
Door Handout – Libraries Committee
Corrected Copy – Committees and Rules –
Revision to Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l)
Attendance
III. Tentative Agenda for December 5, 2000
FINAL AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 24, 2000
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the September 12, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:1B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of October 10, 2000
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of October 3, 2000
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –
Committees and Rules
Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l)
Intercollegiate Athletics
Fan Behavior
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -
Faculty Benefits
Benefits 2001
Libraries
Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed
University Planning
Budget Presentation for 2001-2002
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS –
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY –
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate passed
two Legislative Reports:
Committees and Rules - "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l).” This report changed the membership on the Committee on Student Life to include the President of the Undergraduate Student Government Senate. (See Record, page(s) 6-8 and Agenda Appendix "B.")
Intercollegiate Athletics – “Fan Behavior.” This report granted permission to use the name of the ‘University Faculty Senate’ as part of a series of announcements that might be made at selected Penn State sports functions. (See Record, page(s) 8-13 and Agenda Appendix "C.")
The Senate received three Informational Reports:
Faculty Benefits - "Benefits 2001." This report discussed the recent/current issues, the 2001 plans, and the future/projected issues in health benefits. (See Record, page(s) 13-20 and Agenda Appendix "D.")
Libraries - "Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed." This report portrayed the collections and access to libraries resources, the reference and instructional services, and the technological infrastructure and facilities for libraries at the campus colleges. (See Record, page(s) 20-28 and Agenda Appendix "E.")
University Planning - "Budget Presentation for 2001-2002." This report summarizes the Penn State budget for 2000-01 and the University’s appropriation request for the fiscal year 2001-02. (See Record, page(s) 28-39 and Agenda Appendix "F.")
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding. One hundred and seventy-five Senators signed the roster.
Chair Schengrund: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the September 12, 2000 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for October 10, 2000. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
Please note that a memo from Louis Geschwindner, Chair of Curricular Affairs, to me is always included in the Agenda for the Senate meetings as Appendix “A” with information regarding the Senate Curriculum Report posted on it. This time Lou included a “Reminder” in the memo, and I would like to read it at this time. “All General Education courses and Diversity Focused courses (which are changing to meet the requirements of Intercultural and International Competence) must be reviewed for the new general education guidelines by the end of Fall Semester 2003. The general education designations and the diversity designation will be removed from courses that have not been re-certified as of January 30, 2004.” And of the 800 courses that are out there, I think Lou said last night it was around 70 something…that have been done to date. So, he would really like people to move on this.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of October 3, 2000. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Schengrund:
The Faculty Advisory Committee
met on October 3, 2000 and discussed the following topics: Berks and the Commonwealth College search
updates; Napster; United Way; aspects of the president’s State of the
University Address; part-time faculty;
intellectual property; faculty workload credit for tutorial and mentoring
activity; academic calendar; discontinuance of paper degree audits;
consultation on new courses being developed (cost should be covered by?); and
the lack of consultation prior to the removal of support from Kern
Building. The next meeting of FAC will
be on Thursday, November 9, 2000. If anyone
has any items for FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers or
one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Elizabeth Hanley and Gordon
De Jong.
The Senate Officers visited Penn State Mont Alto on September 25, 2000, and Penn State York and the College of Medicine on September 26, 2000. Our next visit was to Penn State Scranton on October 5, 2000, and Penn State Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton on October 6, 2000. On October 16, 2000 we visited Penn State Erie, The Behrend College and Penn State Beaver and Shenango on October 17, 2000. Our last visit will be on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 to the Dickinson School of Law.
One final
announcement. As most of you know,
there have been several incidents of hate mail in the last few weeks here at
the University Park campus. Although
the Senate has taken no formal action to date, the Senate Officers would like
to note that these are intolerable acts.
We wish to express our condemnation of such behavior and we wish to
express our support for the victims of these acts.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Schengrund: At this point I’d like to ask Dr. Spanier if he’d like to make some comments. President Spanier is here today, and does have comments. Let me just remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. Thank you.
Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you, and good afternoon everyone. I’d like to begin where Cara-Lynne ended her comments, to reinforce what she mentioned. I think almost all of you on the University Park campus are aware, (perhaps those of you on the Commonwealth Campuses are not as aware) that we have had several incidents ranging from hate mail to other kinds of hate crimes, incivility, harassment, affecting a broad range of individuals and groups even beyond the recent more visible incidents of hate mail that were sent to a few individuals. We’ve always seen this around us, it’s on the one hand nothing new, but there seems to be a concentration that we’ve seen in the last few weeks. We’re very concerned about it, and I hope that all of you in here and your colleagues would see this not just as an issue for one or more groups of students, or a problem for the university administration, but an important university-wide issue that all of us, including the faculty, must be sensitive to. I’d like everybody to at least click on to Penn State’s home page and you’ll see in the right hand corner a heading that says, “Fighting Hate and Resources on Civility.” You will see there a broad range of connections to university resources that are available, to statements that I have made previously and recently, to units on campus who deal with these kinds of issues on a regular basis. And to the extent that you can direct your students attention to these resources, I think that can be very helpful to them. We all have to be part of the solution and threats of the kind that we have seen, while they may be directed at just a few individuals, it really has broader implications and affects all of us. It’s something I’m very concerned about, and have been spending a lot of my time worrying about over the last several weeks on campus. You’ll also find from the connection to the home page, copies of a press release that we put out last Monday, about these incidents including a statement that I delivered at a program on hate speech and hate crimes last week, and references to virtually all of my State of the University Addresses, where at different levels I have spoken about these topics and other speeches, that I and others have given. It’s important for everyone to be aware that this is something we’re paying attention to, and that we will continue to pay attention to this. I myself, have several meetings this week focusing on these matters with many of our student groups.
I’d also like to point out that this is National Alcohol Awareness Week and last week Penn State joined with other colleges and universities around the country (all of the NASULGC National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges), in a national awareness campaign. So I think you will see and hear more about this. The Faculty Senate has been very helpful in the past in bringing attention to these issues and again, I think this is an important concern for faculty. It’s not just a student and administration issue. I gave the keynote address in Washington, DC this morning, at a national conference that’s going on right now on this topic, and our vice president for student affairs is there with a team of Penn State staff members, where they are learning about what other colleges and universities are doing, and perhaps they will bring back some good ideas for us.
I’m a little surprised that with one of the most important historical events in the history of this nation about to take place any day now, namely a very hotly contested, very close election for the president of the United States, we haven’t seen more discussion about that issue this fall. And I have this worry, that very few of our students are going to vote, because I’ve been spending a lot of time with students lately, and this is just not something they are talking about. So maybe you could all be helpful by reminding our students that there is an election about to take place. That we hope they have registered to vote, and that they indeed do vote. Maybe we will be surprised and the voter turnout will surpass our expectations, but to the extent that we as faculty members can encourage that, I think that’s something helpful for us to do in terms of raising the level of awareness.
I want to take a moment to point out how pleased I am with the level of cooperation and collaboration that I’m seeing throughout the university in a number of ways. For many years now I have talked about my belief, that many of the most exciting advances in science, humanities, social sciences, medicine and almost every area of scholarship within the university, so much of the most exciting advances are going to occur at the boundaries between disciplines, and not necessarily traditionally within the narrow confines of disciplines, although we will continue to see some exciting things happen there as well. We established four university-wide consortia that were designed to bring anywhere from four to seven different colleges together around certain themes. We’ve also tried to do a number of things to lower the walls between departments to allow people to cooperate with each other. We have an increased number of interdisciplinary graduate degrees, and interdisciplinary graduate program emphases. We see lots of faculty members with joint appointments, and I would like to say that I think that we have seen more progress in this area than at any time in Penn State’s history, and I would like to commend that and to continue to encourage it. In particular, we are seeing a lot of different units and faculty members cooperating with programs at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, and with our Dickinson School of Law. I heard a wonderful report from Dean Glenn yesterday about all the different connections that they had now developed with other units. The Schreyer Honors College has created marvelous opportunities for people to get involved with a unit that really spans the entire undergraduate curriculum, and I see opportunities for growing connections between all of our campuses and the other campuses, so I just want to point out how important this is, and how pleased I am with what we’re seeing out there and I certainly hope that we will see more of it. Now I’d like to open it up for your questions and comments.
Anthony J. Baratta, College of Engineering: A number of years ago we had some problems with racial issues. It was suggested that the faculty take maybe 15-20 minutes of class time to discuss civility. Is that something you think would be worthwhile?
President Spanier: I think that would be great. I think that each faculty member has to decide how it fits into what they are doing but for any faculty member who has that inclination, I think that could be very positive. It’s a teachable moment, as some of us say. It’s a moment here that we have because of the visibility of these issues to talk, not just about a selected number of incidents, but the broader issues and what it means.
Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: President Spanier, given your comments on this issue, would you consider an appropriate role for the university to perhaps lobby the legislature for its stand on hate crimes legislation?
President Spanier: Well, I don’t know about lobbying the legislature per se. I’ve had an opportunity to speak to some members of the legislature about my views on that. I think many people in the legislature don’t necessarily see it as a university issue, but it’s really an issue for all of us. So I think that’s an appropriate area of discussion, and I would agree with that.
Rajen Mookerjee, Beaver Campus: I wonder if you have any statistics on how Penn State compares to other Big Ten universities, in terms of Asian, Latino and African-American administrators at the highest levels of the university?
President Spanier: At the highest levels of the university? We kind of keep track of faculty numbers, changes in faculty, staff and student numbers. I don’t know if we have any…you’re talking about administrative appointments?
Rajen Mookerjee: Yes…
President Spanier: I just don’t have good information on that.
James T. Elder, Shenango Campus: A few years back with budget streamlining, many fleet operations at different locations of the university were closed, and the burden of travel fell on the faculty member to use their own vehicle. With the gas prices that have been shooting up, I was wondering if there has been any consideration of raising that 30 cents a mile to soften this burden?
President Spanier: I don’t know. I haven’t heard any…
James T. Elder: Well, you’re hearing one.
President Spanier: Yeah, I mean I haven’t heard whether there has been any consideration. I suspect somebody has raised that question, but I don’t know the answer. Does anybody else here know? It would seem reasonable to take that into account wouldn’t it?
Chair
Schengrund: That might fall under benefits, Len, for travel?
President Spanier: Take care of that, Len.
Phillip R. Bower,
Graduate Student Senator, University Park: I was wondering if you could
comment on the recent decision by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to
allow the Temple University graduate assistants to unionize, and what
implications that might have for Penn State?
President Spanier: Could I comment? I suppose I could, but I’m not prepared to.
Phillip R. Bower: Any
opinions or?
President Spanier: Yes.
Senators:
Laughter.
Phillip R.
Bower: Any that you could share?
President Spanier: I
have very strong opinions about it. I
think they are known to most of you, but I have enough email this week already
so I think we’ll save that topic for further discussion, after we learn more
about it, and whether Temple is going to appeal, and how the appeal turns out, and
some other twists and turns. I’m just
probably not up to date enough right now to say anything beyond what I’ve
already said. But catch me in the
hallway sometime.
Margaret B. Goldman,
College of Medicine: Getting back to some of the other questions. Pennsylvania has the unfortunate reputation
of having more hate crimes than any other state in the nation. I wonder if it would be possible to have
some sort of initiative, I think they’re having an initiative here at
University Park and on all the campuses promoting more respectful attitudes to
counteract these incidents.
President
Spanier: I think it’s a wonderful suggestion.
We talked about this phenomenon a little bit in our Council of Academic
Deans meetings yesterday. So all of the
deans are represented there and covering all the campuses, and I think people
are thinking about what to do, and what is appropriate given the circumstances
and situation on their campuses, so I wouldn’t want to send out a directive
that everybody must do certain kinds of programs. I think those kinds of decisions are best made on the campus, in
consultation with people on the campus, but I would be supportive, yes.
Chair Schengrund: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you.
President Spanier: Thank you.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Schengrund: We have no forensic business, and we have no unfinished business, but we do have a legislative report, and that comes from Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and it’s a revision of the Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(1), that has to do with membership on the Senate Committee on Student Life and Deidre Jago, who’s chair of that committee will present it.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision
of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(1)
Deidre Jago, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Deidre E. Jago,
Hazleton Campus: Thank you, Cara-Lynne. If you would turn to Appendix “B,” you’ll
see the legislation that the Committee on Committees and Rules is
proposing. There is one correction, one
editorial change, that I’d like to make and this will keep us in line with our Standing
Rules of the Senate. Under the
proposal, if you would please change under Membership (i), change the 6 to
7. So it should read Membership At
least seven (7) elected faculty Senators.
This will keep us in line with our Standing Rules, which state
that a majority of the membership of the Senate standing, or a special
committee must be elected faculty Senators.
And since the vice president for student affairs sometimes is a Senator,
but not always, we felt it was better to put the number seven under Membership
(i), change that to seven. Also, the
intent of this was an initiative from the Undergraduate Student Government
association, and this will add an additional Senator from the student body to
the Senate Committee on Student Life.
Are there any questions?
John M. Lilley, Penn
State Erie-The Behrend College: I would simply like to suggest under three (iii)
Membership, that we adopt the language from a campus college, so that we avoid
the “other than” language.
Deidre E. Jago: I
think that would be appropriate. Campus
college from a campus…
Chair
Schengrund: That would exclude the Commonwealth College.
John M. Lilley: No
it would not, it would be campus colleges.
Chair
Schengrund: I’ll have to ask someone that…I don’t know. As long as the understanding is that it includes all of them, and
not just one campus college.
George W. Franz,
Delaware County Campus: John, I think the issue is that I think the
normal nomenclature is a campus college is Behrend, Altoona, Abington and
Berks-Lehigh Valley.
John M. Lilley: That
is not correct. There is a group in the
university called the Campus CADS, and that includes all campus colleges
including Hershey, Dickinson and also the Commonwealth College, and that’s
fairly standard and used now throughout the university. So it’s an undergraduate student from a
campus college, that’s all the campus colleges including the Commonwealth
College.
Deidre E. Jago: The
intent of our committee was to have this representative from a location, from
some place other than University Park.
John M. Lilley: It’s
a nicer way of saying it…campus college.
We don’t want to be “other than”.
Marcus A. Fedeli,
Student Senator, Penn State Altoona: If we made that change, we would have to
change terminology in all the other committees throughout the Constitution,
is that correct? Not that I’m…
Chair
Schengrund: That could be done editorially in the next printing for the following
year, if it’s appropriate.
Deidre E. Jago:
We’re not looking for more work.
Chair
Schengrund: We’ll also clarify the term.
James M. Donovan,
Mont Alto Campus: How about campus or college? No?
John J. Cahir, Vice
Provost for Undergraduate Education: Ever since the reorganization has gone
forward, the standard nomenclature used in the administration was campus
colleges.
Chair Schengrund: Thank you. That’s what we needed. So we will edit it accordingly, but not until the next printing which will be next summer. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Schengrund: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it, the motion is carried. Thank you, Deidre. Our next report is from the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. It deals with Fan Behavior and David Christy will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Fan Behavior
David P. Christy, Chair, Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics
David P. Christy, Smeal College of Business Administration: Thank you, Cara-Lynne. I’m presenting this report that was initiated by the Faculty Athletic Representative at University Park, Professor Scott Kretchmar who is unable to be with us today. What Scott would like to do is really an issue, that can be put broadly under the heading of civility. Certainly not as contentious as the hate crime and mail that has been received by people, but what he’d like to do is try to raise the profile of behavior at our public gatherings, and in particular at intercollegiate athletic events. Scott recognized that during the past few years there seems to be increasing incidents of active negative cheering or booing when the opposing team comes on the field. We don’t see that behavior from the athletes themselves. We tend to congratulate one another at the end of a contest, but that seems to start to become standard behavior and acceptable behavior on the part of fans. At several university athletic events, announcements are made prior to the contest to welcome our fans from another university, or welcome the team from another university. What Scott is proposing is that we agree that the name of the University Faculty Senate can be used in endorsing these kinds of announcements, and that quite simply is what is here. We’re not asked to approve the language of the several statements that Scott penned himself. There used to be six of them, but in response to some comments they have been narrowed down, but those are just for examples. They would be professionally prepared by University Public Relations people to have the tone and message reflect the appropriate message of the university, but what we would like is to be able to say that this is endorsed by the University Faculty Senate. Any questions please?
Tramble T. Turner: Turning to those three statements I realize there was also a few others. My question is in listening to each of them the Faculty Senate, student government and Department of Athletics, I don’t see Penn State administration. My follow-up to that is a question as to why student government and the administration wouldn’t have been a more appropriate venue? Unless faculty are really doing a lot of negative cheering.
David P. Christy: We’re not suggesting that faculty are booing a lot at all. What we’re suggesting is that faculty endorse civil behavior and I can’t answer for the administration or the student government.
Jacob Kosoff, Student Senator, Eberly College of Science: Do you think that this legislation, even though good at heart could have a negative effect like a backfire? So if the University Faculty Senate’s name is attached to it and fans, alumni or students hear this and start booing louder, could just backlash even possibly blame it on the Faculty Senate. Do you think there will be a backlash?
David P. Christy: Dr. Kretchmar is very realistic about this, and if you read the entire proposal he even put down his analysis of the cons. The first one which is it could backfire and if it backfires I’m sure that we’ll discontinue it. But at some stage you have to be willing to stand up and promote civil behavior. In The Daily Collegian yesterday, perhaps not correctly quoted that the president of USG was quoted as saying, “I’m not sure it would work and we’re not willing to endorse it unless we’re sure it would work.” Well, we’re not sure either, but we think it’s still worth trying and there isn’t a guarantee, but I am certain that if this results in greater negative behavior there will be a different tactic tried. But I think we’re just asking to invite people to act in a way that we think represents the university community and our society.
Joseph J. Cecere, Penn State Harrisburg: I guess the question I have is, since it’s in the spirit of all these announcements, would you consider taking the word football out of number two? You’re not just dealing with football, you’re dealing with other announcements such as basketball and other ones. Is that correct? You say work with football coaches and players wouldn’t you say…
David P. Christy: This is just the talking points that he put together, but I agree that the intention is to use it at intercollegiate athletic events where appropriate.
Chair Schengrund: The only portion you’re voting on is the portion in bold black print on the first page of Appendix “C”. The others are examples or rationale but we’re only voting on that one sentence, and basically we’re only voting on the use of the Senate name in those announcements.
Alison C. Altman, Student Senator, College of the Liberal Arts: I’d like to know why you feel, and more importantly why the Senate feels that this falls under the jurisdiction of the Faculty Senate?
David P. Christy: There is no attempt here to control speech. We’re just trying to endorse the kind of community that we think we’d like to live in, and encourage certain kinds of behaviors with regard to welcoming guests. It is the business of the Faculty Senate to decide when and where the name of the Senate can be used because we’re representing the elected body of the faculty. We would never suggest that the name of the Faculty Senate was used without the Senate’s permission. We’re hoping that as a formal elected body of the university, this might indicate that this is more than just a general announcement coming out of the athletic department and the central administration, but it’s something that we embrace as a value--that value being civility towards guests.
Melissa Landis, Student Senator, Commonwealth College: To go along with what she said, even in the functions of the University Faculty Senate, it says the actions shall be authoritative on all matters pertaining to the educational interests of the university, which has nothing to do with that, and academic standards for intercollegiate athletics participation which also has nothing to do with behavior. Also as far as I’m aware, these announcements are already being made, and are making no difference whatsoever, and I’m just wondering what you’re expecting the change to be, if you just add a name to it?
David P. Christy: Well, we’re always hopeful. There’s no guarantee, and it’s just like any kind of educational process. What we have to do is take step-by-step attempts to change the culture. President Spanier speaking out against binge drinking doesn’t stop binge drinking, but it raises the issue in an important way. I guess I would argue to you, that using your tight definition of education, the discussion we had earlier about students receiving hate mail wouldn’t fall into the jurisdiction of the Senate, but I think that we’re interested in developing a community of scholarship, teaching and learning and building a good society, so I think that we can choose as a Senate to put our name behind this if we want to.
Robert P. Crum, Smeal College of Business Administration: I look at this, and I see it as well intentioned and then I think to myself, “gee I can think of some what I consider rogue coaches, rogue players throughout our conference and other conferences,” and I’m saying to myself, “now how as a fan do I get a chance to protest the behavior of the rogue coaches the rogue players and that kind of a thing.” And I say to myself, “gee you know, I just took away their way of protesting rogue behavior,” and what we are attempting to do here is to take away what we are considering as rogue behavior.
David P. Christy: I don’t think that we’re shackling the speech of any individual, and it is not an attempt to squelch free speech. We’re just inviting people to welcome our guests. In rare and unusual cases, there could be a reason for individuals to express what we might in otherwise not consider polite behavior, but you know, let me draw yet another analogy. If we had controversial speakers on campus, if we had a debate in Schwab Auditorium between Condelisa Rice and Madeline Albright, I think we’d be disappointed as a community if one of these people who was not embraced by the people in the audience came out and was booed. We can hold differences of opinion, but that’s not as a university how we would like to invite people to greet our guests, but it’s not an attempt to squelch free speech, it’s just an attempt to invite people to what we consider to be more civil behavior.
Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: At the risk of sounding uncivil, I am stunned that people would think that lending our name to an initiative to encourage civil behavior is somehow questionable.
David P. Christy: I have no comment.
Marcus A.
Fedeli: I agree with the fact that I think by sticking
our name behind this as simply supporting...I don’t think there should be
anything else.
Chair Schengrund: Did
you speak to this issue before? Okay,
I’m sorry.
James M.
Donovan: I agree with the person that just spoke.
I don’t know if this is going to do any good or not. I don’t know whether it’s going to backfire
or not, but I think we as a body to be silent, that is sort of implying that we
don’t take on civil behavior seriously.
Chair
Schengrund: Do you want to respond, Dave?
David P. Christy: I certainly agree, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: Let that debate be as it may be, but I would like to suggest that we strike out any proposal that would have selective Penn State sport events. It seems to me that if we adopt this, that we should present this at any sports event be it volleyball, ice hockey, football and/or leave it as “selected events,” it may suggest that somebody was or maybe that we could choose. If we adopt this, may I suggest that the committee strike out the word “selective,” and if you go with this that we present this statement before every and any Penn State official sports event. Thank you.
Chair Schengrund: Do you accept that suggestion as a friendly amendment to strike the word “selected”?
David P. Christy: I’d really rather not over specify. I appreciate the sentiment, and one of the problems talking about civility is that it’s hard to do it without sounding to smarmy, but to be quite honest at some athletic events we have no problem. Guests are roundly greeted at wrestling events, at volleyball events and so forth, but we have a specific problem at some of them, so I’d really rather leave it to the positive discretion of the organizers of the event.
Veronique M. Foti, College of the Liberal Arts: What bothers me about the proposal is that it simply adds another voice of authority and we’ve already got too much emphasis on authority and top down government in this institution. I think it would be much more effective if we follow a positive strategy of persuasion, rather than a voice of authority.
David P. Christy: Thank you.
Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development: I’ve never found very much positive to come from booing anyone, and I think this occurs too often in professional athletics, so I think it’s a wonderful, timely attempt to do something.
Adam Schott, Student Senator, College of Education: I think the main issue is the appropriate forum to discuss behavior at Beaver Stadium. What may be a more serious issue and the thing that is more easily enforced, is the throwing of water bottles from the upper levels of the stadium. I think that’s a serious issue, someone potentially could really get hurt. Maybe that’s something we should look at you know, before we get into this.
Paul F. Clark, College of the Liberal Arts: In the wake of a recent huge four page story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and reprinted in the Centre Daily Times four-day, four page story suggesting that Penn State places much too much emphasis on athletics, I wonder if this might be a symptom of that when the Faculty Senate spends a half an hour trying to decide whether we should monitor booing at the football games. It seems it might be as in the report here under the cons five and six, this may not be a terribly serious problem for us to be addressing.
David P. Christy: Well, that’s certainly for the Senators to decide by the way they vote.
Howard G. Sachs, Penn State Harrisburg: Given the lively discussion we’ve had, I’d like a point of clarification. I’d like to know exactly what we’re voting on? Is the issue we’re voting on the bold paragraph if we accept the proposal, or could it be somewhat perhaps the narrower or more ambiguous statement that the Senate endorsement could be used right before the games to be a more welcoming approach? I’d like a clarification.
David P. Christy: What we’re voting on is to authorize the use of the University Faculty Senate in these crafted statements that would be put on the public address system that would invite, and welcome visiting teams.
Howard G. Sachs: It would be nice if that was clearly accepted as a motion.
David P. Christy: We don’t have the language because we would expect that to be professionally crafted…
Howard G. Sachs: You may want more legislation for the trouble it ranges from extremely narrow to extremely broad, and you’re asking the Senate to give a blanket endorsement to some sportsman-like announcements. I for one don’t know if this will do any good and we’re legislating it.
David P. Christy: The reason I included the entire proposal by Scott Kretchmar is so that the texture and flavor of his proposal would be easier to understand. Sometimes that…
Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: At the risk of being booed, I call for the question.
Senators: Applause.
David P. Christy: Thank you.
Chair
Schengrund: We’ll take a vote to end discussion. That requires a majority vote.
All those in favor of ending the discussion, please raise your
hand. Okay, and opposed? The aye’s have it, the motion is
carried. We will now call the question all those in favor of accepting the
proposal of Professor Scott Kretchmar in which he asks to use the name of the
University Faculty Senate as part of a series of announcements that might be
made at selected Penn State sports functions, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your
hand. The motion is carried the numbers
were 124 in favor as opposed to 49 no’s.
Thank you.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Chair
Schengrund: There are no advisory/consultative reports but there are several
informational reports that I think you will find very beneficial to listen
to. The first one is being sponsored by
the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, and it’s entitled Benefits 2001 it is
found in Appendix “D” and it will be presented by Billie Willits who is the
Assistant Vice President for Human Resources.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Benefits 2001
Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits
Billie Willits, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources: Thank you for the moments to talk with you. Let me begin by talking with you a bit about the recent and current issues that are affecting particularly the health care benefits, and then talk with you a bit about where we’re going in our year 2001 as it relates to those health care benefits, and finally a little bit of a picture about where we may be going for the future. Let me begin by saying that first of all I think we’ve all acknowledged that the health care provider community, be that physicians, hospitals, or clinics are definitely in a state of flux. We’ve experienced it here at Penn State University, in the recent few months. For example, some of you who are Senators from the Altoona area know that the Altoona Hospital is not a participating provider in either the Geisinger or in the HealthAmerica HMOs in this point in time, and that presents a problem for the people in the Altoona area. Similarly those of you who are from the Lehigh Valley area know that there are a number of providers including the Lehigh Valley Hospital who have indicated that they are not willing to be part of the HMO networks that we have in that part of the state. Clearly a state of flux, hospitals are in, hospitals are out, doctors are in, doctors are out, and for you the consumer and for us, it presents a significant problem for us. What we’ve done in the administration is attempted to adjust by giving you as much choice as we can; and many of you have noticed that the traditional open enrollment that occurs every November and it will occur this November, many times is not adequate for those of you who are in parts of the commonwealth where that flux does occur. And so what we’ve been doing is open enrollments for you mid-year so you can make some different choices. We’ve sent people to your campuses and colleges to talk with you if you have individual questions. We’ve been using email and telephone to try to give you as much support as we can when this flux does occur. In addition, employers generally speaking are modifying their plans significantly. They are, in many cases, decreasing the kind of coverage that they have in their plan; in other cases they are discontinuing benefits for retirees, in other cases they’re shifting the cost to the employee. For those of you who have colleagues in other institutions and particularly in private sector you know that very often that employee contribution is significantly high for most families. Insurance companies are fluctuating their prices by the year. Many times they are changing their plan designs and many times they’re actually pulling out of geographic areas. Those of you who have been following the popular media know that Geisinger Gold is no longer offered in this part of the commonwealth. There are other HMOs who have pulled their coverage for retirees out with very little notice. It is a state of flux for the insurance companies as well. I want to talk to you just for a moment about what is adding to this state. The single largest component adding to this increase, and to the flux really has to do with pharmaceuticals. And again, in the popular media, especially if you have been reading some of the New York Times you’ll know what’s going on with the pharmaceutical companies. They are by the month turning out brand new drugs, that’s good, but in order to recoup their costs not only are they including the cost of their research and development, they are also in some cases including the interest they could have made on the money that they use to develop the new drug, and they are recouping their investment in approximately five years, that all adds to very, very expensive drugs. In addition, those who happen to be TV watchers know that they are advertising to us directly, and when we have allergies and we see that there might be a new drug out there we go to our physician and we ask for that new drug and that new drug is in many, many cases quite expensive because it’s still under patent. In addition, the companies have decided to use a new approach. I’m going to use an example that you might know about. You know the drug Prozac? Prozac is prescribed by many physicians. Prozac is due to come off the patent in about a year to a year-and-a-half here in the United States. E.I. Lilley is already beginning to market that drug, it’s pink, they’re marketing it to women for PMS because it has been slightly modified, although as a drug it does nothing more than Prozac does but because it’s being marketed differently it falls under a new patent. So the price of that drug will be able to remain high even though Prozac as a drug would go onto a generic list, and will have a price that can be used by us as consumers at a much reduced rate. So a lot of that is what we’re facing in the area of pharmaceuticals. Before I somehow convey the picture that the pharmaceutical companies are the enemy, let me quickly say that they’re giving us what it is we’re asking for. We’re wanting those drugs as soon as they can move them through the FDA and give us a better life style, we’re wanting them and so to a large extent they’re giving us what it is that we’re asking for. But that is the largest single contributor to the premium rate increases. In addition technology, and I would say quickly that technology by-and-large they’re giving us what we want. Everyone of us who have a community hospital who has an MRI, as soon as we were able to bring them into the community hospital and use them for a year or two definitely paying for that piece of equipment we now have open MRI’s and so now we want all of that too and so we’re paying for another piece of high expense equipment. It definitely improves our life and our opportunities but it’s expensive. Followed by litigation, and I suppose most of us in this room would like the opportunity to sue if the outcome is not what we expected it to be so between the pharmaceuticals, the technology and the litigation our premium rates are going up in spite of what we might be doing in terms of plan design. Having said that let me share with you where we’re going for the year 2001 here at Penn State University. We are not going to have any significant plan designs; other employers may, we’re not. In addition, our Indemnity Plan, (I think most of us affectionately refer to it as Plan A,) will continue not to have new membership in it other than through exception, and one of the major exceptions are for those of you on the faculty who are on sabbatical leave. You may be in other plans at this point in time, but because you need coverage when you go on sabbatical leave and may be out of the network areas you need to have coverage and that will be through the Indemnity Plan. By the way, I’m not sure if the word has reached the faculty at this point, but the rate that we will be charging for the Indemnity Plan for those people who are on sabbatical leave will be the Healthpass rate, which is a lower rate. Because the rates have gone high, we don’t think it’s appropriate that because you happen to be on sabbatical leave in a semester, that you are necessarily paying that highest price, so we’re going to be using that Healthpass rate. That word is just now coming out to the deans. I believe on the handout that you have there is a note there that says that in addition we’re going to be adding some counties for HealthAmerica Point of Service, delete that. This state of flux is going so fast that what we found is that when we looked at the plan they had designed for it, it was not the design we wanted. While it gave you a reasonable rate, it had very high out-of-pocket expenses and so we decided to pull that plan so we will not be expanding the HealthAmerica Point of Service. That is to say that there are basically two components that are going to comprise the rate increases for us at Penn State University in the year 2001. One of those factors will be the rising cost of healthcare, I just talked to you a lot about that, and the second is that we will be continuing with our phase-in toward the 80/20 percent 70/30 percent contribution rates that we’ve talked about for the past two years. So between the two of those the rates will be increasing. I do want to share with you that this year I’m trying to meet a commitment that I’ve made to the Senate for a number of years now. While I can’t totally control the rate increases of our healthcare costs, what I can begin to control are the administrative costs so part of what we will be doing this fall in November, actually starting November 1, is that you’ll be able to enroll in healthcare benefits and other benefits on-line. I know that for many of you, it will be a positive, it will be much easier for you and for us in the administration, as it will move the enrollments faster. It means that it will give us staff time to support you when you have questions about either which healthcare plan you want, or during this next year if you need some advocacy from us we’ll be available to give that to you. I was asked to give you a quick run down of how the on-line is going to be made known to you. First of all, I think many of you have already received a post card alerting you about that, and if you look at the back of that post card, it’ll actually give you the menu that you’re going to see when you go on-line. In addition, there have been a number of articles in the Intercom. The Intercom on October 5, 2000 actually told you step-by-step how to enroll in your benefits. There are a number of benefits fairs here at University Park. We’re going to have a benefit fair on the 13th and on the 20th of November, and at campuses and colleges away from University Park on request. There is a letter that will be coming out to each and every faculty and staff member. That letter will also include the rates for all of the healthcare plans, dental and vision that we have as well as a paper confirmation statement of what benefits you currently have this year. I know that sounds contrary, here we are doing it on-line and I’m sending you paper but we’ve talked to consultants, we’ve talked to other employers who have gone on-line and the advice has been send paper at least in the first year of transition, so you’re going to be getting a little bit of paper. It won’t be anything like the size of paper you have been getting from us before on ‘Time To Choose’ but that’s your alert November 1, 2000 to be able to sign on and get the benefits that you want. Let me quickly say that even if you do not want to change your benefits, if you are one of those thousands of faculty and staff members who use the flexible spending accounts, you must fill out a flexible spending account form for the year 2001, that’s federal law. So please help your colleagues know that they do need to fill that out, even if they don’t want to make other changes on their benefits. I’ve given you in your handout, the URL for this on-line benefit enrollment. That URL will take you to the benefits page in red. On that page then you will see open enrollment for 2001, click on that, and follow the instructions. We’re hoping it’s ATM simple, and that you’ll be able to move through it fairly quickly. For the future benefit rate increases and the phase-in will continue as planned. If there are redesigns of any of our plans, we’re going to try to do it for the purpose of better coverage. I wanted to remind you that about two years ago, when we were talking about point of service and PPO and indemnity plan, a couple of Senators said, “why don’t you just do something more with the PPO instead of trying to come up with some of these other opportunities.” Well after we watched the industry play around with point of service for the past three years, it’s still not at the level that we want it to be, we’re going to look pretty seriously at maybe modifying, adding to, enhancing if you will the PPO, that might be exactly the right answer. So for those Senators who are still here who gave me that advice a few years ago, I thank you and so does the university. Let me also say that there may be some minor plan redesigns, if there are, it will be to moderate cost. Specifically we still have a number of HMOs that have a $5 co-pay for office visits, there are others that have a $10-$15 co-pays, frankly the norm is about a $15 co-pay. So you may see those co-pays move up just a bit, if it can save us a couple of dollars on the monthly premium rate, it’s probably worth doing. And it’s definitely within keeping of the advice that the Task Force on the Future of Benefits gave us. Finally, let me make one comment about the industry. A number of faculty members have contacted me over the past few months and have said, “What about this defined benefits plan thing that I’m seeing in the press. Why couldn’t we use that at Penn State University?” I just wanted to share with you that defined contribution plan is a plan where the employer puts out “X” number of dollars to each and every one of you, we give you money, and you go out and you buy whatever plan you want. Now from an administration’s point of view that may seem simple because you’re all going to get what it is you want, what it is you bought. I will tell you however, that if any of you have had to go out and look at the price of individual insurance or family insurance, you’ll find that the cost is quite prohibitive. Group insurance is here at Penn State for a very good reason. I would suggest that we get better coverage for a much, much lower price than we would if we went to the defined contribution plan. If I were living in the middle of Manhattan in New York City I don’t know that would necessarily be my position, but at this point in time in relatively rural Pennsylvania I think that a contribution plan would probably not suit any of us when we finally looked into it. So I just need you to know that we haven’t missed that as a new idea, but it’s one that we’re letting pass us by. Let me share with you then quickly in closing comments that the increases are going to be significant for the year 2001. If you quickly translate the dollar increases into percentages, you’re going to see percentages that are in double digits. In Indemnity Plan we’re probably going to go up about 31 percent, in the PPO we’re probably going to look at about a 38 percent increase. The Point of Service a little less increase, probably about 5 ½ to 9 ½ depending on the Point of Service you are in, the HMO is varied. The HMOs go up anywhere from 35 percent to 88 percent. Now after having given those percentages, let me tell you that percentages, as you know very well, can be deceptive. What we’re talking about in the case of an HMO is probably $11 a month for family coverage, and as you know the single coverage is much less. We have one HMO that literally went up 35 percent from the year 2000 to the year 2001, and that’s without the phase-in, so that’s what is going on in those premiums in those plans. We’ve attempted to negotiate as best we can with all of those carriers, we think that the rates that you’re going to be seeing in the letter, that you’re going to be receiving in about a week are as good as benefits as we can. Some of you in the northwest will see that we have added a new HMO. We’ve done that in order to try to create some competition there, hoping that the rates will start to level out in that area. Some of you who are from the Hazelton area will find that we still do not have a strong enough network for some of the HMOs up there, it really varies across the commonwealth. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I do want to tell you though that we’re doing what we can to keep those rates. I think that when you see them while in dollars and cents they’re going up anywhere from $3.50 a month to much more than that, I think that you’ll find that the coverage is still strong coverage comparatively speaking. With that I’ll stand for questions.
Alan W. Scaroni, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: On the issue of sabbatical and switching to Plan A, have you given any consideration to negotiating with the HMOs to bend their rules when somebody is on sabbatical and allow them to stay with the HMO?
Billie Willits: Yes, we have. That was one of the first approaches we used. It depends on the length of sabbatical, but they are by state law prohibited from providing you that benefit depending on how long you are away from the network. If you’re away for a month, it’s a non-issue but if you’re away for six months, it’s a state law but that’s a very good point and as soon as that law might get made a little more flexible, we’ll be on it. Thank you.
P. Peter Rebane: No trick questions today. I wanted to know if I could know projections and so on for some people who recently retired, or who might be thinking about the same path in the future, is there anything you can enlighten us about the benefits for retired PSU employees? Do you see any changes in our proposed coverage and are we still expected to drop dental and vision when one retires? Any indications in that direction for retirees? Thank you.
Billie Willits: I appreciate that question. Let me first of all address the HMO issue. We thought that the answer for our retirees really was what they call an HMO risk product, and as those of you in this part of the state know, that’s probably not going to be the answer for most of us by the time we retire. The federal government simply is not reimbursing HMOs in rural parts of the country significantly enough for them to even stay in the business, so I don’t think that HMOs for most of us as retirees is going to be the answer. At least not the way it is constructed now, and not unless the federal government decides to make a decision as to whether or not they want to pay fee-for-service if they want to pay for HMOs. So having said that, let me address the dental and vision. The Task Force on the Future of Benefits looked at those two issues very, very seriously. Let’s face it, as active employees we hope to be retired some day, and we would really like to have that benefit, however, what we found Peter, in all candor is that it is a very high risk pool of people. We could not even get a dental company to quote us a rate on the dental for retirees. They don’t want the business. The most we’d be able to do I think is to put the retirees in with the active employees, and when we looked at the rates for dental and vision if we were to do that it would cause the rate for the active employees and their families to go significantly high. So what we’ve pretty much advised is if you’re getting ready to retire you get to your dentist about a year and a half in advance, and you get as much in your flex account as you can and you get as much of that dental work and as much of that vision as possible. Now I will tell you that I’m still looking at the possibility of some sort of a vision discount for retirees. We haven’t been able to pull that off yet, but I’m not going to give up on that one, but that frankly, is an insignificant amount compared to the dental coverage for our retirees. That’s probably not the answer you wanted, but that’s where we’re at with it.
P. Peter Rebane: The regular medical though, could you also say something about that?
Billie Willits: Right now we’re going to stay with what we have, with what we call the supplemental, so that if you retire from Penn State University and are eligible for benefits into retirement, you’re very welcome to stay in the Point of Service or in the PPO. If you want to go to the Indemnity Plan, you certainly are able to do that but you’re able to stay in all of those plans. Once you are Medicare eligible then your real choice is pretty much only between that Indemnity Plan and the HMOs, and as I said in some parts of the commonwealth the HMOs probably are not going to be available for retirees.
Tramble T. Turner: Billie, to go back to that first section you were doing on recent and current issues, the second bullet was on employers and comparisons. My question to you is whether those comparisons and changes were primarily looking at private industry, business, or primarily other universities? Also, how is what you’re presenting in terms of Penn State benefits compare to say other CIC Big Ten institutions?
Billie Willits: Good question. We looked at both, but let me remind you that we have some comparison universities who do not pay for their benefit costs as they are borne by the state, and so they in some cases actually have HMOs that cost the employee nothing. Now it may cost the families a little bit, but by-and-large do not cost the employee anything. Now my colleagues tell me that we might not want to be members of that particular kind of HMO, but I think it sets the stage to say that they have some HMOs that have very reasonable costs. I think we’re comparable, we look at that literally by the semester to make sure that we are still comparable with our colleague institutions.
J. Christopher Carey, College of Medicine: I am both a provider and a patient, so I get from both sides of the issue. One of the things that I would like to suggest is that we as an institute, monitor the product we actually get. All too often in negotiations we buy our products, and now we’re locked in for a year. The product that we get is often not what we bought, and the way that an HMO controls costs is by reducing what they call patient associated losses. That’s a term that they use for the care they provide to patients. I can tell you as a provider that there is not a week in my office that I don’t have to file an appeal to get some merit, and so we have a substantial market. Penn State spends a lot of money in the insurance agency, and I’d like to suggest that we have a mechanism whereby we monitor the product that we’re getting, and use that information to guide our choices for the next year.
Billie Willits: I think that’s a very good suggestion. We do have standards that we negotiate in the contract, but the one standard that we haven’t negotiated yet has to do with that point and the way we address the concern that I think you’re speaking to, is that we actually have a Faculty/Staff Advocate in the Office of Human Resources. And what we’ve asked, and I’ve asked you as Senators in the past is that when you or a colleague are having problems with an insurance claim, try to deal with the insurance company first time around but do not get frustrated with it. That is not what we pay you to do, so when you cannot deal with that claim, because you aren’t able to talk their language or whatever, get it to us. Don’t get frustrated with it, get it to us and let us work it through the system for you. It is true that there are some cases where the standard is to just move it to an appeal, we can get it to the appeal quickly and I think we’ve had some pretty good successes through the appeal mechanism but your point is very well taken. I would also quickly say that as I indicated before that flux that exists in the provider network is alive and well right here in Centre County where we have our largest constituency of faculty and staff, and we do not frankly have a lot of options in this immediate area. So we work with the companies as best we can and intend that maybe those long term commitments to the company will help turn around exactly the point that you’re making. But I appreciate that, and I may give you a call and talk with you a little bit more about that. Thank you.
Pamela P. Hufnagel, DuBois Campus: One of my colleagues asked me to find out why we used to prefer either the 50/50 prescription plan or the maintenance plan, why not both?
Billie Willits: Without going through the same speech I just gave on the high cost of pharmaceuticals, it’s cost. If we provided both the 50/50 and the maintenance prescription drug program the cost of your plan would be significantly higher. The maintenance prescription drug program here at Penn State University increased 26 percent this past year. The rest of the pharmaceuticals with the deep discounts that we get through large volume anywhere from 18 to 22 percent, so it would add significant cost and so we’ve tended not to do that.
Jamie M. Myers: Billie, in the spring 1999, yes, that’s when it was, I think we passed an advisory/consultative report that should phase-in the increase in cost by a certain amount…
Billie Willits: Over seven years.
Jamie M. Myers: …are we within that? I mean you mentioned increased costs, but you didn’t say anything about whether we’re within that guideline?
Billie Willits: Yes we are. Actually that contributes to some of that increase in rate Jamie, that I quoted. We have two pieces, we’ve got the actual increase that the insurance company has raised the premium, and then we’ve got the phase-in and we’re in the second year of that seven year phase-in so it’s in there.
Chair
Schengrund: If there are no other questions, I’d like to thank Billie for her
report. Thank you, Billie.
Our next informational report will be from the Senate Committee on
Libraries, and Chris Bise will introduce our speaker.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES
Penn
State University Libraries: One Library
Geographically Dispersed
Christopher J. Bise, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries
Christopher J. Bise, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Thank you, Cara-Lynne and good afternoon everybody. I’d like to call your attention to Appendix “E” of your Agenda report from the Senate Committee on Libraries entitled “Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed”. It’s an informational report, and Mr. Jack Sulzer, who is the Associate Dean for Campus College Libraries will make the presentation, Jack.
Jack Sulzer, Associate Dean for Campus College Libraries, University Libraries: Good afternoon everybody. I’m very pleased to be here this afternoon and thank you madam chair and Senate Council for inviting us to talk with you this afternoon. Can you all hear me? Is that a little bit better? I had the mike down a little too far, there’s problems of short people and tall people coming to the mike after one another. This is a great place to be on the Agenda, because I’d knew we’d have a good audience coming where I am between benefits, and the report on the budget from the provost. This afternoon I’d like to…I’m Jack Sulzer, I’m the Associate Dean for Campus College Libraries and two of my colleagues are here with me—Bonnie MacEwan, who’s the Assistant Dean for Library Collections, and Rosann Bazirjian, who is the Assistant Dean for Access Services are here with me to help me with questions later on in case there is anything specific in those areas. I don’t want to foul up the numbers if there is something specific that you need to know about collections or InterLibrary loan for example. I’m not going to read through the report. As Chris pointed out, it’s Appendix “E” in your Agenda, and the slides that I’m going to run through highlighting some of the areas in the report are also appended to your Agenda so you can look at those. Those of you in your seats you can follow along if you just look behind me. As the university is legally constituted as one university and one system, with one system of government, we treat the libraries as one library collection and one system of library and information resources. The mission of the library is…to quote what we have in the report is to, “optimize organized access to information in all formats and to advance instructional, research and public service goals of the university faculty, staff, and students at all university locations.” So I just want to take a few minutes to explain what it is that we mean by one library system geographically dispersed, and talk about how we are organized and how we operate through collections and access services, instructional services and our technology infrastructure. We have a library at all 24 locations of the university, that includes University Park and the Pennsylvania College of Technology. At University